• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Roe Countdown

When will Roe v Wade be overturned

  • Before 31 December 2020

    Votes: 20 18.3%

  • Before 31 December 2022

    Votes: 27 24.8%

  • Before 31 December 2024

    Votes: 9 8.3%

  • SCOTUS will not pick a case up

    Votes: 16 14.7%

  • SCOTUS will pick it up and decline to overturn

    Votes: 37 33.9%
  • Total voters
    109
Status
Not open for further replies.
Now that the Religious Right managed to overturn Roe, I presume that the Sky Daddy is going to reward them generously.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
This is a typical 'full of it' answer.

They lied. Listen to their actual statements out of their actual mouths. All five of them, they've been playing the clips from their confirmation hearings on the news. They outright lied and anyone not practicing alt-right apologetics can see they lied.
Click to expand...

If there was any courage in the DOJ, they should bring perjury charges against all five of them. They are judges who lied, under oath, before the Senate.
 
"America, the Land of the Free".... err, unless you're a pregnant woman who happens to live in a bible-bashing Republican state.. then not so much!
 
Organisations such as Planned Parenthood should start setting up in all the states where abortion will remain legal, and offer an online consultation service for oppressed women in any bible-bashing state where abortion is illegal. Then they can start touting for donors who will pay the bulk of the costs for these women to exercise their rights in the nearest state.

I'll bet something like this is already going on right now between Texas and New Mexico.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
If there was any courage in the DOJ, they should bring perjury charges against all five of them. They are judges who lied, under oath, before the Senate.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately all they have to do is say they changed their minds.
 
Last edited:
I think reversing Roe V Wade is the correct constitutional interpretation.

but here is the twist.....


.... that is because the constitution is bad
 
smartcooky said:
If there was any courage in the DOJ, they should bring perjury charges against all five of them. They are judges who lied, under oath, before the Senate.
Click to expand...
From what I can see, their answers were more political non-answers than lies ("it's er 'settled law' er <mumble>"). None of them actually came out and said they wouldn't reverse Roe-vs-Wade if a case was actually presented in front of them.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Are nomination hearings under oath?
Would be weird if they were, IMO.
Click to expand...

Doesn't really matter, they could always claim that the absolutely believed what they said at the time but that their views have changed/matured since then because or their better understanding having now served on SCOTUS. :rolleyes:
 
psionl0 said:
From what I can see, their answers were more political non-answers than lies ("it's er 'settled law' er <mumble>"). None of them actually came out and said they wouldn't reverse Roe-vs-Wade if a case was actually presented in front of them.
Click to expand...
If you watch all 5 of them, it's pretty clear they aren't simply talking generalities.

If you look back and want to see non-committal generalities you can see what you want to see.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
If you watch all 5 of them, it's pretty clear they aren't simply talking generalities.

If you look back and want to see non-committal generalities you can see what you want to see.
Click to expand...
I saw all 5 responses and I didn't see a single "I won't reverse Roe-vs-Wade" among them. It was weasel words all the way.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
If you watch all 5 of them, it's pretty clear they aren't simply talking generalities.

If you look back and want to see non-committal generalities you can see what you want to see.
Click to expand...

Could you quote some specific statements?

I think without that, the most obvious strategy for them is to never explicitly say they what they would do with Roe vs Wade.
 
Meadmaker said:
For fourty nine years, the most important question of every single Suprem Court nominee has been "What are your thoughts on Roe v. Wade?" For fourty nine years, no nominee has ever answered it.


I think that's unfortunate, but it's the way it has been.
Click to expand...

Over the last few days, they’ve been showing clips of the confirmation hearings of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Pretty sure each was asked exactly that and responded it was “established law” or “established precedent”. Certainly Susan Collins asked and was given assurances on this by Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

From CNN:

“In an interview with CNN the following year, Collins, who supports abortion rights, said that Kavanaugh "said under oath many times, as well as to me personally many times, that he considers Roe to be 'precedent upon precedent' because it had been reaffirmed in the Casey v. Planned Parenthood case."
Similarly, Collins told CNN in 2018 that she didn't believe Justice Neil Gorsuch, who she voted to confirm the previous year, would want to overturn Roe v. Wade.
"I had a very long discussion with Justice Gorsuch in my office and he pointed out to me that he is a co-author of a whole book on precedent," Collins said at the time.”
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie B said:
Over the last few days, they’ve been showing clips of the confirmation hearings of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Pretty sure each was asked exactly that and responded it was “established law” or “established precedent. Certainly Susan Collins asked and was given assurances on this by Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

From CNN:

“In an interview with CNN the following year, Collins, who supports abortion rights, said that Kavanaugh "said under oath many times, as well as to me personally many times, that he considers Roe to be 'precedent upon precedent' because it had been reaffirmed in the Casey v. Planned Parenthood case."
Similarly, Collins told CNN in 2018 that she didn't believe Justice Neil Gorsuch, who she voted to confirm the previous year, would want to overturn Roe v. Wade.
"I had a very long discussion with Justice Gorsuch in my office and he pointed out to me that he is a co-author of a whole book on precedent," Collins said at the time.”
Click to expand...

The Democrats could argue that this decision is an impeachable offense and that all these justices perjured themselves during their confirmations, but that would require them to actually want to fix this problem.

I'm curious what exactly is their pitch to voters concerning Roe. Even if they get a working majority in the legislature any federal abortion rights law is going to be struck down by the current SCOTUS. What exactly is their plan that they can articulate to voters to capitalize on the current outrage of this decision?

If their message is "vote for us and we'll pass a law that gets immediately struck down", I fail to see that driving much enthusiasm.

If the message is "vote for us and we'll impeach these justices, or pack the court", that actually strikes me as the kind of real solution that will harness the current outrage.

ETA: There's also things they could do right now. They should abandon the "blue slip" process for appointing district judges and ram pro-Roe judges into all the vacant seats in red states, rather than honoring the informal veto these conservatives have been using to keep them vacant.
 
Last edited:
An interesting exploration on the difference between how Democrats and Republicans approach power:

THE SCOURGE OF SENTIMENTALITY POLITICS
Democrats are busy worshipping people while Republicans worship power

Liberals started to get everything backwards: women’s rights existed to produce a woman Supreme Court Justice who could be feted rather than a woman on the Supreme Court being there to guarantee women’s fundamental rights. When people called for Bader Ginsberg to step down, the sentiment was labeled “sexist:” “She doesn’t owe you anything,” the idiotic refrain went. Even after her death during Trump’s presidency, when the catastrophic reality of her decision was clear, her supporters vocally still insisted on her absolute right to stay on the job, come what may.

Republican voters are much less sentimental: when a figure betrays them or just insufficiently serves their interests, they turn on them, ruthlessly destroy their reputation, and cast around for better instruments. They are no respecters of persons. When they got the sense that they were being cheated by their establishment who would just collect checks, pal around in Washington D.C., and not deliver anything, they unleashed Trump to menace them. Their entire apparatus is a kind of grotesque vision of ideal democracy: an unruly mob terrifying and disciplining the elite. “Don’t get out of line, we will come for you.”
Click to expand...

https://www.gawker.com/politics/the-scourge-of-sentimentality-politics

Democrats have been outmaneuvered by the Republicans at every turn. It's well past time to start looking inward to fix why the party is so unfit for purpose.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
The Democrats could argue that this decision is an impeachable offense and that all these justices perjured themselves during their confirmations, but that would require them to actually want to fix this problem.
Click to expand...

Though probably duplicitous, I think the justices could argue that that was their opinion at the time of the confirmation hearings, but that they had changed their minds. Hard to prove otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom