Leaked Supreme Court Decision signals majority set to overturn Roe v. Wade

[The Architect Of Fate]

Justice Alito should be impeached for Perjury

[Aegon]

It would not have guaranteed Republican majority. How do you figure that? Nearly 70 percent of Americans believe in Roe, and the vast majority of Democrats. Democrats have used abortion as a rallying cry for folks to vote for nearly 50 years! How is letting abortion rights be gutted before the midterms in Democrats' favor? If anything it will be the opposite.

Codifying Roe v. Wade would have been milked for all it was worth to maximize GQP turnout. It's not about who has the majority in the polls, it's about who shows up at the polls. I didn't believe we'd elect someone like Trump right after we elected someone like Obama; but the GQP was more motivated to turn out that year. Abortion hasn't been an effective rallying cry for Democrats because everyone thought abortion rights were protected by the courts.

The GQP has used abortion as a rallying cry for nearly 50 years that has been tremendously effective at getting them money and votes. Getting abortion rights gutted before the midterms actually makes it a MEANINGFUL rallying cry for Democrats, as well as Independents who don't favor abortion bans. If the GQP doesn't pay a price for this ruling, THAT will be a major failure on the part of Democrats.

The fact that you didn't anticipate a guy like Trump after Obama shows you don't understand the problem with the Democratic Party as it exists today. Trump's election was a direct result of Obama's ultra-moderate agenda and lack of any genuine "change" that he promised on the campaign trail. Hillary Clinton was seen as an extension of the ultra-moderate agenda people took issue with, and so voters (stupidly) thought electing an "outsider" like Trump would result in real change - of course in America we have no inkling of class consciousness, so electing a billionaire was not at all electing an outsider, but whatever. I don't know where this idea of Americans preferring moderate policies comes from. It's just not true. People want legitimate change and most voters do not have strong favorable opinions of either parties, but rather see one party as better than the other.

And the same thing that happened in 2016 will happen now, with abortion rights, as people correctly point out that the Democrats have not attempted to do anything about it.

[Aegon]

It would not have guaranteed Republican majority. How do you figure that? Nearly 70 percent of Americans believe in Roe, and the vast majority of Democrats. Democrats have used abortion as a rallying cry for folks to vote for nearly 50 years! How is letting abortion rights be gutted before the midterms in Democrats' favor? If anything it will be the opposite.

You said it yourself - a whopping great majority of American voters favour access to abortion. There are enough independent voters furious enough over this to vote not-Republican in the fall and shift things towards Democrats (not a guarantee, of course, but a likely scenario). It is certainly going to motivate Democrats to get out and vote.

Codifying Roe v Wade would have nothing at all to keep it from being overturned.

Boru

What we're looking at here is a nationwide version of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." Democrats have been running on protecting abortion rights for eons, but have not done anything about it other than hope the Supreme Court did not overturn that right. So voters will suddenly be more motivated on abortion now? Under what pretense? The idea that now, after decades, Dems might actually do something about it? Fool me once...

You can absolutely pass legislation that protects abortion rights without using the legal logic (right to privacy) used in Roe v. Wade. That's the whole point of passing such a law, so that the law remains if Roe is overturned. If the Women's Health Protection Act was already passed into law, for example, the SCOTUS decision on Roe would not matter. What would matter after that point is states rights and federal reach. So I suppose you could be right in that SCOTUS could say - in a new case brought by GOP AGs in response to the new law - that the government was overreaching by telling states they could not pass their own laws restricting abortions. But I'm not familiar with the legality of all that so I couldn't comment further.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You said it yourself - a whopping great majority of American voters favour access to abortion. There are enough independent voters furious enough over this to vote not-Republican in the fall and shift things towards Democrats (not a guarantee, of course, but a likely scenario). It is certainly going to motivate Democrats to get out and vote.

Codifying Roe v Wade would have nothing at all to keep it from being overturned.

Boru

What we're looking at here is a nationwide version of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." Democrats have been running on protecting abortion rights for eons, but have not done anything about it other than hope the Supreme Court did not overturn that right. So voters will suddenly be more motivated on abortion now? Under what pretense? The idea that now, after decades, Dems might actually do something about it? Fool me once...

You can absolutely pass legislation that protects abortion rights without using the legal logic (right to privacy) used in Roe v. Wade. That's the whole point of passing such a law, so that the law remains if Roe is overturned. If the Women's Health Protection Act was already passed into law, for example, the SCOTUS decision on Roe would not matter. What would matter after that point is states rights and federal reach. So I suppose you could be right in that SCOTUS could say - in a new case brought by GOP AGs in response to the new law - that the government was overreaching by telling states they could not pass their own laws restricting abortions. But I'm not familiar with the legality of all that so I couldn't comment further.

As I said earlier, any law can be challenged in the courts. If the Supremes can overturn Roe v Wade, why couldn’t they overturn a federal law guaranteeing abortion rights?

I suppose I’m asking, what could Democrats have done differently that would have kept this particular court at the particular time from weakening abortion rights?

Boru

[brewer]

Maybe we should make a law that states that any woman who has an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy and no longer has the choice to terminate, the male inseminator gets castrated, no choice.

Only seems fair and just.

[Rev. Rye]

Justice Alito should be impeached for Perjury

Clarence Thomas has been caught up in the Capitol insurrection investigation and shows no signs of potentially losing his job. It's disturbing how the SCOTUS seems to have zero accountability to anyone.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I wonder if this whole mess could lead to crooked cops planting condoms on black suspects...

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Maybe we should make a law that states that any woman who has an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy and no longer has the choice to terminate, the male inseminator gets castrated, no choice.

Only seems fair and just.

Better still: Inform the elderly Republican politicians that Viagra will be outlawed - if pregnancy is God's will, so is an erection.

Boru

[Mister Agenda]

Codifying Roe v. Wade would have been milked for all it was worth to maximize GQP turnout. It's not about who has the majority in the polls, it's about who shows up at the polls. I didn't believe we'd elect someone like Trump right after we elected someone like Obama; but the GQP was more motivated to turn out that year. Abortion hasn't been an effective rallying cry for Democrats because everyone thought abortion rights were protected by the courts.

The GQP has used abortion as a rallying cry for nearly 50 years that has been tremendously effective at getting them money and votes. Getting abortion rights gutted before the midterms actually makes it a MEANINGFUL rallying cry for Democrats, as well as Independents who don't favor abortion bans. If the GQP doesn't pay a price for this ruling, THAT will be a major failure on the part of Democrats.

The fact that you didn't anticipate a guy like Trump after Obama shows you don't understand the problem with the Democratic Party as it exists today. Trump's election was a direct result of Obama's ultra-moderate agenda and lack of any genuine "change" that he promised on the campaign trail. Hillary Clinton was seen as an extension of the ultra-moderate agenda people took issue with, and so voters (stupidly) thought electing an "outsider" like Trump would result in real change - of course in America we have no inkling of class consciousness, so electing a billionaire was not at all electing an outsider, but whatever. I don't know where this idea of Americans preferring moderate policies comes from. It's just not true. People want legitimate change and most voters do not have strong favorable opinions of either parties, but rather see one party as better than the other.

And the same thing that happened in 2016 will happen now, with abortion rights, as people correctly point out that the Democrats have not attempted to do anything about it.

I knew a Republican would likely get the White House in 2016 after a two-term Democrat, I just thought Trump was too extreme and clownish to get the win, but a lot of small factors (plus the one big factor Republicans galvanized to turn out after 8 years of Obama) aligned to get him in office despite his opponent geting millions more votes than he did. It could easily have gone the other way, that was one of the things that was so frustrating about it. The only thing the Democrats dropped the ball on was some of them (like me) thinking there was no way an asshat clown like Trump could beat Clinton and voting for alternate candidates (one of the small factors that aligned in Trump's favor).

I don't know why so many people can't seem to absorb the fact that the majority of Democrats are moderates. The same thing happened in 2020, many progressives were sure a moderate like Biden couldn't win the primaries, let alone the presidency. I know the feeling, when I was a Libertarian I really thought Ron Paul had a shot in 2012, but I was in a bubble with too many Libertarians in it.

[Fake Messiah]

Supreme Court justices and family get the protection they denied women walking into abortion clinics

The Senate on Monday easily cleared a bill to extend security protections to the immediate family members of Supreme Court justices.

https://thehill.com/news/senate/3482443-...y-members/