Roe vs. Wade overturned

The damn walls against cruelty & stupidity are quickly crumbling
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1522373126197194757/

www.wwno.org

Louisiana bill would allow murder charges for abortions; opponents call it 'barbaric'

As the United States braces for the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade and an end to the constitutional protection of abortion rights, Louisiana lawmakers are advancing legislation that would bolster their ability to criminally punish doctors and individuals who violate the state’s abortion...
www.wwno.org www.wwno.org
Click to expand...

Let's be clear, this has major religious motivations, even though we have that pesky separation of church & state.

The bill's author was joined by a large crowd of supporters from religious organizations, including representatives from an association of more than 1,600 Baptist churches in Louisiana.

Chris Kaiser, advocacy director of the ACLU of Louisiana, said the legislation gave him “grave concern” of how a post-Roe Louisiana would treat women who attempt to exercise control of their reproductive health care.

“HB813 is a barbaric bill that would subject people to murder prosecutions, punishable by life without parole, for having abortions,” Kaiser said.
Click to expand...
Opponents of the bill said its broad scope would also criminalize in vitro fertilization, intrauterine birth control devices (IUDs) and emergency contraception as well.

“Louisiana already has a trigger law that would outlaw abortion and subject providers to penalties if Roe is overturned,” Kaiser said. “Proponents of this legislation say that’s not enough. They want to send people to prison for life.”
Click to expand...
 
The court is political, full of unelected people with no term limits. The former Senate Majority leader lied, cheated, and changed the rules repeatedly to force ideologues onto the court.

The leak has fully exposed this body for what it is: a far-right legislative body. The killing of voting rights wasn’t a constitutional interpretation. It was a naked power play by the party of white supremacists, knowing that white people will soon no longer be the majority in America. The leak of this opinion (written in February) dispels the myth that the court actually discusses this stuff for the full term and comes to a decision. This case was decided almost immediately, and Alito got to work trying to justify it.

www.nytimes.com

Opinion | The Supreme Court Has Been Leaking for Years

Whatever legitimacy it had retained was sacrificed in the drive to build the majority that seems poised to overturn Roe v. Wade.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
(paywall removed)

No discussion of the Supreme Court’s legitimacy, or lack thereof, is complete without mention of the fact that its current composition is the direct result of our counter-majoritarian institutions. Only once in the past 30 years — in the 2004 election — has anything like a majority of the American electorate voted for a president who promised a conservative Supreme Court. The three members who cemented this particular conservative majority — Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett — were nominated by a president who lost the popular vote and were confirmed by senators representing far fewer than half of all Americans.
Click to expand...
 
Using Alito's logic I guess we can expect every gun owner to register with a well-regulated militia or turn their guns in. The 2nd amendment doesn't explicitly say you can own a gun to defend yourself under any circumstance, hunt, or for target practice.
 
Chew Toy McCoy said:
Using Alito's logic I guess we can expect every gun owner to register with a well-regulated militia or turn their guns in. The 2nd amendment doesn't explicitly say you can own a gun to defend yourself under any circumstance, hunt, or for target practice.
Click to expand...
There is no logic to it. When it comes to the 2nd amendment, the interpretation in your first sentence WAS the accepted interpretation up until the late 20th century.

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

The “militia” part of the 2nd amendment has been whited-out by the conservatives since then.
 
Per the usual psychotic break from reality into alternative facts land, Kellyanne Conway said she doesn’t want “old white guy” Chuck Schumer telling her what she can do with her body. I suppose it wouldn’t help telling her that she just endorsed keeping Roe vs Wade in place.
 
Chew Toy McCoy said:
Per the usual psychotic break from reality into alternative facts land, Kellyanne Conway said she doesn’t want “old white guy” Chuck Schumer telling her what she can do with her body. I suppose it wouldn’t help telling her that she just endorsed keeping Roe vs Wade in place.
Click to expand...
seems she is happy with the old white turtle doing it though.
 
Here’s some historical information about Sir Matthew Hale, who was cited 9 times in Samuel Alito’s opinion. Apparently this is what Justice Alito yearns for in America.



Hale was responsible for such arguments as the fact that witches must be real because there were laws against them and that it was impossible for a husband to rape his wife. And, of course, he was vehemently against abortion.

Hale was responsible for the 1662 judgement that sent two women accused of witchcraft to their deaths. The case would serve as inspiration for the Salem witch trials. His ideas on rapeless marriage were the law of the land in England until 1991 and have continued to be cited in court as recently as 2009.
Click to expand...

boingboing.net

Meet Sir Matthew Hale, the 17th century misogynist that Justice Alito mentioned 9 times in his leaked SCOTUS opinion | Boing Boing

On The Reid Out, Joy Reid introduces us to a lovely English chap from the 17th century named Sir Matthew Hale. A barrister, judge, and jurist, Hale was responsible for such arguments as the fact th…
boingboing.net boingboing.net
 
I'm... I'm... I'm going to need help wrapping my head around this fuckery

www.truthorfiction.com

‘Domestic Supply of Infants’

Readers spotted a purported reference to a "domestic supply of infants" by Justice Alito in the footnotes of the leaked Roe draft in May 2022.
www.truthorfiction.com www.truthorfiction.com
Click to expand...
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1522737305710067715/
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1522947498976763904/
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1522955562912153601/
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1522779034337173509/

5uT.gif
 
I'm still floored by this
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1522920391844499456/

That anyone would actually use this, print this, and think they should be considered an authority on anything but fucking evil.

From Barrett I kind of expected this kind of f'n asswards back religious dogma, but having it hidden in plain sight with Alito just blows my mind.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1522982509675532290/

Kind of makes me look at the previous administration's penchant for stripping infants & children from people trying to enter, in a whole new light.

www.nbcnews.com

Trump officials send migrant babies, toddlers to 'tender age' shelters

Lawyers and medical providers who have visited the South Texas shelters described playrooms of crying preschool-age children in crisis.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
Click to expand...
 
meanwhile,

Justice Clarence Thomas said people must “live with outcomes we don’t agree with” or the judiciary would be threatened, citing recent Supreme Court events as “one symptom of that.” … at the 11th Circuit Judicial Conference in Atlanta on Friday, Thomas said he was growing concerned about declining respect for governmental institutions and the rule of law.​

says the lump whose wife tried so very hard to force us to not live with the outcome of the '20 election
 
Yoused said:
meanwhile,

Justice Clarence Thomas said people must “live with outcomes we don’t agree with” or the judiciary would be threatened, citing recent Supreme Court events as “one symptom of that.” … at the 11th Circuit Judicial Conference in Atlanta on Friday, Thomas said he was growing concerned about declining respect for governmental institutions and the rule of law.​

says the lump whose wife tried so very hard to force us to not live with the outcome of the '20 election
Click to expand...
Haha NOW he is concerned? Not when white supremacists literally stormed the Capitol in hopes of overturning a presidential election? But when popular opinion turns sour on him personally.

And the absurdity of him not seeing that he is partially to blame for people not respecting the institution he is part of really adds to the humor.
 
Yoused said:
meanwhile,

Justice Clarence Thomas said people must “live with outcomes we don’t agree with” or the judiciary would be threatened, citing recent Supreme Court events as “one symptom of that.” … at the 11th Circuit Judicial Conference in Atlanta on Friday, Thomas said he was growing concerned about declining respect for governmental institutions and the rule of law.​

says the lump whose wife tried so very hard to force us to not live with the outcome of the '20 election
Click to expand...

The first clause is very telling. He feels it is a given that the judiciary should not be threatened. People must live with egregious outcomes, because otherwise 9 privileged people wearing weird robes might not get the respect they think they deserve.

Reality is that the constitution doesn’t even say that the Supreme Court gets to make these kind of decisions. The constitution doesn’t say that the supreme court gets to decide whether state laws are consitutional or not. The reason they get to do this is because the Supreme Court decided it has that authority, and the people were willing to go along. It will be interesting to see how far the people will go along. I suspect pretty far. But, as I said before, there’s a quick fix available if the democrats in the senate would stick together.
 
Cmaier said:
Reality is that the constitution doesn’t even say that the Supreme Court gets to make these kind of decisions. The constitution doesn’t say that the supreme court gets to decide whether state laws are consitutional or not.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter in of all things judicial, and it is there job to determine whether any particular laws adhere to Constitutional standards. As far as the basics of this case goes, it is their job.

The problem is that SCOTUS is rather arbitrarily taking an entirely different stance on an issue it's seen countless times in the past, and seems to be poised to do so primarily for ideological reasons, rather than legally sound ones. If they could at least provide a good reason to explain why the individual states have a vested interest in maintaining a woman's pregnancy, and that previous interpretations of the 14th Amendment as it pertains to abortion have been grossly misrepresented for the last 50 odd years, then at least they could have some defense against the inevitable backlash.

...but they don't. Their argument is that they don't like abortion, and everyone else has been wrong about it up til now, and if the people of the United States don't like it, then they can just suck an egg.
 
Renzatic said:
SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter in of all things judicial, and it is there job to determine whether any particular laws adhere to Constitutional standards. As far as the basics of this case goes, it is their job.
Click to expand...
My point was simply that it’s their job because they SAY it is their job. This is something they decided in Marbury v. Madison. The Constitution does not grant them this job.

And it is lost on them, apparently, that they are using a power found nowhere in the constitution to declare that women don’t have rights that are not expressly written in the constitution.
 
Cmaier said:
My point was simply that it’s their job because they SAY it is their job. This is something they decided in Marbury v. Madison. The Constitution does not grant them this job.
Click to expand...

I thought that case had the opposite effect, and determined that SCOTUS could determine whether state laws were constitutional or not.

...guess I gotta read stuff now.

Okay, after a quick read, Marbury v. Madison did ultimately lead to granting SCOTUS with the power of judicial review, but the case itself was primarily a federal issue, having nothing to do with any state laws. The court being allowed to do the same at the state level wasn't a concern, with it's jurisdiction for such has been something that's never been entirely legally defined, but has been taken for granted since.

And it is lost on them, apparently, that they are using a power found nowhere in the constitution to declare that women don’t have rights that are not expressly written in the constitution.
Click to expand...

Them claiming it's not specifically a right because it's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution would be a violation of the 9th Amendment.

The thing that makes it so complicated is that there's practically nothing concerning abortions in the constitution, federalist papers, or various legal documents of the day, so it's ALL open for interpretation and reinterpretation. In this case, they're trying to frame it more as a small government maneuver, claiming it's a state issue, and the federal government has no Constitutional standing to enforce it, what with the 14th being misinterpreted all these years.

...though WHY it's been misinterpreted, and WHY theirs is now the correct one is left hanging entirely.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top