The Roe Countdown

[Armitage72]

We are not even talking about fetal personhood. We are talking about zygotic pershonhood.

I guess that law means the police will have to investigate every miscarriage in order to determine whether it was deliberately induced.

 

[shemp]

I wonder if the Zealot-5 pray together over this? Do they go to church together? Do they go to church?

No, but they host those cocaine orgies Madison Cawthorn ratted out.

 

[BobTheCoward]

No. We have reached the point where the Left admits that it doesn't care about the Constitution at all.

Why would I care about the constitution?

I don't go around caring about documents, period.

 

[shemp]

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.

They will just say that they had a change of heart, that once they had a chance to discuss this with Alito they came around. This would, of course, be a lie, but we are far beyond the day when anyone cared about mere liars.

 

[cosmicaug]

I guess that law means the police will have to investigate every miscarriage in order to determine whether it was deliberately induced.

It's a feature, not a bug.

Under His eye!

 

[TurkeysGhost]

They will just say that they had a change of heart, that once they had a chance to discuss this with Alito they came around. This would, of course, be a lie, but we are far beyond the day when anyone cared about mere liars.

Sure, but if the Democrats have the numbers, they can impeach them anyways. Obviously this would be a party line vote kind of thing, but running future elections on the promise of removal of these justices should they hit the majority threshold needed seems like a good way to translate the current public outrage into electoral momentum.

 

[shemp]

I guess that law means the police will have to investigate every miscarriage in order to determine whether it was deliberately induced.

I don't even want to think about what kind of people would be eager to work in the Police Abortion Investigation Department.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I don't even want to think about what kind of people would be eager to work in the Police Abortion Investigation Department.

I mean, probably just ordinary cops. I don't anticipate there being any resistance by cops to enforce this stuff, it's not like people getting illegal abortions are the only example of sympathetic people being victimized by the law.

 

[JoeMorgue]

We're not in some kind of Literal Genie scenario where we will be able to invoke ironic punishment on the Right because they left a loophole open in one of their wishes.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't even want to think about what kind of people would be eager to work in the Police Abortion Investigation Department.

It will be mostly just getting info from big data. A news group went around to people that big data figured out were pregnant and went up to tell them "Hey we know you are pregnant". Seems like just what they need to enforce such laws.

https://www.cnbc.com/2014/04/09/big-data-knows-youre-pregnant-and-thats-not-all.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/?sh=707bd2d86668

https://www.driveresearch.com/market-research-company-blog/how-target-used-data-analytics-to-predict-pregnancies/

 

[JoeMorgue]

One reason it's so much easier to be wrong that it is to be right is that right side, usually, has to have this side debate about justification.

When one side is "Abortions are bad"

and the other side is split between "Abortions are good and my reasons are X, Y, Z" and "Abortions are good and my reasons are none of your damn business" that splits the field a bit.

And, to be 10,000 percent absolutely crystal clear, both statement are 100% across the board completely true. They both are plenty of valid reasons beyond "I want to" to have an abortion AND "Because I want to" is the only reason women need to give. This is not a paradox but it is a... splitting of the message I guess you could call it.

 

[Armitage72]

We're not in some kind of Literal Genie scenario where we will be able to invoke ironic punishment on the Right because they left a loophole open in one of their wishes.

I wasn't thinking ironic punishment on the Right so much as more overreaching authoritarianism contained within the law. On the level of parents who take their daughters to the doctor to confirm that they're still virgins, but directed at formerly pregnant women by the government.

 

[Meadmaker]

Sure, but if the Democrats have the numbers, they can impeach them anyways. Obviously this would be a party line vote kind of thing, but running future elections on the promise of removal of these justices should they hit the majority threshold needed seems like a good way to translate the current public outrage into electoral momentum.

If they have the numbers, couldn't they just pass legislation legalizing abortion?


I understand states and all that, but it just seems all very convoluted. The court is saying, "We read the Constitution, and we can't see anything in there about abortion, so we're going to say it's a matter for the legislature."

And the response is, "Impeach them!"


Unfortunately, people in places like Alabama and Texas are not going to have easy access to abortion. They'll have to go out of state, which in some cases will mean they won't have abortions at all, even though they want them. In most places, though abortion will be legal. I think the focus of supporters should be spreading access to abortion in places where it will be illegal after that opinion is published.

The biggest obstacle to making that happen, though, is hyperpartisanship. I think the most effective way to spread abortion rights to conservative areas would be to support pro-choice Republicans. However, there are few or no pro-choice Republicans. Moreover, the people who might provide meaningful support, i.e. the ones with money, are very partisan themselves and wouldn't support a Republican anyway, regardless of their pro-choice views.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

If they have the numbers, couldn't they just pass legislation legalizing abortion?

They could, but a conservative SCOTUS would almost certainly decide that the constitutional doesn't permit such federal laws. Another "states rights" issue.

 

[Suddenly]

Sure, but if the Democrats have the numbers, they can impeach them anyways. Obviously this would be a party line vote kind of thing, but running future elections on the promise of removal of these justices should they hit the majority threshold needed seems like a good way to translate the current public outrage into electoral momentum.

Their lies are more valuable within the general argument w/r/t the legitimacy of the courts than as actionable events. To try to take action against individual justices based on these lies would be a political blunder because it is so narrow in the larger scope of thing and just a distraction from the real problem.


The Supreme Court exists literally above any sense of legal ethical accountability and more and more it's becoming likely they are acting exactly how people act when they are above the law. We are seeing more and more about how Justice Thomas is connected to some terrible stuff. Kavanaugh had a bunch of debts paid off by someone. There is literally no mechanism and no standards here to even investigate self-dealing or the like.

The realistic short term thing for a Democratic congress would be to pass legislation about holding the Court responsible to a set of basic legal ethics. Maybe define that "good behavior" standard for impeachment and set out ways to investigate same. The lies about Roe and Justice Thomas getting more and more exposed present this opportunity.

 

[Meadmaker]

They could, but a conservative SCOTUS would almost certainly decide that the constitutional doesn't permit such federal laws. Another "states rights" issue.

Sure. So you are saying that a congress with a Democratic majority should attempt to impeach Supreme Court justices on the grounds that.....I think you'll have to fill me in here....because Congress can't impose their will on states where the local majority is against the will of the national majority.

I don't know. It just seems vaguely anti-democratic. (Small d in original)

On a purely pragmatic note, there's no way in Hell that there would be enough votes to convict. There actually wouldn't even be enough votes to impeach, because even in these times, some Democrats wouldn't go along, and no Republcans, even Susan Collins, would support it.

If you really are intent on a national solution imposed by fiat, I think court packing is your only possible chance. Vote to increase the number of judges, and appoint them right quick, before the elections in November. You'll have to throw away the filibuster in the process, which wouldn't bother me, but I think the Senators themselves won't go for that.

So, back again to purely pragmatic options, I think it has to be an electoral issue. You have to persuade voters in red states that they ought to support pro-abortion candidates. That's a losing cause, this year, but I think in the long run it's a position that will prevail. Abortion is a truly fantastic "wedge issue". It's the kind of thing that people feel so strongly about that they might vote for "the other party" just based on that one issue. For decades that has favored Republicans because pro-choice voters haven't felt the need to vote based on that issue alone. Now, that might change.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Sure. So you are saying that a congress with a Democratic majority should attempt to impeach Supreme Court justices on the grounds that.....I think you'll have to fill me in here....because Congress can't impose their will on states where the local majority is against the will of the national majority.

I don't know. It just seems vaguely anti-democratic. (Small d in original)

On a purely pragmatic note, there's no way in Hell that there would be enough votes to convict. There actually wouldn't even be enough votes to impeach, because even in these times, some Democrats wouldn't go along, and no Republcans, even Susan Collins, would support it.

If you really are intent on a national solution imposed by fiat, I think court packing is your only possible chance. Vote to increase the number of judges, and appoint them right quick, before the elections in November. You'll have to throw away the filibuster in the process, which wouldn't bother me, but I think the Senators themselves won't go for that.

So, back again to purely pragmatic options, I think it has to be an electoral issue. You have to persuade voters in red states that they ought to support pro-abortion candidates. That's a losing cause, this year, but I think in the long run it's a position that will prevail. Abortion is a truly fantastic "wedge issue". It's the kind of thing that people feel so strongly about that they might vote for "the other party" just based on that one issue. For decades that has favored Republicans because pro-choice voters haven't felt the need to vote based on that issue alone. Now, that might change.

Considering the unelected, totally unaccountable and arbitrary nature of the supreme court, I don't think I would categorize any action of the elected legislature against them as "undemocratic". ETA: none of the federal branches are particularly democratic considering the stupid system of gerrymandering and electoral college we use for these offices to subvert the popular vote, but the SCOTUS is a standout for being particularly insulated from popular control.

Impeachment for being totally out of step with the public's understanding of basic civil rights seems like a perfectly valid use of the legislative oversight function.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again at the end of the day the people who want to use "the system" to make things worse will keep banging on about some slavish devotion to said system that magically doesn't exist when the system doesn't get them what they want.

Watching Republicans decide what morals they do and don't have depending on what they want at the moment would be funny if A) the Democrats had any way of countering it and B) it wasn't doing so much damage to the country.

Nobody actually believes that a single Republican thinks abortion is a "states rights" issue and it's insulting we keep getting told we have to act like they do to maintain the civility theater.

 

[TomB]

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.

Some states are passing or considering laws which would allow suing out of state providers or people who assist in obtaining an abortion out of state.

In response, Connecticut is passing a law which would outlaw extradition, outlaw law enforcement cooperation with out of state investigations, and outlaw sharing medical records of out of state patients with out of state law enforcement. It would also allow those sued by out of state courts to counter sue for all expenses plus triple the judgment:

(b) When any person has had a judgment enter against such person,10
in any state, where liability, in whole or in part, is based on the alleged11
provision, receipt, assistance in receipt or provision, material support12
for, or any theory of vicarious, joint, several or conspiracy liability13
Raised Bill No. 5414
LCO No. 2991 2 of 7
derived therefrom, for reproductive health care services that are14
permitted under the laws of this state, such person may recover15
damages from any party that brought the action leading to that16
judgment or has sought to enforce that judgment. Recoverable damages17
shall include: (1) Just damages created by the action that led to that18
judgment, including, but not limited to, costs, expenses and attorney19
fees spent in defending the action that resulted in the entry of a20
judgment in another state; (2) costs, expenses and attorney fees incurred21
in bringing an action under this section; and (3) money damages treble22
the amount of any money damages award contained in the judgment23
entered in another state.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2022/TOB/H/PDF/2022HB-05414-R00-HB.PDF

 

[psionl0]

No it admits the Constitution is a living document designed to be made better with time.

I don't see any evidence of that belief. I see no attempts to push through any amendments that might improve the constitution (probably because they can't get the public on their side).

Instead, they, like the right, are happy to simply stack the SC with judges that will "rule" they way they want. The problem is that the right beat them at this game.