Supreme Court Overturns Roe v Wade, a Look at What That Means

The following from Politico

The Supreme Court has voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by POLITICO.

The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision – Planned Parenthood v. Casey – that largely maintained the right. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito writes.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” he writes in the document, labeled as the “Opinion of the Court.” “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

Here is the Draft Written by Justice Alito and posted by Politico.

Leaked 

First Leak in Modern History

What the Decision Means

We are now headed for the absurd state of affairs where what constitutes murder in one state will be a perfectly legal procedure one mile away in another. 

States like California will likely offer free transportation and other states will make it a crime to move across state lines for the procedure. 

Meanwhile, VOX reports The FDA made mail-order abortion pills legal. Access is still a nightmare.

Thirty-two states require a physician to administer the medication, while 19 states require the prescribing clinician to be physically present when the pills are taken — legalities that amount to a de facto ban on receiving abortion care via telehealth. 

Nineteen states, including Texas and most of the Deep South, require two or more in-person visits to access medication abortion, while eight others require at least one visit; in 2021, six states, including Texas, passed explicit laws against receiving medication abortion through telehealth.

We would be better off with a national law of some sort than the tangled mess that’s about to happen. 

Mish

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

231 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Opinion | Alito’s Case for Overturning Roe is Weak for a Reason
The conservative Supreme Court majority is more focused on politics than law.
Aziz Huq – Teaches law at the University of Chicago and is the author of The Collapse of Constitutional Remedies.
05/03/2022 01:37 PM EDT
If the draft majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito disclosed by POLITICO Monday night is any guide, the constitutional right to abortion has only a few days or weeks left to go. The most conservative majority of the Supreme Court that was, already a decade ago, arguably the “most conservative in modern history” has singled out Roe for excoriation and oblivion. But what marked out Roe to this fate, and not many other decisions? It is not the reasons provided in the draft Alito opinion: The explanation for Roe’s demise is to be found not in law, per se, but in the court’s entanglement in our pernicious moment of partisan hyperpolarization and the Republican Party’s inextricable link to anti-abortion politics.
Chief Justice John Roberts has acknowledged the document is authentic, and its style certainly suggests it is indeed by Alito. So, how does his rationale for overturning Roe stack up as a justification for a large, and likely convulsive, change in American society? The reasons flagged by the draft opinion fall painfully short. In fact, their profound weakness highlights precisely why Roe and abortion rights have been singled out. Go down the list of contentious legal questions, and it quickly becomes clear that conservatives do not follow Alito’s approach anywhere else besides Roe.
….
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Abortion statistics by state: Maps, trigger laws, and possible bans
If the court adopts the initial draft opinion, the retreat on abortion rights would be sweeping.
Abortion statistics by state: Maps, trigger laws, and possible bans
By Dan Goldberg
05/03/2022 09:35 PM EDT
Varth
Varth
1 year ago
“They had learned nothing, and forgotten nothing.” –Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord
Creativity is noting more than undiscovered plagiarism.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  Varth
I’ve noted that.
Six000mileyear
Six000mileyear
1 year ago
SCOTUS felt Row v Wade was legislating from the bench. With Democrats controlling Congress and the White House, the simple thing to do is for Democrats to pass a national law. The ugliness and ignorance on display among elected officials are incredible,
Democrats are complaining about success. SCOTUS has pretty much blessed any legislation supporting abortion.
MPO45
MPO45
1 year ago
The American Taliban finally scores a big one. If you want to know what’s next just look to Afghanistan or Germany circa 1933.
Oppress particular group (women) – Check.
Burn books – Check.
Attempt overthrow of government – Check.
First they came for abortion….and i did not speak up because…well look up Martin Niemöller for the rest.
FromBrussels
FromBrussels
1 year ago
INCREDIBLE, and ever so sanctimonious, a allegedly ‘examplary’, ‘exceptional’, ‘democratic’ ‘free’ nation , opposing the right of a woman to get rid of a unborn fruit, forbidding suffering people to end their lives in a decent civilized fashion(euthanasia) In the meantime the same nation doesn t mind inventing enemies and provoking far away wars, killing millions in the process ! What a great, respectable nation you are !
Kick'n
Kick’n
1 year ago
I have a “novel” idea. Let’s let women decide the issue. As it is women don’t get a choice not to be women. It’s put upon them. At least let them have this one control over their existence. If you ask them on the whole, most are ok with self determination. While many women would not choose abortion for themselves, most would not deprive other women of their choice. This is because women who have compassion for other women realize that not all situations can be accounted for. There will always be an unusual circumstance that one has not anticipated for which this may be a solution, albeit never an easy one to decide. If a referendum were called, in this one instance, it should be one only women who should be able to vote for or against. At least it would shut up one half of the country…
Pontius
Pontius
1 year ago
Roe essentially permitted 9 men (then) in black robes to circumvent constitutionally prescribed process for amendment. Whether you like or detest Roe decision, no such right to an abortion exists in the US Constitution. States will and should adopt laws with respect to availability, subject to any overriding federal legislation. Western European countries generally allow freedom to abortion up to 12 weeks, with few exceptions thereafter. Not a perfect solution making either side happy but could, for most, end the contentious issue. No way unlimited right (partial birth) or complete ban (day after/life of mother/rape or incest) ever gets 60 or, if filibuster repealed, 50 senate votes.
Mike 2112
Mike 2112
1 year ago
State’s as laboratories is and always was a great idea.
Of course the Constitution enumerates certain rights which must and should remain uniform such as Search and Seizure laws, laws guranteeing Free Speech and the rest of the BoR and Const.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike 2112
Finally, someone who understands. Now, let us apply that to other areas…. education, gay marriage, etc
Kick'n
Kick’n
1 year ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
Marriage is a regulated legal contract available in every state and territory and is acknowledged reciprocally. It is a civil right everywhere. When you have established reciprocity it is unjust to give to one and deny to the other.
Cocoa
Cocoa
1 year ago
This was leaked to motivate lazy,liberal folks into the midterms…probably by hacking into the SCOTUS. The timing is pretty ironic if this decision had been written in Feb. I smell a DNC rat
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
Reply to  Cocoa
You might be right, but how do you ‘know’ that with such certainty?
Agave
Agave
1 year ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
This time I agree with you. We do not know. There is an argument that either side may have had its reasons. I don’t really care.
The thing that amuses me though is how hysterical the right wing gets whenever there’s a leak that makes them look bad (seems to happen enough to make you wonder), and tries to put the focus on hunting down and destroying the leaker, to distract from the abomination that was the subject of the leak.
whirlaway
whirlaway
1 year ago
Reply to  Agave
Have the DONORcrat Party bigwigs (and their idiot Dumbocrat fans) started blaming Russia yet for this leak??!! LOL
Kick'n
Kick’n
1 year ago
Reply to  Cocoa
Yea I thought about this today and when it hit me I had an aha moment. Not a logical response but a visceral, intuitive feeling. I don’t get them often. Who’s been in the news lately and is VERY close to the SCOTUS? Yea that nut job married another, Ginny Thomas. Hmm, boy would that be hoot if it turns out to be. Could it be strike two for Clarence?
JeffreyLebowski
JeffreyLebowski
1 year ago
We are now headed for the absurd state of affairs where what constitutes murder in one state will be a perfectly legal procedure one mile away in another.
Distance is a very poor argument for something being absurd. Laws are different in Tijuana than they are in San Diego, or Detroit and Windsor… oh no… laws are different one mile away!! Oh the inhumanity!! Come on Mish you’re better than that to make such a dumb argument. By your rationale, we should have one government in the world making all the laws.
If everybody agrees on an issue, we wouldn’t need a centralized authority to mandate it, they would naturally be the same everywhere. If everybody doesn’t agree on a polarizing issue, why not allow for decentralization to give individuals sovereignty and freedom, whatever their opinion is? What’s so bad about having the freedom to move to or from a state because of an issue you may disagree with? So California government pays for people to have abortion and Texas makes it illegal. So what? I think that’s good! More choice!
If the “pro choice” crowd really believes in choice, they should welcome this change.
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
“By your rationale, we should have one government in the world making all the laws.”
This sounds like an excellent idea! And everyone should speak one language also. Say Esperanto?
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
Reply to  Jojo
Personally, I think abortion should be unrestricted. You want your children to abort your grandchildren, knock yourself out. JUST DON’T ASK ME TO PAY FOR IT! Or replace them with illegal immigrants.
tomhtu
tomhtu
1 year ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
Liberals always want you to pay the bill for their agenda. Just throw the bill at your liberal friends the next time you go out with them for dinner… they miraculously turn conservative lol
Agave
Agave
1 year ago
What’s so bad about having the freedom to move to or from a state because of an issue you may disagree with?
–Sounds so simple to those of us who have the resources and ability to do so. Many women do not and will not have this ability, due to lack of money, time from work, family requirements, etc. Lots of people who are so used to their own advantages do not realize this.
It’s a basic right to control your body, and states should not be taking away our rights. Do you think states should take away our rights?
The new Supremes lied about how they would handle it.
Then some red states are floating draconian laws about punishing women for going to other states where it’s legal to have an abortion when they arrive back. This is budding fascism.
This is not choice, freedom or liberty. It is the desire of a white male xtian fascist sect that wants to control other people, and take their rights away. Especially people not like them.
It’s an old saying, but this destruction of rights would never happen if it were men having the babies or abortions.
There are a lot more rights they want to take away too, now that they’ve slashed them for voting, and will for abortion. Watch your back.
Kick'n
Kick’n
1 year ago
Reply to  Agave
Punishing people for seeking legal remedies elsewhere simply because you happen to be a resident of a district in which it is illegal is straight authoritarianism.
whirlaway
whirlaway
1 year ago
Reply to  Agave
How is Biden’s new Ministry of Truth doing?
astroboy
astroboy
1 year ago
Well, the ‘right to privacy’ that the court cited for Roe v Wade in the 1970s was very shaky. Any male can be drafted and sent to die in a pointless war, if the right to privacy existed that would obviously be illegal. Or… over 100 million Americans had to get covid shots or possibly lose their jobs. Given the extremely questionable efficacy of the vaccines in stopping the spread of the disease, and the small, but nonzero number of people who would die from a bad vaccine reaction, it’s pretty clear that the government sees a ‘right to privacy’ as being non-existent. So, the Supreme Court likely made the right legalistic call here. Notice that I’m not saying anything about my views on abortion here, just pointing out flaws in the current status.
Denver1
Denver1
1 year ago
Just think, it took MISH, WSJ and the DNC Media two years to acknowledge the Biden laptop and its verified emails of kickback and corruption schemes at the highest levels of US…
And, it took ten minutes to learn from a hundred media outlets the uncorroborated, draft allegedly from the Supreme Court… verified a few hours later.
Fascism? Or, just fair journalism
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Denver1
A perfect example of why the left are so against free speech. The only way they can convince people is to stop opposing view points.
Agave
Agave
1 year ago
Reply to  KidHorn
We love free speech. We don’t try to stop it. Where do you get that foolish notion? Name one of your propaganda outlets that we’ve shut down like Putin (your Dear Leader’s hero) would to opposing media in his fascist country?
When the speech is lies, on private platforms, it is not protected free speech. Those lies happen all too much.
It’s like yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is none.
Especially from your Dear Leader and his lemmings. Worst part is, they don’t seem to even be aware that’s what’s happening with these lies.
Your politicians lie all the time, in public speeches. We counter them, but who says we try not to allow it?
Then there’s Qanon, good grief. What a crock of pure horse do that is too. More lies. Child molesting in Pizza dungeons! Jewish lasers from Space!
Just one more branch of what the nonsense crowd calls free speech.
whirlaway
whirlaway
1 year ago
Reply to  Agave
Yes. I fully trust the newly-constituted Ministry of Truth to do all the right things to protect our free speech! 😉
Ron Cataldi
Ron Cataldi
1 year ago
5 of the 9 current justices were nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote. This court is not aligned with the American majority.
RonJ
RonJ
1 year ago
Reply to  Ron Cataldi
The Court is supposed to be aligned with The Constitution.
If the majority want to amend The Constitution, The Constitution provides a constitutional means to do that.
astroboy
astroboy
1 year ago
Reply to  Ron Cataldi
Considering how dumb the American majority is, that’s a good thing. Besides, the Supreme Court justices are by definition not the elected representatives of the people.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Ron Cataldi
In the 2020 election there were about 265 million voting age adults and Joe Biden got 82 million votes, so technically no one is aligned with the American majority.
LM2022
LM2022
1 year ago
This is the consequences of court packing by two unelected presidents – tRump and Bush Jr (granted W won in 2004) along with the grotesque Moscow Mitch. Biden and the democrats should grasp the nettle, abolish the filibuster and pack the court.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  LM2022
How did trump and bush pack the court?
LM2022
LM2022
1 year ago
Reply to  KidHorn
Bush was installed president in 2000, Trump lost the popular vote and was installed anyway. 2 unelected republicans chose the justices that voted for this BS : John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, looney eyed Amy Barret and drunken gambler Brett Kavanaugh.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  LM2022
Trump and Bush won their elections.
Kick'n
Kick’n
1 year ago
Reply to  KidHorn
Bush and DT won their elections by technical knock out. Most voters did not in fact vote for them. It could have been even worse in 2020 with JB getting 7M more votes but a more narrow electoral college victory than DT got in 2020. DT got 3 picks. More than most presidents ever get, even 2 termers. Within the span of 4 years 1/3 of the entire court has been set for the next 25-30 years. You might say if the shoe were on the other foot or that was the luck of the draw but we could use a lot less luck on the method of appointments.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
Reply to  LM2022
And be thankful that they did ‘pack’ the court with intelligent people with high moral purpose. At least they know what a woman is.
Kick'n
Kick’n
1 year ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
I expect we shall find out what the legal definition of a woman is within the SC cycle.
RonJ
RonJ
1 year ago
Maybe the biggest question is, where in The Constitution, was the Supreme Court given the power to determine what is Constitutional?
The Constitution laid out the framework. Federal powers and states powers. The executive, legislative and court system. A bill of rights.
If what is Constitutional rests on the opinion of the Supreme Court, then all one has to do is stack the Supreme Court with all one mindset and the whole Bill of Rights and anything else in The Constitution, can be swept away with an OPINION of the Court, regardless what The Constitution says.
tomhtu
tomhtu
1 year ago
I can’t comprehend the rationale for abortion advocates. A woman’s right to choose? The choice is to have sex or not to have sex. To use contraception or not to use contraception. The consequence of the decision to have sex is a child. It is a positive consequence if desired and a negative one if undesired.
We need to return to being a society where people are accountable for their actions. Where there is a choice there is a consequence. Abortion is an escape from consequence and just another example of how our society fails and encourages an entitlement unaccountable to anything mentality.
Enough said, Rape is an exception in my book, the woman did not make a choice to have sex so the consequence should be permitted to be avoided. Consensual sex? No way. Deal with it. There are many folks who want a child so adoption is always an option.
LM2022
LM2022
1 year ago
Reply to  tomhtu
Oy veh. People have sex for many reasons, usually for fun and not always because they want to have a bunch of screaming kids. Secondly, the burdens of child bearing are carried by one sex. A man can easily disappear and thus have nothing to do with with the “consequences” of the decision to have sex. Third, I’m guessing you were hysterical at the thought of the government telling you to wear a mask or take a covid vaccine, you didn’t want the government telling you what to do with your body. This is kind of like that. Finally, my dad was a doctor in south Texas before Roe (before I was born), he lamented all the dead and butchered women he saw who traveled to Mexico to get a back alley abortion and then ended up in his hospital. He was staunchly conservative, staunchly republican and staunchly pro-choice.
tomhtu
tomhtu
1 year ago
Reply to  LM2022
Duh? well then use contraception? Seems pretty common sense to me.
I was vaccinated and have both boosters. Not sure why you are getting so emotional and making all these presumptions about me.
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  tomhtu
It happens when people make dumb postings.
Mr. Purple
Mr. Purple
1 year ago
Reply to  tomhtu
Are Catholics allowed to use contraception? Asking for a friend.
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  tomhtu
People have been doing abortions likely since the beginnings of human history. If they can’t be done in a clean environment, then they will be done in back alleys and dirty bathrooms. If you really want to put a dent in abortions, then prosecute the woman who partake as murders and put them in prison.
tomhtu
tomhtu
1 year ago
Reply to  Jojo
Lol. Let them do it in back alleys and dirty bathrooms then. They can risk infection for their decisions and not be incentivized or enabled by gov’t programs. Any law would never be enforced anyways. They are going to do whatever they want regardless so no need to penalize the general populace for their poor choices. The rest of us use contraception when we don’t want a child.
Kick'n
Kick’n
1 year ago
Reply to  tomhtu
I presume by your words that you have a penis? Maybe you should ask someone with a vagina about how they feel…
hmk
hmk
1 year ago
My question is: Can there be a national law passed on abortion or not? If so then I am thinking that will settle the matter. If it is not constitutional, then it will have to resort back to the states per constitutional law.
Zardoz
Zardoz
1 year ago
Reply to  hmk
I think that would require a constitutional amendment. As much as I disagree with the result, the law seems pretty clear.
Ron Cataldi
Ron Cataldi
1 year ago
How about not straddling the fence Mish? What would that law look like, if you could say?
TheCaptain
TheCaptain
1 year ago
I have to ask, why now? Why not back when trump was in charge? Why wait until the markets have peaked, until inflation is raging and unemployment is about to skyrocket? Why wait until 20 or more food processing plants have been sabotaged in the USA? If this doesn’t look to you like someone is purposefully trying to bring the USA to a state of chaos, civil war, poverty and starvation, look again. There are just too many coincidences for something not to be up.
QTPie
QTPie
1 year ago
Reply to  TheCaptain
The Supreme Court doesn’t move that fast and Trump didn’t make his final appointment until late in his term.
Zardoz
Zardoz
1 year ago
Reply to  TheCaptain

Pooty poot has been roiling our morons to sabotage our country. If we had any sense, we’d cut Russia off the internet. They are, and always have been, our enemy.

Kick'n
Kick’n
1 year ago
Reply to  Zardoz
When I saw MAGA fans wearing t-shirts saying “I’d rather be Russian than Democrat” during the 2016 campaign I think that’s when I truly realized we are in living in fantasy world.
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  TheCaptain
From the “everything’s a conspiracy” POV….
LawrenceBird
LawrenceBird
1 year ago
If the draft is accurate, Alito sets the basis for overturning many more precedents, including inter-racial marriage (safe because of Thomas?)
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  LawrenceBird
The arguments from the left against this are extremely weak.
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  LawrenceBird
Also the 2nd Amendment?
Carl_R
Carl_R
1 year ago
Really, I think we can all agree on these points:
1. No one has a right to kill another person for their own convenience
2. Everyone has a right to determine what is done to their own body
It a fetus is just a lump of tissue, it can be disposed of. If it is a person, it is not OK to kill another person for your own convenience. So, when does it become a person? Using the the principle that when everything necessary is present, it is complete at the point of conception. Using the principle “out of sight, out of mind”, it isn’t a person until it is born. Using the principle that medicine should decide, it becomes a person when it can be removed from a woman and still survive with modern medicine. You could also pick some other point, say, when it can feel and respond to pain, or when the heart begins to beat. No one of these answers is inherently right, nor inherently wrong (well, i believe that the point of birth view is clearly wrong because, if a baby is already complete to the point it can live outside the body, killing it in the birth canal via partial birth abortion is clearly murder and heinous).
An interesting thing about the abortion debates is for some reason it is often framed as “Christians versus Everyone else”. One thing I learned years ago from studying comparative religions is that it seems that most religions believe life begins as conception, while most athiests/agnostics/new age views believe it begins later, even as late as at birth. If my memory serves me, judaism, hinduism, buddhim, jainism, and islam are among the religions that believe life begins at conception.
Note that this is not a libertarian versus non-libertarian issue. I know libertarians on both sides of the issue. It all depends on when they believe life begins.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Carl_R
It has nothing to do with whether or not a baby is a person. Democrats like abortion because it lowers world population. And it has no negative effect on them. They don’t care about rights to ones body. Otherwise, why are they so adamant about everyone being vaccinated?
LawrenceBird
LawrenceBird
1 year ago
Reply to  KidHorn
because they didn’t want to die because hospitals were filled up trying to save the idiots who didn’t get vaccinated?
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  LawrenceBird
OK. Can you name someone who died because the hospitals were trying to save idiots who didn’t get vaccinated?
Zardoz
Zardoz
1 year ago
Reply to  KidHorn
Google can help you.
RonJ
RonJ
1 year ago
Reply to  Zardoz
Fareed and Tyson treated some 10,000 people with drugs the FDA obstructed, with no deaths and few hospitalizations.
As of last September, Dr. Wagshul said none of his Ivermectin treated patients had been hospitalized.
Ron Cataldi
Ron Cataldi
1 year ago
Reply to  KidHorn
RonJ
RonJ
1 year ago
Reply to  LawrenceBird
Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine and Fluvoxamine would have prevented most of that. Problem was that the Public health agencies had an agenda of mass vaccination, over early treatment. That is why so many people died: no early treatment allowed.
Zardoz
Zardoz
1 year ago
Reply to  RonJ
Toot toot! Kook alert!
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  Carl_R
Life really does not begin until 23-25.
Everything before that is just weaning.
Zardoz
Zardoz
1 year ago
Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
Even then, a solid 30% doesn’t achieve human being status.
DennisAOK
DennisAOK
1 year ago
Read the 10th Amendment, Mish. It’s pretty clear. There is no reason the abortion law must be the same in California as in Mississippi. A federal system decentralizes decision making.
LawrenceBird
LawrenceBird
1 year ago
Reply to  DennisAOK
How about inter-racial marriage?
Doug78
Doug78
1 year ago
Reply to  LawrenceBird
Irrelevant argument using the Slippery Slope argument. One has nothing to do with the other.
Zardoz
Zardoz
1 year ago
Reply to  Doug78
The common denominator is religious whackos.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  Zardoz
Thank you. Should be mentioned with regularity and more often.
Doug78
Doug78
1 year ago
Reply to  Zardoz
Yes, the Woke religion and the Evangelist are equally the common denominator. The rest of us are just looking for common sense answers.
Zardoz
Zardoz
1 year ago
Reply to  Doug78
“Woke” is a fiction dreamed up to whip dumb white people into a racist froth. Nothing more.
Doug78
Doug78
1 year ago
Reply to  Zardoz
I see you are woke and your response confirms what I said about your religion.
Zardoz
Zardoz
1 year ago
Reply to  Doug78

Schoolyard rebuttal. Would have expected better.

Doug78
Doug78
1 year ago
Reply to  Zardoz
You deny that woke exists and that it is a conspiracy to whip dumb white people into a racist froth and you tell me that my response is schoolyard? Really?
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
Reply to  LawrenceBird
Equal protection clause?
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
Reply to  DennisAOK
The Constitution grants Congress authority over interstate trade. /sarc
Doug78
Doug78
1 year ago
Since laws on homicide and generally taking lives are in the domain reserved for the states by the Constitution I don’t see why abortion laws can’t be under the same domain where each state decides their own laws. Granted state legislators don’t want to have this responsibility but it is right and proper that they be forced to do so and conform to what their voters want.
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  Doug78
There are some things that common voters should not have a choice in. Remember that 50% of the people are dumber than the other half.
A couple of quotes may be apropos:
If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
–Anatole France, French poet, journalist and novelist (1844-1924)
“Those who deny freedom for others deserve it not for themselves.”
–Abraham Lincoln, 16th US President
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
Reply to  Jojo
You presume your politicians are smarter than average. You must be kidding!
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
Perhaps the founders were onto something when they only allowed white, property holders to vote? If we required an IQ & current events test in order to vote, thus prohibiting the lower 80% say, from voting, we might get better leaders.
Since that is unlikely to occur, we must await the arrival of sentient machines to take over.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
I don’t care one way or another, but it does seem the SC made the proper decision from a legal point of view. Or will make the right decision.
Many states have eliminated abortion clinics. So, they have de facto made it illegal in their state. I think this is more of a hurt feelings kind of decision than a will change things decision.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
Reply to  KidHorn
If true, states with legal abortions will make lots of money. Look for an abortion tax, coming soon to a clinic near you.
QTPie
QTPie
1 year ago
Just wanted to point out that if abortion is indeed made illegal in certain jurisdictions then that would make the USA and Poland the only industrialized countries to outlaw abortions. Are we smarter than the rest of the world, combined? Probably not.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  QTPie
Seems most of the worlds population is under some restriction. And abortions won’t be outlawed. The ruling simply prevents federal law from over ruling state law. In the vast majority of the US, it will still be legal.
QTPie
QTPie
1 year ago
Reply to  KidHorn
I was referring to the industrialized world where, except for Poland, there are no de-facto restrictions.
billybobjr
billybobjr
1 year ago
Many thousands of unborn have been taken prematurely over the years if the mother became severely ill or injured to save the unborns life.
That is a fact that proves it is a separate life at some point before birth. People that believe it is ok to abort right up to the natural birth then
ok the murder of that child because you can’t save a life that is not there .
randocalrissian
randocalrissian
1 year ago
Reply to  billybobjr
Have you ever met or talked to someone who believes “it is ok to abort right up to the natural birth?” I certainly have not. I support a woman’s right to an abortion, but that doesn’t mean I would be there with a scalpel to collect babies as they are delivered. What kind of oversimplified straw man is that? If men never raped women (come on you freaking losers) then any argument against abortion rights would be ten times stronger with me.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
How many abortions are the result of rape? After which, jt is easy to abort any fetus… Straw argument.
billybobjr
billybobjr
1 year ago
Women have been kept alive many times in a coma state so the unborn could be taken when it was able to be saved. Many mothers babies were taken during covid before the mother died some many weeks premature . These are facts that support that the babies are a seperate life well before the due date and that has been proven time and time again thousands and thousands of times . If you can save a baby at 30 weeks then you can kill one at 30 weeks
Nonpartisan
Nonpartisan
1 year ago
Upsetting news to many of us. However, I do not understand why many of the Democrats screaming now never passed a national law on abortion. Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. There was unified democrat control of US House, US Senate, and US presidency from 1977-1981, 1993-1995, 2009-2011, and 2021-now and they did nothing. In addition, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2009. She died of metastatic pancreatic cancer in 2020. She had the entirety of the Obama administration to resign and be replaced by a liberal justice. I cannot understand how someone touted as being so brilliant could not accept that people, especially elderly people, do not beat pancreatic cancer (John Lewis, Sally Ride, Aretha Franklin, Steve Jobs, Patrick Swayze, Alex Trebek, Luciano Pavarotti etc. all could not beat that lethal disease). If Justice Ginsburg had resigned, imo this (alleged) decision never happens.
DennisAOK
DennisAOK
1 year ago
Reply to  Nonpartisan
A national law would be just as unconstitutional as Roe v. Wade. Read the constitution. it is a state matter!
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  DennisAOK
I did not know that the Constitution mentioned abortion!
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
Reply to  Jojo
It does not. Therefore, power is reserved to the states.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
Reply to  Nonpartisan
Actually, it is easy to understand, which is why Democrats took the easy way through the US Supreme Ct. Southern democrats (those august members of the KKK, strong supporters of racism, and eugenics) would never vote for legalized abortion.
Agave
Agave
1 year ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
How laughable.
Republicans are the racists, misogynists, fascists, Nazis, KKK, and oppressors of non-white people. See Tuckums Carlson for your current leader.
Dems are for equality for all and multicultural sharing of political power. For advancement based on merit, not based on white male fragility.
Any Dems who used to be that way left the party after Nixon set the tone with his dog whistles and racist division. It was called the Southern Strategy, and became the bigoted republican party’s new ethos.
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
Sometimes you have to go with political expedism.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
Let’s consider a simple hypothetical… Note the BOLD font.
Assume homosexuality is DNA-dependent.
Assume a fetal-test is discovered for homosexuality.
Assume fifty percent of parents abort their gay babies.
Should aborting gay babies be illegal? Yes or no? There is NO middle ground.
Roe vs Wade was ALWAYS the easy way out.
Doug78
Doug78
1 year ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
Or if gender preferences become important enough to abort the less-wished gender like in China.
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  Doug78
And in India and other poor 3rd world countries where males are more highly valued than females.
Once genetic tuning and pre-selection become easily available, do not doubt that the vast majority of people will take advantage of it to produce the baby they want. Everyone will then be beautiful,/handsome, well-built, high IQ, etc.
Doug78
Doug78
1 year ago
Reply to  Jojo
You mean everyone will be like me?
Doug78
Doug78
1 year ago
Reply to  Doug78
Seriously I think the Supreme Court is saying that since designer babies are quickly becoming a reality the courts can no longer shoulder the legal questions without a firm legal framework and that framework can only come from legislation with voter consent hence they are throwing it back to the states saying you decide what you want, vote the laws and then we can do our jobs. It’s actually quite astute of them.
Business Man
Business Man
1 year ago
Reply to  Doug78
Glenn Greenwald wrote a great Substack article on this. His premise is that this is too weighty of a matter to be left to 9 people in robes. It should never have been their decision in the first place, and it should go back to the People and their representatives.
If the People can’t agree, then each state will sort it out.
That was the essence and purpose of Federalism — power to the People without the tyranny of the majority (a Republic).
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
Reply to  Jojo
FYI, this is only possible with gene splicing. It will likely not be affordable to the ‘vast majority’ for a long long time. Meanwhile, the smartest people will become smarter, and the dumbest will be even dumber.
Doug78
Doug78
1 year ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
Gene splicing costs peanuts these days. The cost to splice has gone down a million-fold in the last 15 years. Take the egg out and splice these genes in and do the same with the sperm and then implant. The splicing will be the cheaper part.
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
Of course, the wealthy will get first crack at new technologies, this is the way our world works. The worry is if they will work to keep it very expensive or restricted to the wealthy only.
Business Man
Business Man
1 year ago
Reply to  Jojo
You can already pick the “best” egg through IVF. And, then you can genetically screen it to make sure there are no problems. This in itself is a major advance on traditional procreation. This is available to almost everyone.
I have to think that the speed of human evolution by our own design will increase rapidly in the next few hundred years. Unheard of, when evolution tends to occur over tens or hundreds of thousands of years.
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  Business Man
Evolution will be eliminated. Within the next 50 years or so, we will be able to build any kind of baby you want. Or build you a new body and transfer your mind into it.
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
Congress should have issued a law long ago that stated “Abortion is legal in all 50 states (up to some week count).”
That would solve the problem once and for all.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
Reply to  Jojo
Go the next step…. why did Congress not do this?
BTW, my hypothetical is constructed (clumsy though it is) so that both left and right want, and do not want abortion. What we end up with is the ultimate hypocrisy on both sides. I expected someone would point that out…
Business Man
Business Man
1 year ago
Reply to  Jojo
It’s not that simple at the Federal level, because it’s a states’ rights issue. This is primarily because the “new” opinion is that it is not a Constitutional matter, and as such is reserved for the states only. The original Roe v Wade opinion stretched legal meanings and made it a Constitutional matter, when it very likely wasn’t. The Court is recognizing that more and more matters are using these legal precedents with unintended consequences, and thus needs to fix the R v Wade error.
If the Federal government (Congress) were to issue a sweeping law, it would be challenged by certain states, and under the legal reasoning of the draft opinion, the states would succeed. This legislation is reserved for states, not for the Federal government.
This one will only be solved with a Constitutional Amendment, and I don’t see that happening anytime in the next decade.
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
This may well work to turn out Dem voters in numbers not anticipated. Wouldn’t it be interesting if this causes the Dems to keep control of Congress and realize solid 2/3 majorities?
Reps may want to ponder “Be careful what you wish for, it may come true”.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
Reply to  Jojo
The Democrats control the House, Senate, and White House. They can TRY to pass this legislation whenever they want. Instead, they want to force it through the court. I wonder what the fear is?
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
They don’t have the percent to pass such legislation. You know this. So what point did you want to state directly instead of attempting to be oblique?
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
Reply to  Jojo
Well, they hold majorities in the House and Senate… What does that tell you about the popularity of abortion on demand?
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
That the majorities aren’t big enough to counter foolish people who should not be concerned with other people’s business?
Christoball
Christoball
1 year ago
It should be easier to get building permit than to get an abortion.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
Reply to  Christoball
You need a gun permit, but no permit needed to kill a second trimester fetus. What does that say about American culture.
Zardoz
Zardoz
1 year ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
Most civilized places in the world you don’t need a fetus tag, and can’t own a gun at all.
Says nothing.
randocalrissian
randocalrissian
1 year ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
There’s lots of nutters with guns.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
And a lot more that aren’t law enforcement “professionals.”
Zardoz
Zardoz
1 year ago
Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
Are you disparaging our brave amateur law enforcement individuals? Yew mus be one o’ them demorat peedofilers…
Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020
1 year ago
The states want this really just want life to go back to pre-Roe when abortions were in back alleys and with coat hangars. They would rather have the woman die before she gets an abortion. That is a statement about how they really feel about people (especially women) after they are born.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
You should preface this by ‘IN MY OPINION’.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
OK. They want mothers to die in back alleys. And not stand up for a babies right to live. Do you get your information straight from democratic headquarters?
DennisAOK
DennisAOK
1 year ago
Most states want no such thing.
Kick'n
Kick’n
1 year ago
I have heard women say, explicitly, that they would give up their lives for the sake of their unborn baby. Politics aside, you are not far off.
Kick'n
Kick’n
1 year ago
Do fetuses now get citizenship and social security cards? Do the fetuses of pregnant immigrants now get citizenship before they are born? Under these rules a woman would not have to wait until birth to get the baby US citizenship. All she would have to do is prove the conception took place while in US territory. Quick vacation to the USA, anyone???
Webej
Webej
1 year ago

We would be better off with a national law of some sort than the tangled mess that’s about to happen.

That’s the kind of thinking that drives EU regulations and harmonization …
I don’t recall you being a supporter.
Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020
1 year ago
Reply to  Webej
I think you are confusing social issues vs economic regulations. Libertarians are for choice on almost all social issues irrespective of where one lives. This likely reversal on Roe goes against that because it limits choice based on where you live.
Webej
Webej
1 year ago
Well not really. The force driving harmonization of EU regulations (which are often compromises) is b/c it’s onerous to have 27 sets of safety regulations for say, a vacuum cleaner, or an extension chord. 300 years ago this was much less so, because most thing occurred at a local scale, but with transit & manufacture at a large scale, it doesn’t make sense to have conflicting demands.
The libertarian point of view is to have as little regulation as possible, but that support neither regional nor federal rules.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
Reply to  Webej
Please welcome Ms. Fiona Plunkett from the The Federal Department of Abortion and Euthanasia.
GaryL
GaryL
1 year ago
Well it’s consistent with the notion in some states that its not an enforceable crime to shoplift up to $1000, or to riot and burn down buildings.
Mr. Purple
Mr. Purple
1 year ago
Reply to  GaryL
Like Texas where the threshold for prosecuting theft is $2500.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Mr. Purple
Mr. Purple
Mr. Purple
1 year ago
Reply to  KidHorn
DennisAOK
DennisAOK
1 year ago
Reply to  Mr. Purple
You made this up.
Mr. Purple
Mr. Purple
1 year ago
Reply to  DennisAOK
2018. I actually nailed it.
Varth
Varth
1 year ago
Reply to  Mr. Purple
Mr. Purple, with respect you are incorrect. A Felony is one of many types of wrongs punishable by the State [ The Government]. There are many laws and ordinances that are not state jail Felonies, including theft under a certain amount. State jail Felonies can land one in six (6) months in jail in Texas. As point to educate all – often times the State of Texas intentionally charges “Attempted” xxx [violation of law] as the punishment is less severe… Think kids launching water balloons from elementary school roofs where criminal trespass is not, on balance warranted. In summary Mr. Purple if you live in Texas would love to talk with you. Please know a Felony is a life (work) impediment and there exists state punishment for theft under $2500 USD.
Mr. Purple
Mr. Purple
1 year ago
Reply to  Varth
Fair enough, amend my original comment to read “felony.” Most jurisdictions don’t have the resources to prosecute misdemeanor theft and so, de facto, misdemeanor theft is decriminalized in places one wouldn’t expect — which was my point. I’d be curious to see Texas’ data on misdemeanor theft convictions, especially with regard to race.
YVR
YVR
1 year ago
So Bhakta do you only care about a living entity that is a fetus? And not once the child is actually born? The US could care less about a human once it is born hence the mass incarcerations, mass shootings, and the hate and division in the country.
Zardoz
Zardoz
1 year ago
Reply to  YVR
Unwanted babies are great for prison profits.
goldguy
goldguy
1 year ago
The polarization of the population has begun, it will be north vs south once again. Some states will require the jab to live there, travel? Papers please…. one can see where this is headed
Esclaro
Esclaro
1 year ago
Reply to  goldguy
Yeah and some states will force you to attend the state church and eliminate free speech because it hurts their feelings if you say gay.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Esclaro
What states are those?
Mr. Purple
Mr. Purple
1 year ago
Reply to  goldguy
It has ALWAYS been North vs. South. The Civil War began before the Revolution and has continued unabated since.
Zardoz
Zardoz
1 year ago
Reply to  goldguy
We need to forcefully secede the south. They are a drag in the economy, and I think they would be happier on their own. All the cousin bangers in the remaining states can move there and be free*
*some theological restrictions may apply
Bhakta
Bhakta
1 year ago
I wish they would just make murder illegal and recognize that a body grows inside the mother only because the living being is present there. There is no difference between a “born” body and an “unborn” body, except one can be seen by everyone. Murder is murder, and murdering a helpless baby inside the mother is IMHO the most abominable and heinous of all crimes.
Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020
1 year ago
Reply to  Bhakta
Do you feel the same about other living things ?
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
How many other species kill their own offspring?
Raj Kumar
Raj Kumar
1 year ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab,
I believe female Rabbits have the ability to abort a pregnancy naturally if the environmental conditions seem to harsh to the individual.
Kick'n
Kick’n
1 year ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
Actually within a number of species (including mammals) the male will sometimes kill the offspring. Particularly if the offspring is not theirs.
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  Kick’n
This is usually done, per my watching of many Nature programs, to stop the kids from passing on their genes.
Given that anyone (outside of someone being raped) who needs an abortion is guilty of at least poor planning, then perhaps aborting their mistakes is a good thing as it prevents people with poor planning genes from entering the human race. Maybe poor IQ also.
Zardoz
Zardoz
1 year ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
Kick'n
Kick’n
1 year ago
Reply to  Zardoz
Very interesting article!
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
Note the difference between kill, and kill-and-eat.
Carl_R
Carl_R
1 year ago
Reply to  Bhakta
That would certainly have been a more defensible position than deciding not to decide. At least Roe v. Wade tried to decide when life began, and the test has been viability. It makes no sense to create a system where life begins at conception in one state, at viability in a second, and at birth in a third. What if some state defines the beginning of life at 6 months? Why is that in less rational than some other arbitrary time?
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  Bhakta
Keep wishing. It will NEVER come true.
Greenmountain
Greenmountain
1 year ago
Reply to  Bhakta
I only wish this respect and love of the fetus was shared for the mother. But I do not see any clamoring for woman’s health care to ensure the birth of healthy children. And the cost of raising this child. Until there is a true concerted effort to support mothers, this focus on the fetus is a pure smoke screen to inflame voters. If you truly care about the fetus, then ensure its health, care and feeding. That is what they need in womb and once born.
Christoball
Christoball
1 year ago
Reply to  Greenmountain
The simple solution is to have a father in the home.
Carl_R
Carl_R
1 year ago
Reply to  Christoball
We created a welfare system back in the 1960’s designed specifically to encourage the father to live elsewhere. Apparently it is preferred to have the father not in the home.
Zardoz
Zardoz
1 year ago
Reply to  Carl_R
No, that system was to prevent the mom and kids from starving when dad left. There’s also a thing called ‘child support’ that dad can get locked up for not paying.
But a secret conspiracy makes you feel clever, so you’ll go with that.
Carl_R
Carl_R
1 year ago
Reply to  Zardoz
Regardless of what was in the minds of those that voted for the bill, the consequences were indisputable: the bill was remarkably effective is causing fathers to leave the home. In the 1950s there were very few single parent homes. By 1980 there were very many of them, and they have been common ever since.
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  Christoball
Even if he is a drunk, drug user or ne’er-do-well? Same for the mother.
Christoball
Christoball
1 year ago
Reply to  Jojo
Many women prefer to have the government for a husband instead of a man. I know so many gorgeous women who pick the worst men. Whenever a nice guy comes around they are not interested because there is no excitement or drama. The great society has allowed this to be affordable.
Zardoz
Zardoz
1 year ago
Reply to  Greenmountain

The same people advocate killing adults for a plethora of reasons. They don’t give a crap about anything but control.

ILHawk
ILHawk
1 year ago
Why not an article on the negative impact of Roe on the economy, especially now with labor shortages and a non-bell shaped population?
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  ILHawk
So you’re worried that abortions are so high that it might be cutting into the future workforce?
If so I have a word for you: ROBOTS.
ILHawk
ILHawk
1 year ago
Reply to  Jojo
Talking about the damage already done. You knew that and your smart enough to know that.
Greggg
Greggg
1 year ago
Watched this for a long time. SCOTUS has been concerned with the number of cases appearing before the court every year since the Roe decision. They just wanted the monkey off their backs and shifted the burden to the states to take the pressure off their backs. I am waiting for them to do the same with qualified immunity. The backlash will be much worse for a reversal of qualified immunity than the Roe reversal, but it’s coming. Look out for that one.
Kick'n
Kick’n
1 year ago
Politically we are already in fantasy land. Up is down, down is up. The tape where you hear me saying words? Those are “in fact” not the words I said. The true test will come if the Republicans take control and they look for election fraud and find “evidence”. Worse,if they try to somehow nullify the 2020 election just to spite the libs. Then authoritarianism will have begun in America… The orange man was just the preface. Oh, fun fact, narcissism will be rewarded so look for a lot more it.
Esclaro
Esclaro
1 year ago
Reply to  Kick’n
Dude, it’s over already. The Republicans are making sure they never “lose” another election again. Like the old USSR the new USSA will have sham elections where only the Republicans win. 2020 was the end of the republic – all hail the new Christian Republic of the USSA!
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Esclaro
If true, why didn’t they rig the 2020 election?
Zardoz
Zardoz
1 year ago
Reply to  KidHorn

Incompetence. It wasn’t for lack of trying. They’re still crying about the failure.

Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
Reply to  Kick’n
And if there really was election fraud covered up, we should just ignore it, like the entire Russiagate scandal now emerging?
This is not about ‘to spite the libs.’ It is to get to the truth, whatever it is.
Kick'n
Kick’n
1 year ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
In order to find election fraud covered up we first need to find election fraud. Out of 3.2M votes in Arizona only 9 cases of fraud were found. That’s typical in most states. Republican election officials signed off on 10’s of millions of votes. Were they in on the big steal too? I ask you what will we see first? Mike Lindell’s “evidence”, DT present his own tax returns, or Jesus’s second coming? I’m going with the last. And lastly, will you ever accept as the truth that the election was free and fair? Do you want to personally count all 150M votes? At one/second 24/7 that will take you almost 5 years to complete. Then there’s several million more voters who would like to do the same. If you are searching for something that doesn’t exist you will never find it and never be satisfied. Hence the right will only be satisfied when they find “something”. So manufacturing it will find great favor whether it is truth or not. If they “find” anything of “great consequence” then election integrity will be over in America and Putin will have gotten what he wanted.
RonJ
RonJ
1 year ago
Reply to  Kick’n
Facebook, Twitter, Google, meddled in the 2020 election. The mainstream media meddled in the election. Zuckerberg meddled in the election with his Zuckerbucks. 50 former intelligence officials meddled in the election. The Presidential Debate Commission meddled in the election. Some state election laws were unconstitutionally changed to meddle in the election.
That doesn’t look free and fair at all.
Kick'n
Kick’n
1 year ago
Reply to  RonJ
Fraud is a specific term. Influence is not the same thing. Meddling must be better defined. You forgot the influence/meddling of 2016 as well as the involvement of Russia and China. Did anyone do anything about that? They looked for 5M illegal votes (which would actually constitute fraud) in 2016 as per the orange baby. Did anyone ever find them? Your only question worth answering is changes in election law. That was up to individual states and those changes were ratified and challenges made and ruled upon. There was a pandemic in case you missed it and emergency measures had to be taken. There wasn’t time to challenge ad nauseam. Most of the changes benefited everyone. If your gripe is that some eligible people voted that would not have otherwise then you are tasting sour grapes. If you are wondering where the extra 7M votes came from they were from NY and California. Based on the Electoral College the vote was actually closer than 2016. But that only makes it more perilous. Imagine a candidate winning 7 Million more votes (+4.5%) and still losing the election? When the minority rules that doesn’t sound like democracy does it?
Sad when you think about it. DT couldn’t win his home state. Even Walter Mondale won his home state when he got clobbered by Reagan.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Kick’n
Because the republicans are the ones trying to remove people from the ballot because they were involved in January 6th.
Zardoz
Zardoz
1 year ago
Reply to  KidHorn
Traitors don’t get to run for office. Inconceivable!
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  Kick’n
This should be settled once and for all.
The election was not stolen.
The election was bought and sold.
Just like always.
Just like the next election.
America has the best government money can buy.
Kick'n
Kick’n
1 year ago
Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
There is much truth to that as it takes a lot of money to run and the two parties provide the means and a lock on the process. I am surprised that so many candidates are not even being allowed to run in party primaries. Particularly the GOP right now. Not a fan of the GOP as it is but that doesn’t sound very democratic. Maybe it will spur a new party. But Americans seem to keep electing too many liars and expecting different results. Are there no trustworthy politicians left?
Eighthman
Eighthman
1 year ago
Add on the border situation, gun and immigrant sanctuary and drug nullification. The result will be Confederacy 2.0. I thought Russian analysts were crazy to predict a breakup of the US. Now, I can see something like that is inevitable especially if the economy falls apart.
Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020
1 year ago
Reply to  Eighthman
Exactly my thoughts. I believe a Russian oligarch predicted this in the early 2000s.
Karlmarx
Karlmarx
1 year ago
Reply to  Eighthman
“IF” the economy falls apart – you mean when right?
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Eighthman
I heard the same thing after Trump beat Hillary in 2016.
goldguy
goldguy
1 year ago
It was leaked, look at all the people in protesting!
Let’s see if the protesting changes the mind’s of the justices.
Guess we will see how woke they are…
Esclaro
Esclaro
1 year ago
This is the beginning of the Christian Republic of the USSA making AmeriKKKa safe for white Christians. If you are not a white Christian it’s time for you to leave now! Find another country!
RunnerDan
RunnerDan
1 year ago
Reply to  Esclaro
Rather ironic given that the unborn “of color” are disproportionately murdered at Planned Parenthood. The Christians (of all colors, we should note) are fighting to save them, actually.
Agave
Agave
1 year ago
Reply to  RunnerDan
No, they are fighting to ensure white xtian patriarchy and control women. They could care less about the fetus.
Bhakta
Bhakta
1 year ago
Reply to  Esclaro
Better you leave and let those who respect a baby’s right to life stay.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
Reply to  Esclaro
FYI, the Planned Parent movement came out of Eugenics. Study history, not propaganda.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Esclaro
What absurd hyperbole.
goldguy
goldguy
1 year ago

If it turns out to true, it’s the first shot to begin the next civil war.

Carl_R
Carl_R
1 year ago
Reply to  goldguy
Idk. It’s still a kind of wishy washy decision. They basically decided not to decide, and left it up to the individual states. When does a “person” exist? That, after all, is the issue, isn’t it? Some say from the point of conception, while others say, from the point it emerges from the birth canal, and still others take a point in between, such as “when it is capable of feeling pain”, or “when a heartbeat is detectable”, or “when it is viable”. We all agree that once it is a “person”, it is wrong to kill it. We just can’t agree when that point is.
Suppose, for example, they had decided that from the moment of conception, the unborn child was to be treated as a human, with full constitutional rights? That might have triggered a war. Now we’re going to have a crazy hodge podge where “a person” comes into existence at different times in different states. We can’t agree when that time should be, but we can all agree that it’s crazy for it to be at different times in different states.
Carl_R
Carl_R
1 year ago
Reply to  goldguy
What we almost certainly will see is court packing, to make the Supreme Court irrelevant. The Dems will take the Court to 15, and then when Republicans take over, it goes to 30. Then the Democrats gain power again and it goes to 60, and then to 120, and so on. In a few decades the Court could have 1000 people, and be unable to decide any case.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Carl_R
There isn’t enough time to get this done. it takes months for a single nominee to make it through. And this is without stalling. There’s no way this can be done prior to January.
Carl_R
Carl_R
1 year ago
It’s a surprise to me. I expected the court to stick with viability as the determining factor, which, as medicine improves, means the age at which abortion can be done gets earlier and earlier, and eventually becomes illegal as the age of viability approaches the age of conception.
Agave
Agave
1 year ago
Reply to  Carl_R
Why surprised? All of us Democrats knew they were lying under oath when they claimed they would respect precedence.
It’s an illegitimate court, stolen by Moscow Mitch by denying Garland a hearing, then lying about not giving hearings before an upcoming election with Barrett. Stacked by the Federalists. All started when they stole the election from Al Gore in 2000. We give them neither respect nor credence, because they deserve none. We are the majority in this country, notwithstanding the nonsense that is the electoral college and equal Senate representation by state. They are a pack of 19th century constipated bigots, pure and simple.
This court, and that party, want to take away our rights. Long fought for and hard won. This is just the beginning. They already allowed unlimited money through Citizen’s United which has really messed up our system, then gutted voting rights. Allowed massive gerrymandering. Next are other parts of the christofascist agenda like trying to ban abortion nationally, banning birth control, gay marriage, removing separation of church and state, etc. Just watch.
Not only will it infuriate the Dems who value our rights, but it will be the beginning of enormous unrest and more. Bank on it. We are playing the long game. They are poking a sleeping giant.
Business Man
Business Man
1 year ago
Reply to  Agave
“The poking of a sleeping giant.”
Delusions of Grandeur.
We are all shivering in our boots, waiting for the purple hairs and noserings to commit mostly peaceful insurrection of institutions they have already loudly announced they have hated for years now.
Yawn.
whirlaway
whirlaway
1 year ago
Reply to  Agave
Oh, stuff it! It was YOUR DONORcrat leaders who were lying to you Dumbocrat voters! They had so many years to codify Roe v Wade into law, and yet they didn’t. Why? Because they wanted to cynically use it to get you fools to vote for them again and again and again.
As for Garland, recall that Oscama, instead of fighting to get Garland a hearing, went about campaigning for the effing TPP during the 2016 election campaign season (even as his bloodthirsty former Secretary of State was pretending to be against it!) ?
Next, Al Gore in 2000. Who pinned a gold medal on GW Bush many years after GWB lied us into their war on Iraq? Joe F Biden!
If the Dumbocrat voters were to ever get infuriated, their target must be their own DONORcrat leaders who have taken them for a ride for at least 30 years, if not longer. But they won’t. There is a *reason* why they are called Dumbocrats!
Agave
Agave
1 year ago
Reply to  whirlaway
“Oh, stuff it! It was YOUR DONORcrat leaders who were lying to you
Dumbocrat voters! They had so many years to codify Roe v Wade into
law, and yet they didn’t. Why?”
Because it takes 60 Senate votes and the other party would filibuster it. Duh.
The rest of your comments are too absurd to bother addressing.
whirlaway
whirlaway
1 year ago
Reply to  Agave
No wonder you are a Dumbocrat! How could the Republicans pass anything they wanted (including Supreme Court nominations) with less than 60 votes? That’s right, fella. They blew up the damn filibuster!
DONORcrats are big frauds. They claim to be pro-choice, and then nominate anti-abortion candidates like Tim Kaine to the highest offices in the land.

And of course, you had no answer to the rest of my comments. Would be too much to expect from a *Dumbocrat*, wouldn’t it?! LOL

RonJ
RonJ
1 year ago
Reply to  Agave
“Not only will it infuriate the Dems who value our rights”
Dems oppose gun rights and free speech rights, among others. They do not value our rights.
Agave
Agave
1 year ago
Reply to  RonJ
Republicans are liars and wanna be dictators. Constantly, and they’ve molded their voters through decades of media and internet propaganda to accept it.
Kevin McCarthy lied recently about what he said during the insurrection attempt, then he lied about his lie.
The previous president lied nonstop. Then he lied about election fraud to the dimwits that support him, knowing he was lying. Because he’s a liar, and his voters like that. Real voter fraud? The few cases of people using their dead relatives to vote twice have been….almost all trumpublican liars.
His cabinet advisors and family lied regularly when they polluted our White House. It’s just another day at work for those sociopaths.
Dems oppose unrestricted distribution and use of automatic weapons of war by citizens, and support sensible gun control. Not against sensible gun ownership at all. So that’s a lie.
Dems support free speech – when it isn’t lies. Who’s banning books? Who’s burning books? Republicans, of course. Who’s trying to tell schools what they can and cannot teach? Republicans of course.
Who lied constantly on Twitter and got banned? Liars, that’s who. That is not free speech, it is lies.
Who’s the real cancel culture? Republicans of course. Don’t say gay. Don’t teach the truth about history, because it hurts precious white people. Don’t go against Lord Donald or we’ll primary and destroy you. Take away basic voting rights by making it exceptionally difficult for certain groups of Democrats to vote easily. On and on.
They talk about states rights. Nonsense. They only want it when it helps their positions. Then they try to shut it down whenever blue states use it to protect our rights, and dictate from DC when they control it.
Blatant hypocrisy and projection. Then lying about it.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  Agave
I gotta agree.
The whole country should be run by the big Blue city voters.
The rest of the country should not bother voting.
Agave
Agave
1 year ago
Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
Until the “rest of the country” stops voting in seditionist leaders who plan violent coups to overthrow the fairest election in history based on their Big Lie and the rubes who believe it, I don’t see why they think they should control the government. That’s not who we are.
There used to be a republican party that acted as a loyal opposition. That’s gone now. It’s become a rogue autocratic wannabe, and no, we do not need fascism here.
shamrock
shamrock
1 year ago
Gay marriage is next. Right to be gay at all follows. The next liberal court is free to overturn all those pesky 2nd amendment decisions.
Christoball
Christoball
1 year ago
Reply to  shamrock
What if the Gay genome was isolated and parents were electing to terminate pregnancies based on proclivities. Would that finally become human rights violation??????
kiers
kiers
1 year ago
Biden von Papen! Weimar is on it’s last legs. Thanks uncle Clyburne! Biden is the fall of weimar!
Mr. Purple
Mr. Purple
1 year ago
Good luck getting Congress to act on abortion. Congress can’t even agree on the shape of the negotiating table. Laboratories of democracy is what the USSC wants, and it is what they will have.
All of this is just setting the thermostat higher in America’s perpetual civil war.
kiers
kiers
1 year ago
Reply to  Mr. Purple
Weimar. Biden is sleeping. Helluva guy eh?
Mr. Purple
Mr. Purple
1 year ago
Reply to  kiers
So who’s Hitler?
kiers
kiers
1 year ago
Reply to  Mr. Purple
Soon to emerge. Could be orange part deux. Could be. stay tuned.
Mr. Purple
Mr. Purple
1 year ago
Reply to  kiers
So Trump’s 1st term was the Beer Hall Putsch. And the interregnum is time spent in Munich prison. Seems legit. History does rhyme after all.
Sunriver
Sunriver
1 year ago
Out of sight, Out of mind – The humanist definition of life.
Since2008
Since2008
1 year ago
Doesn’t seem absurd to me. Seems good. If a person doesn’t like one State’s law then vote with your feet and move to a different State.
Mr. Purple
Mr. Purple
1 year ago
Reply to  Since2008
You may want to cover up your privilege, it’s dangling for all to see.
kiers
kiers
1 year ago
Reply to  Mr. Purple
it will only be fair to hunt down the biological father of every out of wedlock baby, and punish him for casting seed about.
RunnerDan
RunnerDan
1 year ago
Reply to  kiers
Where “punish” is docking his pay. If he’s on the dole, then dock that too. Perfectly fair and reasonable.
Christoball
Christoball
1 year ago
Reply to  kiers
Or perhaps he could sue to preserve the unborn child’s life so he can be the child’s dad, and have someone to take camping and fishing.
RunnerDan
RunnerDan
1 year ago
Reply to  Since2008
Local laws is a good start, but if we want to stay true to the principals of the Constitution (Right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), then abortion needs to be outlawed since its murder. Those arguing otherwise are just modern day John C. Calhouns.
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  RunnerDan
It’s murder in your simple mind.
Agave
Agave
1 year ago
Reply to  Since2008
Forcing a raped woman to keep her baby. Potential death penalties for abortion.
S c r e w you.
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  Since2008
Everyone should be treated equally across all 50 states.

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.