I am not shocked that today’s AP article on the Supreme Court’s oral argument on Dobbs v. Jackson, the case seeking to uphold a Mississippi abortion ban mentions Donald Trump five times, more than any Justice on the Court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked pro-Mississippi lawyers, “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?”
This is an edited version of a comment that I made elsewhere:
I was talking to my wife yesterday and my current prediction is that Roe (and Casey) will still not be overturned. I doubt that the justices want to take this to its logical conclusion, and also strike down Griswold v. Connecticut - the decision before Roe that established the privacy protections (Douglas's "penumbras of emanations") in the context of state contraception restrictions that the Roe/Casey decisions are premised on.
I do expect this Court to uphold the Mississippi law and permit limits on abortion after 15 weeks (down from 23 weeks since 1992, under the fetal viability rationale) in states that choose to go that route. Related, I also expect the Court to strike down Texas's abortion law (which effectively outlaws it now), not because of the abortion issue, but should other states adopt the same procedural loopholes that TX is exploiting, then there are a lot of rights that the conservatives on the Court hold dear (such as gun rights) that are amenable to elimination by striking "abortion" from Texas's law and replacing it with just about anything else.
We'll have to see how the Court ultimately decides this spring when it hands down its decision.
This is also a reminder to every Democrat with half a brain that they need to be twisting Justice Breyer's arm right now to retire immediately so that Biden can appoint a young Democratic judge in the next couple months, given the high likelihood that the GOP regains control of the Senate in 2023 and Mitch McConnell replays his 2016 Merrick Garland playbook.
--
Contra Steve, I do think that Democrats will successfully activate voters regardless of what SCOTUS hands down. Americans broadly support access to abortion[1], and a large part of Pew's 59% pro-choice crowd have taken Roe/Casey for granted, which will not be the case come next year. I think that the pro-life side is about as fully engaged as it can be, and Democrat's fate next year (both at the national and state level) will pivot to what extent they bring back abortion as a salient issue for voters. Given that SCOTUS is now hearing these cases (instead of denying certiorari), that's going to be jet fuel that makes the next few years' elections pivot on abortion rights.
The two most recent Supremes are more knowledgeable of the law and less ideological than Sotomayor. I don't know how those two will rule in this or any other case, but I'll bet I can predict Sotomayor's ruling at least 90% of the time.
Steve, between the two of us, we've gotten Scott C's stupidity detector working overtime. I've never seen such bitterness toward Christianity and any other philosophical disagreement.
You are so invested in overturning Roe v Wade that you can't even see what Sotomayer was talking about. To the rest of us, it's pretty obvious that the stench comes from not being able to trust the Supreme Court to be honest brokers when two of the most recent appointees likely lied during their confirmation hearings if their intention was always to overturn precedent. This is what Kavanaugh and Barrett said during their confirmation hearings...
When Justice Brett Kavanaugh was facing tough questions during his 2018 confirmation battle about his views on the Supreme Court's abortion rulings. he returned time and time again to the importance of precedent and their "precedent on precedent."
Speaking more broadly, Kavanaugh at the time described the circumstances that the justices overturn precedent as "rare" and said that a court majority's disagreement with a prior ruling was, by itself, not enough to overturn it.
During her confirmation hearings for the Seventh Circuit, Judge Barrett repeatedly insisted that a judge should not impose her personal convictions on the law. She also said several times that as an appeals court judge, she would follow Supreme Court precedent on abortion.
When you ignore that the other side has done the same exact thing for the same amount of time you look so freaking stupid. Christians across the country abandoned the last pathetic shred of the appearance that they would ever follow the rules they demand the supreme court force others to comply too. That's not political to you though, oh no.
I am glad they got what they sold their souls for though. It would suck if you destroy your religion and don't get anything to show for it. How are those church attendance numbers looking again? 2 generations is all you frauds have left. Get the most out of it you can.
This is an edited version of a comment that I made elsewhere:
I was talking to my wife yesterday and my current prediction is that Roe (and Casey) will still not be overturned. I doubt that the justices want to take this to its logical conclusion, and also strike down Griswold v. Connecticut - the decision before Roe that established the privacy protections (Douglas's "penumbras of emanations") in the context of state contraception restrictions that the Roe/Casey decisions are premised on.
I do expect this Court to uphold the Mississippi law and permit limits on abortion after 15 weeks (down from 23 weeks since 1992, under the fetal viability rationale) in states that choose to go that route. Related, I also expect the Court to strike down Texas's abortion law (which effectively outlaws it now), not because of the abortion issue, but should other states adopt the same procedural loopholes that TX is exploiting, then there are a lot of rights that the conservatives on the Court hold dear (such as gun rights) that are amenable to elimination by striking "abortion" from Texas's law and replacing it with just about anything else.
We'll have to see how the Court ultimately decides this spring when it hands down its decision.
This is also a reminder to every Democrat with half a brain that they need to be twisting Justice Breyer's arm right now to retire immediately so that Biden can appoint a young Democratic judge in the next couple months, given the high likelihood that the GOP regains control of the Senate in 2023 and Mitch McConnell replays his 2016 Merrick Garland playbook.
--
Contra Steve, I do think that Democrats will successfully activate voters regardless of what SCOTUS hands down. Americans broadly support access to abortion[1], and a large part of Pew's 59% pro-choice crowd have taken Roe/Casey for granted, which will not be the case come next year. I think that the pro-life side is about as fully engaged as it can be, and Democrat's fate next year (both at the national and state level) will pivot to what extent they bring back abortion as a salient issue for voters. Given that SCOTUS is now hearing these cases (instead of denying certiorari), that's going to be jet fuel that makes the next few years' elections pivot on abortion rights.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/06/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases/
It was ALWAYS a state issue and never a constitutional matter for the supremes.
The two most recent Supremes are more knowledgeable of the law and less ideological than Sotomayor. I don't know how those two will rule in this or any other case, but I'll bet I can predict Sotomayor's ruling at least 90% of the time.
Steve, between the two of us, we've gotten Scott C's stupidity detector working overtime. I've never seen such bitterness toward Christianity and any other philosophical disagreement.
You are so invested in overturning Roe v Wade that you can't even see what Sotomayer was talking about. To the rest of us, it's pretty obvious that the stench comes from not being able to trust the Supreme Court to be honest brokers when two of the most recent appointees likely lied during their confirmation hearings if their intention was always to overturn precedent. This is what Kavanaugh and Barrett said during their confirmation hearings...
When Justice Brett Kavanaugh was facing tough questions during his 2018 confirmation battle about his views on the Supreme Court's abortion rulings. he returned time and time again to the importance of precedent and their "precedent on precedent."
Speaking more broadly, Kavanaugh at the time described the circumstances that the justices overturn precedent as "rare" and said that a court majority's disagreement with a prior ruling was, by itself, not enough to overturn it.
During her confirmation hearings for the Seventh Circuit, Judge Barrett repeatedly insisted that a judge should not impose her personal convictions on the law. She also said several times that as an appeals court judge, she would follow Supreme Court precedent on abortion.
WOW!
When you ignore that the other side has done the same exact thing for the same amount of time you look so freaking stupid. Christians across the country abandoned the last pathetic shred of the appearance that they would ever follow the rules they demand the supreme court force others to comply too. That's not political to you though, oh no.
I am glad they got what they sold their souls for though. It would suck if you destroy your religion and don't get anything to show for it. How are those church attendance numbers looking again? 2 generations is all you frauds have left. Get the most out of it you can.