Justices signal they’ll OK new abortion limits, may toss Roe

[Geee]

AP News

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Wednesday signaled it would uphold Mississippi’s 15-week ban on abortion and may go much further to overturn the nationwide right to abortion that has existed for nearly 50 years.

The fate of the court’s historic 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion throughout the United States and its 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed Roe, probably won’t be known until next June.

But after nearly two hours of arguments, all six conservative justices, including three appointed by former President Donald Trump, indicated they would uphold the Mississippi law.

At the very least, such a decision would undermine Roe and Casey, which allow states to regulate but not ban abortion up until the point of viability, at roughly 24 weeks.

And there was also substantial support among the conservative justices for getting rid of Roe and Casey altogether.

[Geee]

Kavanaugh, Breyer clash on Supreme Court precedent in Mississippi abortion case

 

Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Stephen Breyer clashed over the role the Supreme Court has in overturning its own precedents Wednesday during arguments in a major Mississippi abortion case.

The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, has the potential to overturn Roe v. Wade.

"History tells a somewhat different story, I think, than is sometimes assumed," Kavanaugh said about stare decisis -- the principle that the court should stick to its past rulings.

"If you think about some of the most important cases in this court's history... there's a string of them where the cases overruled precedent," he said.

Kavanaugh continued: "Brown v. Board outlawed separate but equal. Baker versus Carr, which set the stage for one person, one vote. West Coast Hotel, which recognized the state's authority to regulate business. Miranda versus Arizona, which required police to give warnings... about the right to remain silent... Lawrence v. Texas said that the state may not prohibit same sex conduct. Mapp v. Ohio, which held that the exclusionary rule applies to state criminal prosecution."

"In each of those cases... and I could go on. And those are some of the most consequential and important in the court's history, the court overruled precedent," Kavanaugh said.

A few minutes later Breyer slammed Kavanaugh for making allegedly false equivalencies between Roe and the other cases he cited.

[Geee]

Turley: Democrats threatening impartial judicial system

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., has joined the growing ranks of members of Congress in issuing a warning to the Supreme Court: reaffirm Roe v. Wade or else.

The "else" varies from promises to pack the court to personal accountability for justices. For Shaheen, it is a promise of "revolution."

It is the latest demand that the justice yield to popular demand or any countervailing interpretation of the Constitution. Or else.

"So you say you want a revolution." However, these threats are an attack on the very concept of impartial judicial review. "When you talk about destruction" of our traditions of judicial review, as the Beatles declared in 1968, "you can count me out."

Threatening the Supreme Court has become something of a required public exhibition of faith for Democrats, a demonstration that abstract notions like judicial independence will not distract from achieving political results. :snip:

[Geee]

Supreme Court Liberals Grandstand to Defend Roe v. Wade in Dobbs Arguments

 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan focused heavily on the question of stare decisis, the principle that past rulings of the Court ought to be upheld for their own sake, given the need for consistency and reliability in the law.

They also questioned whether other rulings based on rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution — such as the right to same-sex marriage, or the right against transgender discrimination — would also be jeopardized by overturning Roe.

The conservative Justices tended to keep their questions short, poking holes in the stare decisis argument by noting past bad rulings by the Court that were later overruled, such as Dred Scott, and Plessy v. Ferguson, which allowed discrimination.

 

The tone and verbosity of the liberal justices’ arguments tended to suggest that they were speaking for posterity and for the public, rather than to convince their colleagues, as many Americans tuned in to hear the oral arguments in the case.

[Valin]

@Geee

 

In doing a Quick read from the comments both Left & Right many think this Many be The End Of Legalized Abortion (I'd call that a good thing), there is however a 3rd option....

May 23 2016

Are abortion laws more conservative in America or in Western Europe? Would a pregnant woman seeking an abortion have an easier time getting one in Texas or in...Germany? The answers, as talk show host Elisha Krauss explains, may just change how you think about America's abortion laws.

___________________________________________

....Restricting abortion, often severely.

I have a sneaking suspicion This is where the Court will go. And the killing will go on, how be it at a much reduced level.

 

[Valin]

 

[Valin]

Pelosi Says Favorable Ruling for Mississippi Abortion Law Will Erode Supreme Court’s ‘Legitimacy’

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

This will be a major issue next year, no matter how The Court Rules.  My way or the Highway is now The Rule in politics.

[Valin]

 

[Valin]

 

 

[Geee]

‘Follow The Science’: Pro-lifers Slam Justice Sotomayor After She Compared Unborn Babies To Braindead People

 

‘What Specifically Is The Right Here?’: Justice Thomas Questions Where In The Constitution Abortion Is Protected

[Geee]

Former Planned Parenthood director drags Supreme Court liberals for ‘idiotic’ comments during abortion hearing

Supreme Court justices on the left made questionable comments during Wednesday’s abortion hearing, former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson revealed on "Tucker Carlson Tonight."

"We saw some really interesting and, quite honestly, idiotic comments coming from a couple of the liberal justices on the bench today," she said. "[Justice] Sotomayor actually saying that in the past 50 years we haven’t seen any advancement of medicine in maternal and fetal medicine… These are the same people who want us to follow the science."

Johnson stressed that Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health has the potential to "completely gut" cases like Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey which would turn abortion law back over to the states. 24 of those states would most likely then deem abortion illegal due to trigger bans, she said.

 

"This could have huge implications across our nation," she said. 

The ex-Planned Parenthood director detailed that Justice Neil Gorsuch made it "very clear" that the Supreme Court is not banning abortion under this hearing but power would be returned to the states.

 

[Geee]

Justice Kavanaugh Just Boiled the Abortion Debate Down to Its Most Fundamental Core

When deciding between the interests of a pregnant woman and the interests of an unborn child, "You can't accommodate both interests. You have to pick."

Kavanaugh then went on to point out how the courts should figure out how to make that choice. "What does the Constitution say about that?"

Period. Literally end of discussion. The rest is all noise. 

On the one hand, a woman has a right to body autonomy and the right to make medical decisions without government interference. On the other, if exercising that right results in the violent death of another life, whose rights then prevail?

[Valin]

58 minutes ago, Geee said:

Justice Kavanaugh Just Boiled the Abortion Debate Down to Its Most Fundamental Core

 

Smirks Maddow is not happy.

---------------------------------

Ultimately the question (in this case) comes down to this. Is the fetus a Human Being or not? If the fetus Is Not a separate Human life, then terminating the pregnancy is not a problem. If OTOH the fetus Is a separate Human life, you cannot terminate the pregnancy, because you are killing an innocent human life. We have a term for that. Its called Murder. This is The Only Question. Are we talking about a Human Being Or Not? I and those of us who are Pro-Life, because we Follow The Science, say it is, a Human Being.

2 humans go in for an abortion, 1 leaves.

 

This is the question out friends on the "Pro-Choice side never address.

The difference between This

 

And This

 

is time....9 months to be exact.

 

Follow The Science

[Valin]

Dec. 2 2021

[Geee]

The Thomas court: Roe skeptic seizes moment during Supreme Court abortion hearing

“What is confusing is that if we were talking about the Second Amendment, I know exactly what we’re talking about. If we’re talking about the Fourth Amendment, I know what we’re talking about because it’s written, it’s there. What specifically is the right here that we’re talking about?” Thomas asked.

"I think that the court in those other contexts, with respect to those other amendments, has had to articulate what the text means and the bounds of the Constitutional guarantees," Prelogar replied, later affirming she was referring to "the right of a woman, prior to viability, to control whether to continue with a pregnancy."

While the majority of justices raised substantial doubts regarding the jurisprudence behind Roe, Thomas has historically been a critic of the landmark case as he notably voted to overturn it when the court considered Casey. Thomas also wrote a sharp dissent in 2000 when the court struck down Nebraska's ban on "partial-birth abortion."

The exchange between Thomas and the solicitor general boils down to "fundamentally different approaches to constitutional interpretation," according to Jennifer Mascott, an assistant professor of law at Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University and a former law clerk to Thomas.

"I think Justice Thomas's point is something more fundamental, that if you look at the clause of the 14th Amendment — that has been claimed as a mantle for an asserted abortion right — it's the due process clause and says, 'Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law,'" Mascott told the Washington Examiner. "And there’s no specific substantive right listed there at all."

[Geee]

What's that you smell in the Supreme Court? - Jonathan Turley

 

In Wednesday’s Supreme Court oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Sonya Sotomayor got a whiff of something she did not like. She said many abortion opponents, including the sponsors of the Mississippi abortion law at issue, hoped her three new colleagues would allow for the reversal or reduction of Roe v. Wade. With Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett listening, she asked, “Will this institution survive the stench” created from such political machinations — and then answered: “I don’t see how it is possible." 

Of course, when justices begin to declare their disgust at the very thought of overturning precedent, there is another detectable scent in the courtroom. Indeed, it felt like a scene from Tennessee Williams' play, “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.” The only thing missing was the play’s central character, “Big Daddy” Pollitt, asking: “What's that smell in this room? … Didn’t you notice a powerful and obnoxious odor of mendacity in this room? There ain’t nothin’ more powerful than the odor of mendacity.”

Justices Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer insisted that overturning Roe in whole or in part would bring ruin upon the court by abandoning the principle of stare decisis, or the respect for precedent. Yet neither showed the same unflagging adherence to precedent when they sought to overturn conservative doctrines. Notably, Sotomayor pointed out another allegedly “political” decision in the court’s recognition of an individual right to bear arms; she and Breyer both indicated a willingness to overturn the ruling in that case, District of Columbia v. Heller. After that decision, both continued to dissent and argue that “the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense.” Indeed, they may reaffirm that position this term.

 

Sotomayor’s nose for judicial politics was also less sensitive when she recently called upon students to campaign against abortion laws — a major departure from the court’s apolitical traditions. After telling the students that “You know, I can’t change Texas’s law, but you can and everyone else who may or may not like it can go out there and be lobbying forces in changing laws that you don’t like.” She added: “I am pointing out to that when I shouldn’t because they tell me I shouldn’t.” That was more than a whiff of politics, but the same legal commentators applauding her “stench” comment were silent in condemning her direct call for political action on abortion. There also were few objections to the stench of politics when the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg publicly opposed a presidential candidate.

[Valin]

24 minutes ago, Geee said:

What's that you smell in the Supreme Court? - Jonathan Turley

In Wednesday’s Supreme Court oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Sonya Sotomayor got a whiff of something she did not like. She said many abortion opponents, including the sponsors of the Mississippi abortion law at issue, hoped her three new colleagues would allow for the reversal or reduction of Roe v. Wade. With Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett listening, she asked, “Will this institution survive the stench” created from such political machinations — and then answered: “I don’t see how it is possible." 

 

From what I understand she really is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.  Also it appears to me 80-90% of the cases that make it to the USSC have political implications, Get used to it sweetheart!

[Geee]

44 minutes ago, Valin said:

not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

I so often get that feeling about s many of our 'leaders' when I read some of their quotes. If they don't have a script, they don't have a clue. It has taken years for our 

education sytem to produce dunces. Congratulations. We are now paying for it in all aspects of our daily lives.

[Valin]

8 minutes ago, Geee said:

I so often get that feeling about s many of our 'leaders' when I read some of their quotes. If they don't have a script, they don't have a clue. It has taken years for our 

education sytem to produce dunces. Congratulations. We are now paying for it in all aspects of our daily lives.

We've gone from

"It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one."

George Washington

To

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"

Joe Biden

 

 

AH PROGRESS!

 

 

[Valin]

Dec. 3 2021

[Geee]

Wisconsin Gov. Evers vetoes bill compelling care for babies born after failed abortion, other pro-life bills

The Democratic governor of Wisconsin struck down a suite of pro-life bills passed by the GOP-controlled state legislature, promising to do the same for any anti-abortion bills in the future.

Gov. Tony Evers dismissed a slew of bills aimed at curbing abortion within the state, citing his commitment to upholding women's reproductive rights. 

"Republicans around the country are attempting to create laws restriction a woman's right to choose and cutting access to women's healthcare. I just vetoed those bills here in Wisconsin," Evers said in a video sent out over social media.

 

[Valin]

1 hour ago, Geee said:

Wisconsin Gov. Evers vetoes bill compelling care for babies born after failed abortion, other pro-life bills

Abortion to the Left/Democrats is like Holy Communion to the Catholic Church.

[Geee]

Sotomayor’s intellectual limitations on display in the oral arguments over Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health

[Geee]

Supreme Court lets challenge to Texas abortion law proceed, allows law to remain in effect

Ruling comes as Supreme Court considers major Mississippi abortion case, too

[Valin]

2 hours ago, Geee said:

Supreme Court lets challenge to Texas abortion law proceed, allows law to remain in effect

Ruling comes as Supreme Court considers major Mississippi abortion case, too

 

Quote

"Given the ongoing chilling effect of the state law, the District Court should resolve this litigation and enter appropriate relief without delay," he said. 

They should issues an opinion as quickly as possible. So Both side know where they stand, and the next step to take.