The Roe Countdown

[Skeptic Ginger]

That is not "the issue". That's something you want to make an issue now,

That was in my post you initially replied to.

But even if you choose not to address that issue, you cannot deal with the two issues separately.

If you want some esoteric discussion about the judiciary deciding cases without regard to popular opinion as you put it, fine. Start another thread.

This thread is about a minority installed SCOTUS justices. You can't separate that out just because you don't wish address it.

but it wasn't even your original complaint. Your original complaint was that most people don't want RvW to be overturned. Which is completely separate from how many people put justices on the court. And neither issue has anything to do with the legal merits of the decision itself.

But you don't care about the legal merits of the decision itself.

Yeah like there is no context.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, it’s an issue if a minority of the people put justices on the court to explicitly overturn Roe, not on the merits of a particular case, but because that is the result a minority wanted regardless whatever case was involved.

Exactly.

 

[Ziggurat]

That was in my post you initially replied to.

Yes, it was. And you never came to terms with that. Instead, you tried to move the goalpost, but the goalpost you tried to move it to was also irrelevant.

This thread is about a minority installed SCOTUS justices. You can't separate that out just because you don't wish address it.

Of course I can separate it out, because it's irrelevant. You can't make it relevant just because YOU care about it for some reason you can't even articulate.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, it’s an issue if a minority of the people put justices on the court to explicitly overturn Roe, not on the merits of a particular case, but because that is the result a minority wanted regardless whatever case was involved.

It's not an issue for the merits of this ruling. That either stands or falls on its own. It's only really relevant if we're discussing the process of how supreme court justices get nominated, but that's not what this thread is about, and neither you nor SG have even had anything of note to say about it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's not an issue for the merits of this ruling. That either stands or falls on its own. It's only really relevant if we're discussing the process of how supreme court justices get nominated, but that's not what this thread is about, and neither you nor SG have even had anything of note to say about it.

Yeah, I'm the one arguing only because I don't like the outcome.

 

[Upchurch]

Said embryos cannot then go on outside of a womb to become infants. The technology isn't there yet.

Yet, but that wasn’t the question asked.

 

[Upchurch]

It's not an issue for the merits of this ruling. That either stands or falls on its own. It's only really relevant if we're discussing the process of how supreme court justices get nominated, but that's not what this thread is about, and neither you nor SG have even had anything of note to say about it.

Even you have to admit the verdict will be suspect. After 50 years of standing and upheld precedent, the first Roe case decided by a majority of Justices explicitly appointed to overturn Roe just happens to be the first case that merits overturning Roe? What are the odds?

 

[Ziggurat]

Even you have to admit the verdict will be suspect. After 50 years of standing and upheld precedent, the first Roe case decided by a majority of Justices explicitly appointed to overturn Roe just happens to be the first case that merits overturning Roe? What are the odds?

I don't see that "odds" are relevant here. Are you arguing in favor of a court that acts like a random number generator? Either this decision is right or wrong. If it's right, then there's no reason to wait to issue it. If it's wrong, it wouldn't be less wrong in 10 years.

 

[Upchurch]

I don't see that "odds" are relevant here. Are you arguing in favor of a court that acts like a random number generator? Either this decision is right or wrong. If it's right, then there's no reason to wait to issue it. If it's wrong, it wouldn't be less wrong in 10 years.

What I'm saying is that these justices weren't appointed to judge any abortion case on it's merits. They were appointed to overturn Roe regardless of merits of the case. Trump didn't even try to hide it.

You can believe that Dobbs is being decided on the merits, but to do so, you'd also have to believe either that this case is significantly different from the previous 50 years of challenges to Roe to warrant overturning Roe, OR that 50 years of SCOTUS decisions on Roe were not based on the merits.

If the former, what a literally unbelievable coincidence that this significantly different case came before a panel of justices who were specifically appointed to overturn Roe. Why, it's practically a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Ziggurat]

What I'm saying is that these justices weren't appointed to judge any abortion case on it's merits. They were appointed to overturn Roe regardless of merits of the case. Trump didn't even try to hide it.

You're still assuming bad faith where none is required. People legitimately disagree about what the merits are. Yes, they were nominated in part because of an expectation of how they would judge such a case. That doesn't mean that their judgment isn't based on what they believe the merits are, all that's required is an expectation of what they will think those merits are.

You can believe that Dobbs is being decided on the merits, but to do so, you'd also have to believe either that this case is significantly different from the previous 50 years of challenges to Roe to warrant overturning Roe, OR that 50 years of SCOTUS decisions on Roe were not based on the merits.

That's not required either. Again, all that's required is a disagreement about what the merits are between current judges and past judges. There is no absolute universally agreed to metric for how to evaluate merits. That doesn't mean we should abandon the concept, though.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Maybe if he(?) had said " Another consequence of ending Roe: some women who miscarry won't get urgent care. "


Why should I automatically believe doctors. I've heard some of them are afraid/have refused to perform life saving medical procedures for fear of retribution..

And of course we are back to arguing that this event never happened.

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/28/1083536401/texas-abortion-law-6-months

"Anna's water had broken too early for the baby to survive. She and Scott spent the night of their wedding in the emergency room, trying to take in the heartbreaking news.

"Basically, the doctor looked at me and was like, well, the baby's underdeveloped," says Anna. "Even with the best NICU care in the world, they're not going to survive."

And as painful as it was to hear that, the doctors told Anna there was another urgent concern.

" 'You're at a high chance of going septic or bleeding out,' " she says the doctors told her — a risk of infection or hemorrhage, which could become deadly. " 'And unfortunately, we recommend termination, but we cannot provide you one here in Texas because of this law.' ""

Who are we going to believe reality or someone on the internet making an argument from incredulity that this could never happen? I mean I guess the people who actually matter can always catch a flight to another state for the treatment of their miscarriage.

 

[Upchurch]

You're still assuming bad faith where none is required.

I'm not assuming anything of the sort. That was literally the stated intent.

People legitimately disagree about what the merits are. Yes, they were nominated in part because of an expectation of how they would judge such a case. That doesn't mean that their judgment isn't based on what they believe the merits are, all that's required is an expectation of what they will think those merits are.

Yes, their takes on those merits are why they were appointed. They were appointed and approved by people who represent a minority of the population because they would rule cases in a way that conforms with the popular opinion of that minority.

That was the point from before.

Again, all that's required is a disagreement about what the merits are between current judges and past judges. There is no absolute universally agreed to metric for how to evaluate merits. That doesn't mean we should abandon the concept, though.

And, yet, earlier:

Either this decision is right or wrong. If it's right, then there's no reason to wait to issue it. If it's wrong, it wouldn't be less wrong in 10 years.

You can't have it both ways. Either precedent matters and should only be overturned when there is a compelling reason to do so, or there is no reason to respect past rulings and SCOTUS is just another partisan arm of whoever holds the power at the right time.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not assuming anything of the sort. That was literally the stated intent.

No, you aren't understanding me. I'm saying that you're assuming bad faith on the part of the judges.

I don't give a crap about the motives of the electorate. The can and will try to get judges appointed in the hopes that they will vote their way on every issue. Conservatives succeeded this time, but it's not like liberals aren't trying to do exactly the same thing. Nor does being in the minority ever stop people from trying to exert political influence. Why even should it? So how is it even relevant whether it was a majority or a minority that succeeded this time?

You can't have it both ways. Either precedent matters and should only be overturned when there is a compelling reason to do so, or there is no reason to respect past rulings and SCOTUS is just another partisan arm of whoever holds the power at the right time.

Why should "precedent" protect a wrong decision? And why does a right decision need "precedent" to protect it? How long must a wrong decision stand before it can be overturned? Is overturning a right decision OK if you waited long enough to do it?

If RvW was decided wrongly, then that's compelling reason to overturn it. The current pending decision argues that it was. If the current decision's argument on that point is wrong, if RvW was decided correctly, then that's an argument against the current decision on its merits. If that's what you believe, then make that argument. You don't need precedent, or "minority opinion", in order to do that.

 

[thaiboxerken]

No matter what decision comes down, I am going to celebrate. If it isn't overturned I am going to laugh at the liberal panic before, and if it is overturned I am laughing at the ensuing enhanced panic. "Our panic goes to 11, you see".

This scenario is amazing.

You will celebrate the subjugation of women? That's not surprising.

 

[Bob001]

Another result of overturning Roe: the impact on military service.

Overturning Roe v. Wade could have disastrous consequences for the U.S. armed forces, and here’s how I know: When I was 21, I was drugged and raped violently while serving in the military, a crime that resulted in pregnancy.

Had I not had access to abortion, the assault would have ended my career and derailed my life. Should Roe be overturned and access to abortion restricted for female service members across the United States, military readiness would be directly affected.

Women make up 14.4 percent of our active-duty military and about 18 percent of our reserve and National Guard. Rape in the military is prevalent: In 2018, the Defense Department reported that roughly 20,500 service members experienced sexual assault, up from 14,900 two years before.

Many states have trigger laws banning or criminalizing abortion that will go into effect as soon as Roe is overturned — a probable outcome considering the Supreme Court draft opinion that leaked earlier this month.

This will immediately affect active-duty service members, who don’t exactly get to choose what state they serve in, and who don’t have the freedom to travel to other states without a leave “chit” approved up the chain of command — a command that is notoriously bad at dealing with the aftermath of sexual assault. Of the 20,500 service members sexually assaulted in 2018, only one-third reported the assault, and 43 percent of those who did said it was a negative experience.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ng-roe-disastrous-america-military-readiness/

 

[Upchurch]

No, you aren't understanding me. I'm saying that you're assuming bad faith on the part of the judges.

They are doing exactly what their records indicated they would do. They are doing exactly what they were appointed to do. It's only bad faith if those justices believe that they are supposed to be impartial. The only time they were dishonest about it was during their confirmation hearings.

Honestly, who would appoint a Supreme Court justice who can't remember what is in the First Amendment? Not someone who cares about upholding what is in the Constitution.

I don't give a crap about the motives of the electorate.

[snip]

Why should "precedent" protect a wrong decision?

Who is saying it is a wrong decision? It's the justices who were appointed to say it's a wrong decision. Justices who were appointed by representatives of a minority who disagree with the majority of the people. You say you don't care about the motives of the electorate, but you are relying on their popular opinion to decide what is a wrong decision, in this case.

Precedent protects established rights from political whims and is a pillar of the legal system. There are tons of articles out there about why it is important, for example.

Have you read about Dobbs? I have been. Can you tell me what is significantly different about this case that it warrants overturning Roe?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Another result of overturning Roe: the impact on military service.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ng-roe-disastrous-america-military-readiness/

It's a result that Republicans are willing to live with. More accurately, it's a result that they will celebrate. "Women shouldn't be in the military."

 

[Meadmaker]

You can believe that Dobbs is being decided on the merits, but to do so, you'd also have to believe either that this case is significantly different from the previous 50 years of challenges to Roe to warrant overturning Roe, OR that 50 years of SCOTUS decisions on Roe were not based on the merits.

I don't think there's any secret that a significant number of people believe the latter, and have believed that since the day the ruling was issued.

Most of those people are now Republicans.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Another result of overturning Roe: the impact on military service.

I'm going to make the assumption that the bulk of the anti-abortion demographic doesn't think women should be in the military in the first place, so while correct in the abstract and a solid point, I question how much actual difference it functionally makes politically or socially.

 

[Upchurch]

Another result of overturning Roe: the impact on military service.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ng-roe-disastrous-america-military-readiness/

Yeah, we don't have a great history with state-by-state laws that have radically different views about which sections of the population gets to have rights and which doesn't. This will get really bad before it gets better.