Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

I would argue that's because you and others tend to associate politics with policy. I am interested in Democrats who can win - regardless of my policy leanings (which lean centrist), I would vote for someone like Fetterman over most of the centrist Democrats without a second thought. The issue is that none of the progressive candidates in the modern Democratic era can win outside of blue areas, so I'm against basically all of them, which makes it seem like I'm pro-centrists. I want Democratic policy ideas to pass Congress - and the only way to do that is to get strong majorities - and the reality is that while there are more blue voters in the country, there are more red districts and red states, which means you can't just appeal to liberals. You have to win the purple areas and that's where centrists are vital - or Fetterman types.

Trump's genius is not that he knew how to speak to his base - that was important, but his real genius is that he managed to pull away long-time blue collar Democratic voters that only he spoke to (Bernie did that well too - but he alienated too many others). Dems were able to counter that by pulling in moderate suburban voters in 2018, but to keep them, you can't keep talking the way Warren or Sanders talk - those voters only came to escape from Trump. But keeping them going forward requires actually appealing to them on issues and they are centrists. If you're willing to lose them, you need a plan to go find other voters, and I don't see what that is on the left - there aren't enough voters out there. You also have to hold Latino and Black voters, who are very much not progressive, and you're already seeing the consequences of that in shifts with those demographics.

If someone can convince me of a progressive agenda with the tone and message to win over the middle, I'm all for it. But Bernie and Warren and AOC aren't it, so I'm fully against the current progressive path.

Edit: You may also remember that in 2007-2008, I was on the Obama bandwagon from the start, when he was the upstart liberal candidate running against the Clinton establishment, who people like glynch were all in for. Why? Because he knows how to speak to the middle in a way Hillary couldn't and thus he knew how to win. On the Senate side, I'm not anti-Manchin because I'd rather have a moderate Dem Senator in WV than a Republican. I wish we still had all those not-good-enough moderate Dems from LA, MO, NE, MT, etc in the Senate from a decade ago - the Dems could do so much with those people still in place.

 

one could blame Hillary for losing to Trump. She had one job.

 

Classy let’s blame the dead justice for the corruption of the Supreme Court by the right. I do agree that she should’ve retired when asked by Obama but even if she did they would still have a majority on the court today.

 

I wonder how that plays out legally since corporations are people too but can’t be put in jail…hmmmmm…it’s going to get messy folks.

 

But I think Roberts is somewhat sane. Don't think he would have over turned it:

"The Court's decision to overrule Roe and Casey is a serious jolt to the legal system—regardless of how you view those cases,"

 

You could have just said that then. "Obviously, majority opinion can be wrong." and I would have left it at that. The point I was making is that majority opinion can be wrong. I also would not even 'respect' a majority opinion that strips rights away from people.

Sure. If the majority opinion is that we should have slaves then anarchy might be necessary. Seems like Lincoln agreed.

Having polite discussions about whether people should have rights or not doesn't always work, unfortunately.

I didn't present you with a question about race, I presented you with a question about rights. Using the race card implies I called someone racist when all I really did was give you an example that sometimes the majority opinion is clearly morally wrong

I think the original answer to this question when they decided Roe v Wade is the best one, you're asking a religious question after all.

 

If you have a sister or a wife this should concern you. Married couples try to make babies, even if it's just missionary position right? And sometimes miscarriages happen. It's already traumatizing enough, wanting to be a parent but not being able to.
Now you have a government of 'less government intrusion' ready to possibly detain for suspicion of abortion because your sister or wife went to her doctor to make sure she was healthy after the miscarriage.

 

took me a while to locate this, but Turley addressed this very question when the Dobbs draft was initially leaked

No, Justices Did Not Commit Perjury in Their Confirmation Hearings When Asked About Roe
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/...mit-perjury-in-confirmation-on-reversing-roe/

again, I think Collins, Manchin, et al are just trying to save face right now

excerpt from Turley:

Most of those crying “perjury” do not cite the specific perjurious language.

Take Alito. Many of us said when Alito was nominated that he was presumptively opposed to the logic of Roe. After all, in 1985, Alito wrote as a Justice Department lawyer that the Constitution does not contain a right protecting abortions.

However, appearances had to be observed.

The late Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.), asked him if he agreed with that statement today and Alito responded in classic confirmation nonspeak. He first repeated the facts (by noting that he was a Justice Department attorney at the time) and then went rote: “Today if the issue were to come before me. The first question would be the question that we’ve been discussing and that’s the issue of stare decisis. And if the analysis were to get beyond that point, I would approach that question with an open mind.”

That says absolutely nothing but how every jurist approaches case precedent. You begin with the touchstone of stare decisis and the preference for preserving precedent. You then approach the countervailing question with “an open mind.”

When Sen. Dick Durbin (D., IL.) pressed him on whether Roe is “settled law,” Alito responded again by stating the obvious:

“Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973. So, it’s been on the books for a long time. It has been challenged in a number of occasions. And I discussed those yesterday. And the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the decision–sometimes on the merits; sometimes, in Casey, based on stare decisis. And I believe when a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed, that strengthens its value as stare decisis…”

That again says nothing. Indeed, it was decided in 1973 and that is a long time ago. Plessy v. Ferguson was on the books for 58 years before it was overturned in 1958. It was also supported by stare decisis but it did not matter.

He never pledged to preserve Roe. Even if he did, he never promised that he would never change his mind on such cases.

Then came Gorsuch.

I testified in the Gorsuch hearing and he was widely viewed as a Roe skeptic. After all, he wrote a book that declared the “the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”

When asked about that statement in the context of Roe, Gorsuch responded: “Senator, as the book explains, the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

When Durbin asked if he accepted that, Gorsuch stated another truism: “That’s the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes.” In other words, he accepted that Roe is the established precedent. That is about as earthshaking as saying he accepts that the Supreme Court sits in Washington. Likewise, then-senator Al Franken asked Gorsuch if he viewed Roe as “settled law.” Again, that is like asking for the location of the Supreme Court. Gorsuch declared “It is absolutely settled law.”

Then came Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh also stated the obvious in calling Roe “important precedent” and noting that the Court strives to preserve precedent. When pressed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Cal.), he again said that such cases are “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis” and “one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.”

Kavanaugh succeeded in repeating nothing but verbal nullities.
​

more at the link

 

to which Turley adds, the one exception is Barrett:

The one exception to this pattern of confirmation nonspeak was Barrett. At the time, I wrote that Barrett was refreshingly and surprisingly honest about her judicial philosophy and approach to Roe. She specifically rejected the claim that Roe constitutes “super precedent.” Barrett said that this term “define cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. And I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category.” (Notably, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson took the same position against Roe as super precedent.).

What is most striking about these claims that the justices lied is that most of these critics insisted during their confirmations that they were clearly antagonistic toward Roe. Nothing that they said changed any minds on their judicial philosophy as hostile to the logic of Roe.

Notably, liberal nominees have used the same language about cases like District of Columbia v. Heller, supporting gun rights. They acknowledge that it is a settled precedent but that does not guarantee that they will vote to preserve it. Indeed, they have voted to limit or overturn past cases with which they disagree. No one called for perjury prosecutions or denounced them as liars.
[/S]​

 

Something about "unintended consequences" and all...

They can't say they weren't warned.

 

Roberts lied.

Roberts and the other five justices lied their sweet asses off in their confirmation hearings.

On every written abortion decision during his USSC Chief Justice tenure, Roberts lied.

As I said in the concealed weapon decision thread, I see no reason for the court to write their decisions down. Why bother?

Will anyone be surprised to see this court overturn California’s pro choice laws in two years? If so, shame on you.

 

It's incredibly frustrating that I see this point consistently ignored, both in this thread and in discussions I see elsewhere. It's an incredibly important one.

The debate always seems to stop at "is abortion murder" for a lot of anti-choice people, but even if we conceded the answer to that as yes, the debate must continue on to "is a state ban of abortion the proper answer to stop it". Rarely does the argument go there

 

Republicans and looking to put the Kybosh on that

Rocket River

 

no

https://bbs.clutchfans.net/threads/...ight-to-abortion.316219/page-10#post-14141671

 

there's no gerrymandering in blue states?

 

54% of White Woman did now want her

Rocket River

 

what is an SCW? and how did the "fall of segregation" lead to the pro life movement?

as noted above, there have been upwards of 20M black babies aborted since Roe was decided.

your point is unclear.