Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

[ShortKing]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

Dobbs decision came down today, Roe v Wade has officially been overturned.

What I personally find most interesting is that the opinion seems very similar to the draft, which I wasn't expecting. I think the leak did more to freeze the Court than anticipated, and Alito's majority opinion was left intact. Another interesting note is the sheer number of opinions, Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Roberts all filing concurring opinions, and Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan each filing a dissenting opinion. 

[vcczar]

Abortion isn't really a top issue for me, but the ruling does anger me for two reasons: 

1. The Trump judges implied that they wouldn't overturn Roe v. Wade when seeking confirmation. Sen. Collins of Maine used that has her main reason for supporting the justices. From this point onward, I encourage all Democratic senators to oppose any justice appointing by a Republican president. SC Justices are politicians. They'll say anything to get the job. I should note, that this behavior doesn't surprise me. 

2. I am most angry at progressive voters in battleground states who refused to vote for Clinton in 2016. Roe v. Wade would still be standing had Clinton won. If Biden loses in 2024, I think we will see a 7-2 Conservative Court in 2028. This is a kind of reign of terror that wouldn't be balanced in over 50 years. Even to do that, Democrats would have to win 2/3 presidential elections and have a lot of luck. As the SC is political and not a real, independent-minded court, I say pack the f-ing court, Pres. Biden. Let every president pack it. Let's get 100 SC Justices. Time for judicial proliferation. The court is a joke. I'm not sure how anything is settled law when it totally depends on the ideology of the judges at the time. Every court case should be routinely reviewed because of this because there is rarely a universal majority opinion over time or during the time the opinion is made. 

My main argument in 2016 to encourage people to vote Clinton was arguing this point with the justices because what happened today might happen. 

[SilentLiberty]

I hope that this doesn't effective birth control methods but it does seem like they could rule on those too. Nebraska itself might which is shitty. I don't like this ruling. I don't like the idea of packing the court though.

[ShortKing]

32 minutes ago, vcczar said:

My main argument in 2016 to encourage people to vote Clinton was arguing this point with the justices because what happened today might happen. 

I often think about how many of my personal friends and colleagues cited the Scalia seat as why they were going to vote for Trump in 2016 despite their other misgivings about him, and wonder if McConnell's gambit played a determinative factor in the outcome of that election. Conservative voters seem much more likely to consider judicial appointments in their votes than progressive or liberal voters. 

[vcczar]

3 minutes ago, ShortKing said:

I often think about how many of my personal friends and colleagues cited the Scalia seat as why they were going to vote for Trump in 2016 despite their other misgivings about him, and wonder if McConnell's gambit played a determinative factor in the outcome of that election. Conservative voters seem much more likely to consider judicial appointments in their votes than progressive or liberal voters. 

Yeah, I agree. I think the whole Merrick Garland incident was a huge win for the GOP, even though I find the Merrick Garlanding a nefarious tactic. I think, in general, the GOP cares more about winning than all else, while Democrats would rather win an argument even if they lose an election. 

[DakotaHale]

W

[DakotaHale]

15 minutes ago, Patine said:

Did you accidentally hit, "submit reply," after typing the first letter of that post?

No

[SilentLiberty]

32 minutes ago, DakotaHale said:

W

Gross

[pilight]

Jimmy Carter took office with supermajorities in both houses of congress. The Democrats could have passed federal legislation that would have taken this issue out of the courts for good while the decision was still fresh. Instead they let it rest on a paper thin SCOTUS majority that was a godsend for Republican fundraising and get-out-the-vote efforts for decades. Today people across the country are reaping what their "leaders" have sown.

[vcczar]

35 minutes ago, pilight said:

Jimmy Carter took office with supermajorities in both houses of congress. The Democrats could have passed federal legislation that would have taken this issue out of the courts for good while the decision was still fresh. Instead they let it rest on a paper thin SCOTUS majority that was a godsend for Republican fundraising and get-out-the-vote efforts for decades. Today people across the country are reaping what their "leaders" have sown.

Jimmy Carter, as much as I like him, was an incompetent president. He somehow managed to turn a Democratic-controlled Congress against him on several occasions, mainly because he created situations in which Congress people resented him. Carter generally had his heart in the right place, but he hadn't the personality to get Congress to work with him. Trump's relations with Congress might be the most recent parallel. Trump was mostly a do-nothing president legislatively during his presidency. He got some things done, but they tended to be bipartisan things that Democrats tended to support. His relations with his own party in Congress were subpar. This differs from Clinton and Obama who had issues with Congress. For them, their party was generally on their side, but the opposing party was generally dominant.

[vcczar]

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

What does this mean, then? Enlighten me.

I think it means "win" 

[jvikings1]

Trump's legacy has increased substantially this week with major decisions on religious liberty, guns, and now abortion. And "Never-Trumpers" look pretty foolish because now of that happens if they get their way.

[jvikings1]

5 minutes ago, Patine said:

May I ask how religious liberty has been advanced?

On Tuesday, the Court ruled that a state cannot discriminate against a religious private school because of their religious status. If a state program offers funds to private schools, there cannot be a religious limitation on those funds as that violates the free-exercise clause (hostile/not neutral towards religion).

[Edouard]

.....

Edited July 19, 2022 by Edouard

[pilight]

The Supreme Court shouldn't be a standing court at all.  Every year randomly select one judge from each circuit.  Those selected will serve as the Supreme Court for that year.  When their term is over they return to their circuit.  Once a judge serves on the SC they can't be chosen again for a few years.

[jvikings1]

Just now, pilight said:

The Supreme Court shouldn't be a standing court at all.  Every year randomly select one judge from each circuit.  Those selected will serve as the Supreme Court for that year.  When their term is over they return to their circuit.  Once a judge serves on the SC they can't be chosen again for a few years.

And then the law would have absolutely no consistency which is necessary for the legal profession. If you think legal costs are through the roof right now (which they are), this would send them to outer space.

[jvikings1]

42 minutes ago, Patine said:

Which programs tend to be up for such funding, as a rule, if I may inquire?

The program at issue in the case was a Maine school choice program. It allowed parents who were not within a certain distance of a public school to use their education money at a private school. However, the program banned usage at any religious private school because of the state's Blaine Amendment.

School choice programs are probably the most applicable, though there are other miscellaneous ones (such as playground grants).

[pilight]

41 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

And then the law would have absolutely no consistency which is necessary for the legal profession. If you think legal costs are through the roof right now (which they are), this would send them to outer space.

The law would likely have more consistency as judges would be far less likely to overturn established precedents and cases would be heard by a different panel than the one that granted certiorari, reducing partisan decisions.

[SilentLiberty]

You know I'm just curious, for the small government folks here, how is this a good thing? I mean abortion being legal doesn't effect anyone but the people getting the abortion, that's their own choice, you know power to the individual. Making it up to the states, where it's entirely possible it becomes illegal, Thomas wants to make gay marriage illegal as well as things like plan B, how is that good for small government or individual rights? To me its the exact opposite.

[jvikings1]

3 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

You know I'm just curious, for the small government folks here, how is this a good thing? I mean abortion being legal doesn't effect anyone but the people getting the abortion, that's their own choice, you know power to the individual. Making it up to the states, where it's entirely possible it becomes illegal, Thomas wants to make gay marriage illegal as well as things like plan B, how is that good for small government or individual rights? To me its the exact opposite.

You don't have an individual right to murder.

Also, Thomas does not want to make gay marriage illegal. He would send it back to the states where it was historically decided upon. BIG difference.

[jvikings1]

17 minutes ago, pilight said:

The law would likely have more consistency as judges would be far less likely to overturn established precedents and cases would be heard by a different panel than the one that granted certiorari, reducing partisan decisions.

That is just not based in reality.

There is a reason that a judge draw for a panel at the circuit court level matters in the outcome of a case. Because there are some judges who think one way and there are others who think a completely opposite way. Even if precedent from the circuit court would indicate a certain outcome, it is far from a guarantee because of the varying ways judges go about their decisions. Unless SCOTUS speaks on an issue (like they do on habius cases for instance), it makes things unpredictable at the circuit court level.

[SilentLiberty]

Just now, jvikings1 said:

You don't have an individual right to murder.

Also, Thomas does not want to make gay marriage illegal. He would send it back to the states where it was historically decided upon. BIG difference.

I typed up a lot but it ended up a rant. I appreciate you answering my question but I do ultimately disagree. I will say this I've never been so disappointed to be an American, let alone a registered Republican as I am today. This is a massive L for the country imo.

[Pringles]

23 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

You know I'm just curious, for the small government folks here, how is this a good thing? I mean abortion being legal doesn't effect anyone but the people getting the abortion, that's their own choice, you know power to the individual. Making it up to the states, where it's entirely possible it becomes illegal, Thomas wants to make gay marriage illegal as well as things like plan B, how is that good for small government or individual rights? To me its the exact opposite.

 

17 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

You don't have an individual right to murder.

Also, Thomas does not want to make gay marriage illegal. He would send it back to the states where it was historically decided upon. BIG difference.

I was gonna type a longer response but a refresh made me lose it. Anyways, it depends on how you personally view abortion. I think it should only occur in cases of life or death, and the most severe cases of rape and incest. 

Returning a decision to the states to decide for this is actually quite a "small government" move I'd argue. 

Especially when I do believe that unrestricted, late term, partial birth, post-heartbeat, etc. abortion is murder. 

Concerning what Thomas has said I won't support if say, Obergefell is overruled. I do think the 14th Amendment has significance here. The others, and I could be wrong again, as I did not think Roe V Wade would be overturned a year ago... they could find themselves in a scenario where those other issues mentioned by Thomas are considered. However, I feel like a lot of people think the Supreme Court can just pop out these opinions and call it a day. No... a problem has to arise, and it has to make it's way to the court. Just like we saw today.

Regardless of what you think of the rulings, the legal rationale of it is all there concerning Roe v. Wade, and the unfortunately controversial rulings that have been made over the last few weeks, which I think have been overblown and completely misunderstood by people who haven't read the law, precedent, Constitution, etc. 

That's just my view though, and I know other people who are likeminded will probably approach it a bit differently than me. But I'll make it clear. I do not agree with the sentiment Justice Thomas has expressed concerning going further on these matters. 

Edited June 25, 2022 by Pringles
Forgot a sentence or two

[SilentLiberty]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

What about all the rest of the endless murder declared legal under other labels? Should they all come up for review on legality? I mean, shouldn't this set a precedent in that regard?

Drones aren't people so therefore it's not murder...I'm being sarcastic here.

[Rezi]

30 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

You don't have an individual right to murder.

You do if your life is in danger.