U.S. Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision

[AleronIves]

That's a fair criticism, but it also highlights just how broken our democracy is, as the Democratic defense of abortion rights has always been tepid at best. They aren't a leftist party, they're center-right, or republican lite.

The lack of a true political left in the US isn't really the subject at hand. Everyone who cares about the separation of powers and other fundamental constitutional principles should be wary of the move towards executive action and legislating from the bench as a substitute for a functional legislature.

 

[Foxi4]

The lack of a true political left in the US isn't really the subject at hand. Everyone who cares about the separation of powers and other fundamental constitutional principles should be wary of the move towards executive action and legislating from the bench as a substitute for a functional legislature.

Correct. If the SCOTUS can decide that just about anything fits into one of the many provisions of the constitution via some kind of convoluted and nonsensical train of thought then there really is no reason for congress or state legislatures to exist at all - all you need is a panel of wisemen making arbitrary decisions. That’s indistinguishable from dictatorship as far as I’m concerned. There are checks and balances on every level of government, the SCOTUS should not be exempt from scrutiny.

 

[AleronIves]

If the SCOTUS can decide that just about anything fits into one of the many provisions of the constitution via some kind of convoluted and nonsensical train of thought then there really is no reason for congress or state legislatures to exist at all - all you need is a panel of wisemen making arbitrary decisions.

Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the concept of judicial review itself? As I understand it, it's another example of a power that the SCOTUS essentially gave to itself, despite the Constitution not saying that the courts can strike down laws for being unconstitutional.

AFAIK, the UK does not have the concept of judicial review at all. If Parliament passes a law that the people don't like, they can't go to the courts to strike it down. The only way to get rid of it is to elect different MPs who can then repeal it by passing new legislation.

There are checks and balances on every level of government, the SCOTUS should not be exempt from scrutiny.

Recent history suggests the checks on the SCOTUS are inadequate, which is a big part of the problem. The only checks are the President's ability to nominate judges and the Senate's ability to decline them; once you're on the court, you're untouchable. The fact that all nominees essentially lie under oath during their confirmation hearings to avoid being "borked" makes the confirmation process useless if there's no way to hold nominees accountable after their appointment.

On the other hand, the SCOTUS can't worry about members being removed for making unpopular decisions without tainting the resulting decisions, so a recall process probably won't help, either. The best option appears to be term limits, although it's unclear if a Constitutional amendment is required to implement that.

 

[Xzi]

Having the SCOTUS pull legislation out of a hat at will whenever Congress can’t push their agenda through is less freedom, not more - it removes one of the quintessential checks against government tyranny.

I disagree entirely. If a court decision grants us more freedoms and liberties that we would not otherwise have, then reversing that decision is government tyranny. Particularly if it's reversed based on unsound logic and religious dogma.

Neither privacy nor abortion are enumerated or even mentioned in passing anywhere in the constitution. *Aspects* of privacy are, because privacy as a right would automatically require the government to refrain from investigating citizens, even if it has good reason to. There is nothing in or outside of the constitution that indicates its authors, or the authors of the subsequent amendments, had any intention to include abortion rights in the document.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: constitutional originalism is no different from extremism. It's a living document created for the sole purpose of being expanded upon and interpreted in such a way that the American people are granted more rights and liberties over time. Any SCOTUS justice who would instead dig deep for interpretations that strip away our rights and liberties is a threat to both our democracy and our very way of life.

Nobody’s stripping away anyone’s rights - it wasn’t a right to begin with.

And what's to stop the conservative justices from claiming this about all our rights? "Well, this amendment wasn't there when the constitution was ratified, so it grants rights that weren't rights to begin with. Repealed." Slow-boiling the frog has always been a major pillar of long-term fascist strategy.

Their defense of the issue was tepid because they operated under the impression that the SC will cover their ass until the end of time.

No, their defense of the issue is tepid because they're largely a Christian party, and they allow Republicans to define much of what Christian morals/values are in this country. Yet another way in which they're controlled opposition, and another example of why so many US citizens don't have their beliefs and interests properly represented in government.

The court should *never* be used like that, by any party - the text is what it is, and if you’re reading between the lines, you should do so both carefully and at your own peril.

Again, the reasoning behind the repeal is much more of a stretch than the reasoning behind the initial decision, and the majority opinion references pretty much everything except the constitution. Whether they want to admit to it or not, I think the Buffalo mass shooter and conservative SCOTUS justices have something in common, and that's belief in the "great replacement" conspiracy theory. Barrett's "domestic supply of infants for adoption" quote in particular comes off sounding very 1488.

Additionally, three of the justices had major conflicts of interest in this case, to the extent two of them should've recused and one should've been under investigation. A rapist, a religious cultist, and a known insurrectionist cannot and did not remain impartial on abortion. The court lacks both credibility and integrity right now, and there will soon come a day where their rulings are openly defied because of it.

 

[tabzer]

See the thing is we have no shortage of medical professionals willing to provide abortion services, even in red states. They simply created a hostile environment surrounding abortion clinics even before this leak happened, as well as chipping away at them via malicious regulations that even other healthcare providers did not have to adhere to.

I was just wondering about the difference in nuance between,"it's a right" vs "it's legal". I hear both said, seemingly interchangeably. The primary seems to suggest that provisions will be made where the latter may suggest that it is not a concern.

 

[Xzi]

I was just wondering about the difference in nuance between,"it's a right" vs "it's legal". I hear both said, seemingly interchangeably. The primary seems to suggest that provisions will be made where the latter may suggest that it is not a concern.

At least two-thirds of Americans believe it is a human right to have access to abortion services. By default then, all of them also believe it must remain legal.

 

[AleronIves]

And what's to stop the conservative justices from claiming this about all our rights? "Well, this amendment wasn't there when the constitution was ratified, so it grants rights that weren't rights to begin with. Repealed."

This is nonsense. The whole point of amendments is that they are part of the Constitution and carry equal weight with the provisions that came before (unless the amendment was written specifically to repeal a previous amendment, e.g. the 21st amendment repealing the 18th amendment's prohibition of alcohol sale and manufacture in the US). The idea that justices can simply ignore amendments is a straw man to discredit the notion that justices shouldn't claim the Constitution says things it doesn't say in order to achieve a desired outcome.

I will partially agree with you, however, when it comes to the concept of judicial review. If either the SCOTUS or a state supreme court can strike down new amendments as being unconstitutional, that seems to violate the separation of powers by giving the courts more power than the other branches. The amendments process is intentionally difficult to complete to ensure that only widely supported notions can be added as amendments, and if courts can subvert that, it undermines an enumerated power of the legislative and executive branches to change the Constitution. On the other hand, what should the courts do if the people pass an amendment that directly contradicts an existing amendment without first repealing said amendment? Constitutional law is a tricky subject.

No, their defense of the issue is tepid because they're largely a Christian party, and they allow Republicans to define much of what Christian morals/values are in this country.

I think your views of Republicans are a few decades out of date. A largely Christian party would not have chosen a serial liar, adulterer, and conman as its presidential nominee.

the reasoning behind the repeal is much more of a stretch than the reasoning behind the initial decision

It might interest you to know that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, arguably one of the most influential advocates for women's rights of her generation, was critical of Roe. In short, she thought that the right to abortion should have been secured gradually through state legislatures and courts, rather than handed down from on high, thus prematurely cutting off the abortion debate and giving anti-abortion advocates an easy single target ever since. She also thought the basis of Roe was faulty, and that it should have been rooted in equal protection for women, rather than privacy rights.

 

[Xzi]

The idea that justices can simply ignore amendments is a straw man to discredit the notion that justices shouldn't claim the Constitution says things it doesn't say in order to achieve a desired outcome.

This is precisely what my argument is, that the repeal of Roe v Wade took more "reading between the lines" and "creative interpretation" than the initial decision. So in a sense I do agree with you and Foxi that these things are bad, but if takes more of them to repeal a decision, well then two wrongs don't make a right.

I think your views of Republicans are a few decades out of date. A largely Christian party would not have chosen a serial liar, adulterer, and conman as its presidential nominee.

I was actually talking about the Democratic party there. The Republican party's base largely consists of Evangelicals and Southern Bapists, and while I agree that they don't actually follow the teachings of the new testament in any significant way, they still call themselves Christian nonetheless.

It might interest you to know that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, arguably one of the most influential advocates for women's rights of her generation, was critical of Roe. In short, she thought that the right to abortion should have been secured gradually through state legislatures and courts, rather than handed down from on high, thus prematurely cutting off the abortion debate and giving anti-abortion advocates an easy single target ever since. She also thought the basis of Roe was faulty, and that it should have been rooted in equal protection for women, rather than privacy rights.

And that would be a reasonable stance to take, if we lived in a more democratic/representative system where at least one of the major political parties was entirely and unapologetically pro-choice. We don't live in that system, however, and again I don't believe there was any point within the last fifty years where Roe could've been successfully codified into federal law. That means we have to fiercely defend any and all rights gained over time, regardless of the process through which they were gained. The ends justify the means when it comes to expanding freedoms and liberties, but never when it comes to stripping them away.

 

[Foxi4]

I disagree entirely. If a court decision grants us more freedoms and liberties that we would not otherwise have, then reversing that decision is government tyranny. Particularly if it's reversed based on unsound logic and religious dogma.

The government doesn’t grant freedom, liberty or rights - they are innate, or if you’re religious, god-given. In America people simply agreed to enumerate them in a document so there’s no disagreement regarding what those rights are. If people think they have more rights than what is enumerated, there’s a system permitting them to expand the document. They’re welcome to do that, they’re not welcome to pretend that they can’t read.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: constitutional originalism is no different from extremism. It's a living document created for the sole purpose of being expanded upon and interpreted in such a way that the American people are granted more rights and liberties over time. Any SCOTUS justice who would instead dig deep for interpretations that strip away our rights and liberties is a threat to both our democracy and our very way of life.

Living document, yes. Amended, yes. Interpreted? Only through the lens of what the words actually mean in context. 300 years from now someone will find a very dusty server hard drive with a log of this conversation - I would like to think that whoever reads it won’t “interpret” it to mean that you were my wife because I called you “buddy”, and that’s how they call wives in 2320. The author of the words had something specific in mind, and it is our job to determine what that was. If the language is archaic, we have access to their notes, personal letters and other work in which they clearly described their positions. We can’t just say they meant something different because the language has changed, that’s ridiculous.

And what's to stop the conservative justices from claiming this about all our rights? "Well, this amendment wasn't there when the constitution was ratified, so it grants rights that weren't rights to begin with. Repealed." Slow-boiling the frog has always been a major pillar of long-term fascist strategy.

Oh, nothing important - just the constitution. The constitution stops that from happening.

No, their defense of the issue is tepid because they're largely a Christian party, and they allow Republicans to define much of what Christian morals/values are in this country. Yet another way in which they're controlled opposition, and another example of why so many US citizens don't have their beliefs and interests properly represented in government.

If you say so. My take is that they got to the 1 yard line and sat down.

Again, the reasoning behind the repeal is much more of a stretch than the reasoning behind the initial decision, and the majority opinion references pretty much everything except the constitution. Whether they want to admit to it or not, I think the Buffalo mass shooter and conservative SCOTUS justices have something in common, and that's belief in the "great replacement" conspiracy theory. Barrett's "domestic supply of infants for adoption" quote in particular comes off sounding very 1488.

I don’t care about their reasoning for the repeal. I only care about whether Roe v. Wade is a correct decision or not. It is incorrect, therefore it should be repealed.

Additionally, three of the justices had major conflicts of interest in this case, to the extent two of them should've recused and one should've been under investigation. A rapist, a religious cultist, and a known insurrectionist cannot and did not remain impartial on abortion. The court lacks both credibility and integrity right now, and there will soon come a day where their rulings are openly defied because of it.

That’s slander, and is at odds with freedom of religion as guaranteed by the constitution.

Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the concept of judicial review itself? As I understand it, it's another example of a power that the SCOTUS essentially gave to itself, despite the Constitution not saying that the courts can strike down laws for being unconstitutional.

AFAIK, the UK does not have the concept of judicial review at all. If Parliament passes a law that the people don't like, they can't go to the courts to strike it down. The only way to get rid of it is to elect different MPs who can then repeal it by passing new legislation.

Recent history suggests the checks on the SCOTUS are inadequate, which is a big part of the problem. The only checks are the President's ability to nominate judges and the Senate's ability to decline them; once you're on the court, you're untouchable. The fact that all nominees essentially lie under oath during their confirmation hearings to avoid being "borked" makes the confirmation process useless if there's no way to hold nominees accountable after their appointment.

On the other hand, the SCOTUS can't worry about members being removed for making unpopular decisions without tainting the resulting decisions, so a recall process probably won't help, either. The best option appears to be term limits, although it's unclear if a Constitutional amendment is required to implement that.

Judicial review can be logically inferred from article 3 and 4. In the instance of two or more laws conflicting with each other, it is the sworn duty of the judiciary to determine the boundaries of each law. That being said, they are not the legislature. Putting excessive checks on the SCOTUS would interfere in its function, but we may have been too trusting of those given the vote of confidence to sit on the highest court in the land. Their job, one and only job, is to determine the constitutionality of laws put before them. If a given justice gives opinions tainted by party affiliation or ideological bias, the hope is that other justices will balance that injustice out. Not a great check, but in a perfect world, the SCOTUS would be a check on itself, by the virtue of justices being appointed for life (no danger of political pressure) and by various different presidents (allowing the pendulum to swing back and forth). Sadly, sometimes a curve ball slips past the goalie, so ultimately the biggest check on all of government are the people, who can only be governed by consent. In short, I think judicial review in useful, maybe even necessary, but also dangerous. Somebody needs to have the authority to nullify unjust legislation, and justices seem to be the ideal pick, considering the judiciary exists specifically to interpret law.

As you mention in another post, abortion, like any other polarising issue, should go through the pipeline of public debate and legislation. That process was interrupted abruptly by having the court decide upon it unilaterally instead, thus ending the debate. Legal scholars have been critical of this decision from day 1, it should come as no surprise that a house built on sand eventually crumbles. The time since making this decision was wasted, so if it is repealed, we may end up back at square one. Is that a good, or a bad thing, only time can tell.

 

[Xzi]

The government doesn’t grant freedom, liberty or rights - they are innate, or if you’re religious, god-given.

If only. Every freedom, liberty, and right we have in America was hard won through blood, sweat, tears, and a significant portion of the populace willing to be disruptive to the system.

Oh, nothing important - just the constitution. The constitution stops that from happening.

A piece of paper cannot defend itself, regardless of what's written on it. Clearly any checks and balances we have right now against SCOTUS going rogue are not sufficient enough.

I don’t care about their reasoning for the repeal. I only care about whether Roe v. Wade is a correct decision or not. It is incorrect, therefore it should be repealed.

Whether you care or not is irrelevant, incorrect reasoning for the repeal makes the repeal itself incorrect. The reasoning behind their decisions represents nearly the entirety of what makes or breaks the court's reputation.

That’s slander, and is at odds with freedom of religion as guaranteed by the constitution.

The constitution also guarantees the freedom from religion, aka separation of church and state. Barrett's entire worldview is informed by the religious cult she grew up in and continues to participate in to this day, how could it not be. For that reason she never should've been confirmed as a supreme court justice, and I'd argue even a federal judgeship is too much power to grant to a "handmaid" (actual title that she holds). She cannot simultaneously represent the roughly 1700 loonies in her cult while also representing interests of the American populace writ large.

 

[Creamu]

You sound like you're pro socialism and think these parents have the right to my finances, time and effort. You're wrong. I care about the child as much as I care about any random person, but it's not my responsibility to raise it and make sure it has a decent upbringing. That's the parents job.

Don't you see any value in making sure you have happy healthy young people around when you grow old?

 

[Creamu]

There’s some scientific evidence to support that notion, so I have no reason to disagree. Radiation in general affects living beings, and the structure of DNA - this is a question of frequency and power. Whether that has a quantifiable effect on how your microbiome affects you remains to be seen.

If you are interested you can check out my thread on this topic:
https://gbatemp.net/threads/dna-changes-of-microbiomes-by-emf.612392/
take care

 

[Foxi4]

If you are interested you can check out my thread on this topic:
https://gbatemp.net/threads/dna-changes-of-microbiomes-by-emf.612392/
take care

I’m not interested - I know how radiation works. Is this some kind of 5G tinfoil thing? Because I’m not particularly concerned, based on the numbers involved.

 

[Creamu]

I’m not interested - I know how radiation works.

Cool, maybe you could contribute with your knowledge.

Is this some kind of 5G tinfoil thing?

No, it's about repopulation of the microbiome. There are modernday factors that weren't at play throughout most of human evoltuion that impact the microbiome. An imptorant factor of many is a way more sterile lifestyle with a lot pasturized food products for example.

Because I’m not particularly concerned, based on the numbers involved.

I don't know the details about 5G. If you have some insight I would be happy to hear about it.

 

[Foxi4]

If only. Every freedom, liberty, and right we have in America was hard won through blood, sweat, tears, and a significant portion of the populace willing to be disruptive to the system.

I’m not opposed to civil disobedience. You’re forgetting that I don’t like the government. The government governs by consent - if there’s no consent, there can be no government. Your country is built on rebellion, figure it out. Just don’t lie, which is the foundation of Roe v. Wade. A house built on sand is liable to crumble.

A piece of paper cannot defend itself, regardless of what's written on it. Clearly any checks and balances we have right now against SCOTUS going rogue are not sufficient enough.

You’re right. Roe V. Wade exists, therefore the checks have failed. This is a corrective measure. The constitution protects itself pretty well, considering you need consent of 2/3rds of the states to meaningfully change it. Not an easy task, by any means.

Whether you care or not is irrelevant, incorrect reasoning for the repeal makes the repeal itself incorrect. The reasoning behind their decisions represents nearly the entirety of what makes or breaks the court's reputation.

The only relevant factor is whether Roe v. Wade is constitutional or not. If it’s not constitutional then it must be repealed. The court’s reputation has been in the dumps ever since it became an activist court, it can only go up now.

The constitution also guarantees the freedom from religion, aka separation of church and state. Barrett's entire worldview is informed by the religious cult she grew up in and continues to participate in to this day, how could it not be. For that reason she never should've been confirmed as a supreme court justice, and I'd argue even a federal judgeship is too much power to grant to a "handmaid" (actual title that she holds). She cannot simultaneously represent the roughly 1700 loonies in her cult while also representing interests of the American populace writ large.

Being religious doesn’t disqualify anyone from holding a position on the court.

 

[AleronIves]

I was actually talking about the Democratic party there.

My mistake. I disagree with your characterisation of the Democratic Party as "largely Christian", though. The Republican line that Democrats are all godless heathens is a straw man, but there is some truth in it, since the number of Americans who identify as religious has been declining for years, AFAIK.

And that would be a reasonable stance to take, if we lived in a more democratic/representative system where at least one of the major political parties was entirely and unapologetically pro-choice. We don't live in that system, however, and again I don't believe there was any point within the last fifty years where Roe could've been successfully codified into federal law. That means we have to fiercely defend any and all rights gained over time, regardless of the process through which they were gained. The ends justify the means when it comes to expanding freedoms and liberties, but never when it comes to stripping them away.

It's a bad idea to say that the system isn't working, so our team should just jam through everything we want to accomplish by any illegitimate means necessary, because at some point your team isn't going to be in charge anymore, and then you're going to be upset when the other team uses the same tactics to accomplish things you dislike. These tactics merely accelerate the decline of American democracy by undermining its institutions. If you want to accomplish something important, you should do it in the right way when such a method exists. As you said earlier, two wrongs don't make a right.

The constitution also guarantees the freedom from religion, aka separation of church and state. Barrett's entire worldview is informed by the religious cult she grew up in and continues to participate in to this day, how could it not be. For that reason she never should've been confirmed as a supreme court justice

Separation of church and state does not forbid religious people from holding office. It forbids the state from giving preferential treatment to any particular religious views. I'm no fan of Barrett, but I acknowledge that her religious beliefs do not legally prohibit her from being on the court, even if I think that her religious beliefs will cause her to make worse decisions than somebody who doesn't hold those beliefs.

 

[Foxi4]

Separation of church and state does not forbid religious people from holding office. It forbids the state from giving preferential treatment to any particular religious views. I'm no fan of Barrett, but I acknowledge that her religious beliefs do not legally prohibit her from being on the court, even if I think that her religious beliefs will cause her to make worse decisions than somebody who doesn't hold those beliefs.

Let’s not skate by the fact that the accusation is entirely fabricated - there’s no evidence that Barrett’s judgement is clouded by her religious views, just like there’s no evidence Kavanaugh ever raped anyone (nor was he ever convicted of that crime). The “insurrectionist” accusation is equally ludicrous since no insurrection took place - the matter was already thoroughly investigated by the F.B.I., no coup was planned. Not even the Democratic Party or liberal-leaning media use that word in reference to January 6th, but that doesn’t stop people on the Internet from making baseless accusations.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

You say socialism like it's a bad thing. You also seem to, again, bring up the point that you're in some way going to have to help take care of these people, which is still wrong. You care about the child about as much as a random person, but you've said yourself at least twice now that other people's problems are not yours. But then, abortions are your problem? You're being hypocritical and trying to use a proven fallacy to justify it.

I don't condone murder, regardless of who is doing it and why they are doing it. It's the parents responsibility to raise their children. Why are you making excuses for shitty parents?

Congratulations. Welcome to living in a society that, at one point, was built upon solidarity. Too bad you don't get to choose where your taxes go. Seems to me you'd be better fit to argue against unjust tax laws than abortions.

By voting for people who are against abortion or voting myself against it could possibly result in me seeing less of my money going towards performing them.

Except there are cases of rape and incest and complicated pregnancies. And because these people don't deserve to be forced to live with a mistake they didn't create, their needs to be something established that will protect them. Blanket laws hurt just as much as they help.

How the baby came to be isn't my concern. Was she raped and became pregnant? That's not the child's fault, the child in which you are killing because it's something you simply don't want.

 

[omgcat]

I don't condone murder, regardless of who is doing it and why they are doing it. It's the parents responsibility to raise their children. Why are you making excuses for shitty parents?



By voting for people who are against abortion or voting myself against it could possibly result in me seeing less of my money going towards performing them.



How the baby came to be isn't my concern. Was she raped and became pregnant? That's not the child's fault, the child in which you are killing because it's something you simply don't want.

would you accept an abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy? when an egg implants into the fallopian tube it will grow, eventually burst the tube and kill the mother. it is impossible to move the embryo to the proper spot because the tech just flat doesn't exist. the child needs to be aborted to save the m,others life, is it murder?

 

[AleronIves]

Let’s not skate by the fact that the accusation is entirely fabricated - there’s no evidence that Barrett’s judgement is clouded by her religious views

Well, a rabid atheist might claim that holding religious views automatically clouds your judgement, because believing in a magic bearded man in the sky automatically makes you sound like a nut who shouldn't be on the SCOTUS.

The opposite is also true. A rabid Christian might claim that not holding religious views automatically clouds your judgement, because believing everything came about by random chance cheapens the sanctity of life, and somebody so callous shouldn't be on the SCOTUS.

The separation of church and state, as well as the freedom of religion, allows both religious and non-religious people to hold office, as well as to believe things that other people think are bad.

just like there’s no evidence Kavanaugh ever raped anyone (nor was he ever convicted of that crime).

Evidence is usually scarce in cases of rape. Unless you can gather DNA evidence immediately, it's just going to be a "he says, she says" situation.

The “insurrectionist” accusation is equally ludicrous since no insurrection took place - the matter was already thoroughly investigated by the F.B.I., no coup was planned.

Trying to murder the Vice President and members of Congress is nonetheless serious, even if the people were too disorganised to have a plan for actually overthrowing the government after halting Biden's election certification.