[Politico] Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

I already went down that rabbit hole with @StupidMoniker.

Problem is you can spin these things whatever way you want to align with whatever outcome you desire.

 

Viruses are the closet thing to zombies.

Brain-dead person are considered life by some. Terri Schiavo case.

 

You know because you are convinced. I don't know how you got to be so convinced. No one knows when is something life. Well, I take that back. Someone does know. God. It's too bad he's not telling.

 

But he is. You can read God's Word here: Genesis 2:7.

 

Too bad that's not God's words.

 

Heresy!

 

The justice department was allegedly investigating angry parents at school board meetings as terrorists using the USA PATRIOT Act. Garland has denied this. Supposedly there was a whistleblower, though as far as I know there has been no hard evidence to prove this. The right wing media took it as gospel, for example: FBI Investigated 'Dozens' of Parents Who Attended School Board Meetings – PJ Media

 

History that Alito is willfully not familiar with ...

That time Benjamin Franklin published a book on DIY abortions

 

More history ...

Catholic Priests used to perform abortions, and it was considered a lesser sin than fornication

which links to another article

Saints once did abortions – it was a lesser sin than oral sex

 

a bit more detail here:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...ican-instructor-textbook-abortion-recipe.html

 

Right-wing extremists ramp up threats against liberal judges amid abortion-rights ruling turmoil

The right-wing freakout over peaceful protests outside the homes of Supreme Court justices and chalk on the sidewalk in front of Republican senators’ homes, built around the seeming belief that any kind of protest at all is an act of violence, is actually a piece of classic right-wing projection. Conservatives assume that all protests feature intimidation and menace, bellicose threats, and acts of violence, because they themselves know no other way of protesting, as we’ve seen over the past five years and longer—especially on Jan. 6.

The anti-abortion right’s entire track record of protest, in fact, is brimming with case after case of violence and the politics of menace. Between 1977 and 2020, there have been 11 murders of health care providers, 26 attempted murders, 956 reported threats of harm and death, 624 stalking incidents, and four kidnappings, accompanied by 42 bombings, 194 arsons, 104 attempted arsons or bombings, and 667 bomb threats.

Meanwhile, right-wing pundits are frantically indulging in groundless claims of imminent left-wing violence: “Pro Abortion Advocates Are Becoming Violent After Supreme Court Leak,” read a Town Hall headline over a piece that documented some minor shoving incidents outside the Supreme Court building among the protesters there.

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board speculated: “We hate to say this, but some abortion fanatic could decide to commit an act of violence to stop a 5-4 ruling. It’s an awful thought, but we live in fanatical times.”​

 

Also there are many who have been in protests to agitate and incite. Even those who don’t actually support the main message of a protests or who are just looking to “F^(& Sh^t Up”.

Saw a lot of this following the killing of George Floyd.

 

rights are certainly one issue, but not the only issue, at stake in Dobbs

Turley for example concisely summarizes Justice Thomas's perspective on the precedent question:

The Court has long embraced the “doctrine of precedent, under which a court must follow earlier judicial decisions when the same points arise again in litigation.” To that end, it has insisted on a “special reason over and above the belief that a prior case was wrongly decided” before rejecting it as a binding precedent. Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 864 (1992). That includes various factors to be weighed including the reliance on the precedent.

Justice Thomas has previously voiced doubts over this approach. In Gamble v. United States, he wrote a concurrence that included this passage:

In my view, if the Court encounters a decision that is demonstrably erroneous—i.e., one that is not a permissible interpretation of the text—the Court should correct the error, regardless of whether other factors support overruling the precedent. Federal courts may (but need not) adhere to an incorrect decision as precedent, but only when traditional tools of legal interpretation show that the earlier decision adopted a textually permissible interpretation of the law. A demonstrably incorrect judicial decision, by contrast, is tantamount to making law, and adhering to it both disregards the supremacy of the Constitution and perpetuates a usurpation of the legislative power.​

That should not be treated as a heretical or radical position.

As I have previously noted, justices take an oath to uphold the Constitution and to “faithfully and impartially” interpret the law. It is bizarre to argue that they should vote for some interpretation of the Constitution that they believe is wrong and unfounded just to preserve precedent. If that view had prevailed in the past, Brown versus Board of Education would have upheld the racist precepts of “separate but equal” in Plessy v. Ferguson. When it comes to fundamental rights, justices should faithfully interpret the Constitution.

Indeed, I do not believe for a second that, if Dobbs overturns Roe, that liberal justices would hesitate to overturn it in a year, ten years, or a 100 years as wrongly decided.

There may be a greater hold of precedent in statutory interpretations (since Congress can address erroneous or conflicting interpretations). However, in the interpretation of the Constitution, justices are fulfilling an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Stare decisis may protect the Court as an institution from public criticism, but that should not override the duty to correctly and faithfully interpret the Constitution.
​

more at https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/...e-decisis-that-means-theyre-out-of-arguments/

 

To respond to Turley clearly yes precedent is not fixed and yes precedent can be overturned as was the case of Brown v Board of Education that overturned Plessy v Ferguson. I'm not aware though that any of the Justices that voted to overturn Plessy had said they would follow precedent but more importantly the problem with "Separate but Equal" was that it was impractical and that most of the country supported the end of it as a practice.

With Roe v. Wade and Casey v Planned Parenthood we're not seeing that. In this case the USSC would not be following the direction of the country but would would be going against the direction of the country. Granted that Justices primary interests is the Constitution and not the direction of the country but they aren't supposed to deny reality. They do take into account evolving standards and where the country is at. For example with interpretation of the 8th Amendment and with rulings like in Loving and Obergfell. This is why many are raising the problem with simply abandoning precedent in Roe that it could lead to an abandonment of other precedents that have become ingrained on the fabric of the US society.

On the subject of the Constitution particularly as noted the US Constitution does recognize that there are other rights not specifically enumerated, in fact marriage isn't an enumerated right in the Constitution but the right to marriage is a critical right that forms the basis of several court rulings. So even leaving aside the value of Stare Decisis there still is a Constitutional argument for a right to privacy.

 

Mass delusion: Leftists think Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch promised to uphold Roe

 

Not exactly a false memory. As I remember it -- and this bears out from the quotes in the article -- Democratic Senators asked questions to get nominees to clearly state their positions on Roe v Wade, knowing that those nominees probably would want to overturn it and in fact were nominated because of their willingness to overturn it, but they used all kinds of weaselly lawyerese to get through confirmation without saying anything explicit about their intentions. So, the public was left hoping because the nominees didn't declare their opposition to Roe when they were asked point blank. I mean, you can call it "not a lie" but it was obviously a deception.

 

Wait, how many leftists voted for kavster?

 

@StupidMoniker

@StupidMoniker

 

@Os Trigonum?