Roe vs. Wade overturned

Colombia has just de-criminalized abortion up to 24 weeks.

They are moving forward; America is moving backwards.

The Christian version of the Taliban is taking more and more control of America every day.

It is shameful, in my opinion.

www.reuters.com

Top Colombia court decriminalizes abortion until 24 weeks of gestation

Judges on Colombia's constitutional court voted on Monday to decriminalize abortion until 24 weeks of gestation, the court said in a statement, in a victory for abortion rights groups which sued to have the procedure removed from the penal code.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
SuperMatt said:
Colombia has just de-criminalized abortion up to 24 weeks.

They are moving forward; America is moving backwards.

The Christian version of the Taliban is taking more and more control of America every day.

It is shameful, in my opinion.

www.reuters.com

Top Colombia court decriminalizes abortion until 24 weeks of gestation

Judges on Colombia's constitutional court voted on Monday to decriminalize abortion until 24 weeks of gestation, the court said in a statement, in a victory for abortion rights groups which sued to have the procedure removed from the penal code.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
Click to expand...
It’s cultural poverty in the US, just wondering how contagious it really is? :unsure:
 
The American judiciary is becoming a joke.

www.nytimes.com

Texas Supreme Court Shuts Down Final Challenge to Abortion Law (Published 2022)

The ruling says state officials have no authority to enforce the law, which empowers private citizens: “We cannot rewrite the statute.”
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
(paywall removed)

On Friday, the justices of the Texas Supreme Court, all Republicans, said that those officials did not, in fact, have any power to enforce the law, “either directly or indirectly,” and so could not be sued.

The justices said the law had effectively tied their hands. They agreed that the state’s licensing officials had the authority to discipline providers for violating other abortion restrictions. “But we conclude that the Heartbeat Act expressly provides otherwise,” the court said, using the title of S.B. 8.

“The act’s emphatic, unambiguous and repeated provisions” declare that a private civil action is the “exclusive” method for enforcing the law, the justices wrote. They added, “These provisions deprive the state-agency executives of any authority they might otherwise have to enforce the requirements through a disciplinary action.”
Click to expand...

So, if you just write a law a certain way, the courts say they aren’t even allowed to make a ruling? And don’t forget, some SCOTUS justices are ready to go the same way when it comes to this abortion law AND state legislative maps and voting rules. Basically, the state legislature can do whatever they want, regardless of the state or federal constitution, and judges aren’t allowed to do anything about it? They’re ruling themselves right out of their jobs. May as well just shutter the judicial branch of government entirely.
 
SuperMatt said:
So, if you just write a law a certain way, the courts say they aren’t even allowed to make a ruling? And don’t forget, some SCOTUS justices are ready to go the same way when it comes to this abortion law AND state legislative maps and voting rules. Basically, the state legislature can do whatever they want, regardless of the state or federal constitution, and judges aren’t allowed to do anything about it? They’re ruling themselves right out of their jobs. May as well just shutter the judicial branch of government entirely.
Click to expand...
and we are seeing them try to pass laws to stop people going across state lines for abortions. the absolute control the GOP wants on others is mazing and fully against what they preach.
 
SuperMatt said:
The American judiciary is becoming a joke.

www.nytimes.com

Texas Supreme Court Shuts Down Final Challenge to Abortion Law (Published 2022)

The ruling says state officials have no authority to enforce the law, which empowers private citizens: “We cannot rewrite the statute.”
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
(paywall removed)



So, if you just write a law a certain way, the courts say they aren’t even allowed to make a ruling? And don’t forget, some SCOTUS justices are ready to go the same way when it comes to this abortion law AND state legislative maps and voting rules. Basically, the state legislature can do whatever they want, regardless of the state or federal constitution, and judges aren’t allowed to do anything about it? They’re ruling themselves right out of their jobs. May as well just shutter the judicial branch of government entirely.
Click to expand...

fooferdoggie said:
and we are seeing them try to pass laws to stop people going across state lines for abortions. the absolute control the GOP wants on others is mazing and fully against what they preach.
Click to expand...
Conservatives in the court are in on the scheme. The plan/sham is to undermine the system for their political agenda, and then claim they are being lawful. Talk about officially endorsed vigilantism, allowing/ encouraging private citizens to sue as part of so called law enforcement is reprehensible, besides the premise, step 2 is to include $$ rewards for spying on and turning in your neighbors American Style Freedom…:oops:
 
Last edited:
Huntn said:
Conservatives in the court are in on the scheme. The plan/sham is to undermine the system for their political agenda, and then claim they are being lawful. Talk about officially endorsed vigilantism, allowing/ encouraging private citizens to sue as part of so called law enforcement is reprehensible, besides the premise, step 2 is to include $$ rewards for spying on and turning in your neighbors the American Way…:oops:
Click to expand...
I have to say, it makes little to no sense for the judiciary to say “yep you figured out a way to write a new class of laws that we literally cannot rule on at all.” Being joined at the hip to the GOP is the only thing that makes sense, but with lifetime appointments in many courts, it doesn’t compute (for me) that they would toss their power away so easily. So, a bunch of judges in Texas (who are elected I believe) - yes, it makes sense for them to ignore the constitution to favor their party (as appalling as that is). The SCOTUS ruling that the Texas anti-abortion law can stay in effect while they make up their minds, on the other hand...
 
Huntn said:
Conservatives in the court are in on the scheme. The plan/sham is to undermine the system for their political agenda, and then claim they are being lawful. Talk about officially endorsed vigilantism, allowing/ encouraging private citizens to sue as part of so called law enforcement is reprehensible, besides the premise, step 2 is to include $$ rewards for spying on and turning in your neighbors the American Way…:oops:
Click to expand...

There is a way around these laws, though it'd take a concentrated effort to do so.

Since the conservatives have now set precedence for the matter, anyone is now allowed to make up any law they see fit, and no one can use the verbiage of the Constitution to curtail it. We can make allowing people to sue civilly for things they've said on Facebook, sue gun stores for contributing to gun violence. You could even find a way to sue some churches with only a bit of effort.

The sky is now the limit, and we're all vigilantes for our little personal pet causes. We need everyone in office to make law similar to the Texas bill for every single culture war issue out there, then overwhelm the courts with tons upon tons of frivolous lawsuits.

Make them regret what they wished for by using their own weapons against them. If they want to legally circumvent people's Constitutional rights for what they consider a worthy cause, then it's everyone else's job to pave the road to hell with their good intentions.
 
Renzatic said:
There is a way around these laws, though it'd take a concentrated effort to do so.

Since the conservatives have now set precedence for the matter, anyone is now allowed to make up any law they see fit, and no one can use the verbiage of the Constitution to curtail it. We can make allowing people to sue civilly for things they've said on Facebook, sue gun stores for contributing to gun violence. You could even find a way to sue some churches with only a bit of effort.

The sky is now the limit, and we're all vigilantes for our little personal pet causes. We need everyone in office to make law similar to the Texas bill for every single culture war issue out there, then overwhelm the courts with tons upon tons of frivolous lawsuits.

Make them regret what they wished for by using their own weapons against them. If they want to legally circumvent people's Constitutional rights for what they consider a worthy cause, then it's everyone else's job to pave the road to hell with their good intentions.
Click to expand...
What will happen is that when a “liberal” law is passed using such a mechanism? I predict the SCOTUS will reverse itself, nullifying the conservative laws on the books too. But by that time, they will have already overturned Roe v Wade, so most of the laws using that scheme won’t be needed to send us back to the Middle Ages.
 
SuperMatt said:
What will happen is that when a “liberal” law is passed using such a mechanism? I predict the SCOTUS will reverse itself, nullifying the conservative laws on the books too. But by that time, they will have already overturned Roe v Wade, so most of the laws using that scheme won’t be needed to send us back to the Middle Ages.
Click to expand...

The thing is, they can't outright nullify Roe v Wade without undermining the very integrity of the court itself. As is, they can at least skate along, pretending stare decisis is still a thing they take seriously.
 
Renzatic said:
The thing is, they can't outright nullify Roe v Wade without undermining the very integrity of the court itself. As is, they can at least skate along, pretending stare decisis is still a thing they take seriously.
Click to expand...
The pretense of “stare decisis” ended the minute the confirmation process was over for the conservative justices, IMHO. John Roberts, the same justice who declared he wouldn’t be a judicial activist, has overturned laws passed by overwhelming majorities in the Congress… Citizens United, Voting Rights, anything dealing with localities passing their own gun restrictions… you name it. Overturning a past SCOTUS ruling? That’s nothing compared to the laws he has overturned. I bet Roe v Wade is overturned soon.
 
This massive, long-sought and hard fought victory for republicans (if the court goes through with it) may be the boost of energy democrats need for the midterms. Of course, any victory by democrats will be written off as proof of voter fraud, but it should still be the goal anyways.

More proof the EC is trash. More proof our senate setup is outdated. Minority of the votes - twice - and three Supreme Court picks and millions of people doubting the integrity of elections.

Now this. Democrats need to turn out in droves, it won’t get better on its own.
 
GermanSuplex said:
This massive, long-sought and hard fought victory for republicans (if the court goes through with it) may be the boost of energy democrats need for the midterms.
Click to expand...
A lot of loud noise from so-called progressives about how Dems haven't done anything and will do nothing. The constant whining ain't helping. In fact, it's assisting the other side. It's almost as if they don't want things to get better. They would have nothing to complain about then.
 
Welcome to Gilead!

I know in Texas you can drop off your unwanted baby or kid at a fire station and they won't charge you with a crime.

People should just start dropping off their babies at the fire station. Let them deal with it. Let the folks who pretend they care about the babies, yet never adopt them deal with it.
 
How did this leak get out? Has there ever been a SCOTUS draft leak in the past?
 
The Supreme Court has confirmed that it is a leak, but points out it is only a draft. Here is the statement:

Yesterday, a news organization published a copy of a draft opinion in a pending case. Justices circulate draft opinions internally as a routine and essential part of the Court’s confidential deliberative work. Although the document described in yesterday’s reports is authentic, it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., provided the following statement:

To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. The work of the Court will not be affected in any way.

We at the Court are blessed to have a workforce — permanent employees and law clerks alike — intensely loyal to the institution and dedicated to the rule of law. Court employees have an exemplary and important tradition of respecting the confidentiality of the judicial process and upholding the trust of the Court. This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here.

I have directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak.
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top