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.
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
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.
First they came for abortion….and i did not speak up because…well look up Martin Niemöller for the rest.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I expect we shall find out what the legal definition of a woman is within the SC cycle.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I presume by your words that you have a penis? Maybe you should ask someone with a vagina about how they feel…
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.
I think that would require a constitutional amendment. As much as I disagree with the result, the law seems pretty clear.
Ron Cataldi
1 year ago
How about not straddling the fence Mish? What would that law look like, if you could say?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Even then, a solid 30% doesn’t achieve human being status.
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.
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?
The Constitution grants Congress authority over interstate trade. /sarc
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.
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
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.
If true, states with legal abortions will make lots of money. Look for an abortion tax, coming soon to a clinic near you.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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
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”.
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?
Are you disparaging our brave amateur law enforcement individuals? Yew mus be one o’ them demorat peedofilers…
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Talking about the damage already done. You knew that and your smart enough to know that.
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I heard the same thing after Trump beat Hillary in 2016.
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
“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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
1 year ago
Biden von Papen! Weimar is on it’s last legs. Thanks uncle Clyburne! Biden is the fall of weimar!
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.
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.
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.
Schoolyard rebuttal. Would have expected better.
I don’t recall you being a supporter.
The same people advocate killing adults for a plethora of reasons. They don’t give a crap about anything but control.
Incompetence. It wasn’t for lack of trying. They’re still crying about the failure.
If it turns out to true, it’s the first shot to begin the next civil war.
Dumbocrat voters! They had so many years to codify Roe v Wade into
law, and yet they didn’t. Why?”
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