[RD] Abortion, once again

[Farm Boy]

Pretty shocking news honestly. I guess women are in real danger to become second rate citizens in the US, without jurisdiction of their own bodies... in the era of MeToo.

Also - how come the US Supreme Court gets to make such a landmark decision - Supreme Courts are not lawmakers; the Parliament aka United States Congress makes - or unmakes the laws.
The Supreme Court should be tasked with interpretation of the law and being the guardian of the US Constitution. The threefold division of power of a democracy. Or am I missing something in a US context?

Congress could act. The court has let stand aggressive abortion laws beyond what Roe vs. Wade protected. What people sometimes miss is that there is no federal consensus for Congress to act in the way that state legislatures in New York or California or Illinois act. The courts take up interpretations left by the vacuum of passed legislation. Sometimes, those vacuums are of a great deal of importance.

Sure it is - they only differ in which minorities they serve, the Kentucky Coal Miners helped Trump to his election victory - a minority if I have ever seen one

the last election was decided in Georgia - again a minority, just another one.

Close, but not quite right. The election was decided in thousands of polling places, in thousands of counted and recounted ballotboxes. But it hinged in certain places. And hinges squeak, so they get greased. But the whole damn door still puts the momentum into the system. Leveraged momentum, even.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Pretty shocking news honestly. I guess women are in real danger to become second rate citizens in the US, without jurisdiction of their own bodies... in the era of MeToo.

Also - how come the US Supreme Court gets to make such a landmark decision - Supreme Courts are not lawmakers; the Parliament aka United States Congress makes - or unmakes the laws.
The Supreme Court should be tasked with interpretation of the law and being the guardian of the US Constitution. The threefold division of power of a democracy.

Or am I missing something in a US context?

Yes, you are. The USA supreme court is not a lawmaker.

It seems that the US supreme court is merely indicating that it may overturn its previous decision
and thereby allow the US federal and state legislatures to effectively make laws about abortion.

 

[EvaDK]

Yes, you are. The USA supreme court is not a lawmaker.

It seems that the US supreme court is merely indicating that it may overturn its previous decision
and thereby allow the US federal and state legislatures to effectively make laws about abortion.

So, the overarching context is that the US doesn't actually has abortion laws aka a Constitutional right to abortion on a federal level?

Well, it will be up to the voters to take a stand at the next elections, I guess. But I really wish that there were 100% watertight partitions between the judicial and legislative/political spheres in the US.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

There are lots of words not in the constitution. Right to privacy isn't there either.

true, and we learned that the hard way with mandates of emergency use medication, didn't we. interesting when privacy is supposed to matter vs not.

though as scotus points out, using "privacy" as a means to duck the issue decades ago was a serious failing. the fundamental question of abortion didn't change one bit, and remains "when does personhood and therefore legal rights begin". i don't trust anybody in government, but as a matter of process i'm more comfortable with this being legislated by the legislature, rather than being legislated from the bench. it's at least somewhat closer to voters.

to illustrate why i feel that way, consider a scenario where scotus not only did this, but managed to uphold an executive order by a republican president that de facto bans abortions entirely. that would be bad, very bad, and worse things would follow. so even though i also don't trust legislature, that's where this decision belongs by design, and it's still preferable to the alternatives.

70% of Americans approve abortion at some level. Yes, they might expect trouble.

if states don't adjust, the people running them will be replaced. this has long been an issue people care about a lot, and i expect a candidate's stance on it to matter at the polls a lot.

I would agree to this in a vacuum, but abortion rights are not "wokeism"... nor is overturning them an appropriate counter-reaction to "wokeism".

wokeism is garbage but i agree tangential to this discussion (unsurprisingly, since it's been a hot topic issue for decades before wokeism/cancel culture/victimhood as leverage became a thing).

abortions aren't about cancel culture or victimhood, they're about when we as a society decide someone is a person and give them legal protections. that said, for the reason i highlight above (government abuse of power) and actual recently observed examples of said abuse of power by current administrations + previous administrations, i nevertheless consider legislature as the least bad option for deciding this.

So, the overarching context is that the US doesn't actually has abortion laws aka a Constitutional right to abortion on a federal level?

Well, it will be up to the voters to take a stand at the next elections, I guess.

correct. vast majority of things are not powers granted to federal government, and therefore default to state law. and that means the state voters do indeed decide things like this per the constitution.

note that similar to other things that are legal in some states but not in others, i don't see a way a state could enforce against legal actions taken in a different state. actually banning abortions completely would be quite difficult, absent a legislative bypass power trip per above. when 70% of the country prefers one thing, state legislation is not going to completely go the other way across the board.

But I really wish that there were 100% watertight partitions between the judicial and legislative/political spheres in the US.

the constitution does define them. unfortunately, that only counts as far as anybody enforces them. in practice, courts somewhat frequently legislate from the bench, and legislation often gives broad powers to the executive that don't belong there. that's not supposed to happen, and unsurprisingly there are problems when it does happen.

or to take a more zoomed out approach, i don't think any constitution or rule set in history has stood the test of time. those documents only count so long as their populations enforce them, and history has shown time and again that population's willingness/ability (or both) to do that has a shelf life.

 

[amadeus]

So, the overarching context is that the US doesn't actually has abortion laws aka a Constitutional right to abortion on a federal level?

Well, it will be up to the voters to take a stand at the next elections, I guess. But I really wish that there were 100% watertight partitions between the judicial and legislative/political spheres in the US.

Without opining on how good/bad it is, the U.S. is a union of states (hence, United States) that have a lot of their own powers to write legislation. Each state is going to have its own laws regulating medical practice.

Could the U.S. Congress write a federal law legalizing abortion? Here's a lengthy review of that question from 2006, of which I have only read the first two pages before linking it. There is something in the U.S. Constitution called the "commerce clause," which the Supreme Court has historically held up, among other things, fining farmers who feed their livestock wheat they grew themselves on their own farm under the guise of potentially affecting interstate commerce.

Is it confusing? Sometimes!
But it's never boring! Well, maybe it's actually quite boring. Just don't tell @Sommerswerd

 

[Snowygerry]

If you consider Republicans to be "left", you must have an extremely skewed view of what is "left". Republicans would be between "hard right" and "far right" here, and I doubt that France and Belgium have such a gap in their average.

We still have a real "right wing" here - people who do not believe all are "created equal", and the French "Republican Ideals" are just leftist nonsense.

 

[Zardnaar]

You're essentially saying that the democrats need to be racist and sexist in order to avoid racist and sexist people from winning elections. Do you not realize the absurdity of your position ?
Wokeism doesn't exist at any meaningful level. It's a right wing fabrication, where they take a local situation somewhere and stretch it until they manage to make it look bad.
The "left being too far left" in the US is a huge fabrication by the right wingers. The democratic party is pro tax cuts, pro corruption, anti change. It's just that the republican party is much more so, and also actively advocating for a return to mid twentieth century policies (or even mid nineteenth century) on subjects like women, gay people, black people. Hence why this SC decision happened. So instead of doing a "both sides are bad" argument, how about we look at who is pushing for unacceptable policies are call them out for it ?



Guaranteed minority rights is definitely not a welcome idea in the republican party

More like there's not a huge amount of upside running non white make in US elections.

Obama did win but Fox did a number on him. Crazy factor was also cranked up.

Fems need to figure out how to reliably flip those purple states. Wokeism doesn't really appeal there. Hell it doesn't appeal here in those electorates. Only way left wins there us when the right shoots themselves in the foot combined with charismatic leader.

Context out of 120 odd MPs around 6 or 7 might pass as USA conservatives and they're not to vocal about it.Right can't win with a women left can't win with a man +since 1987).

Different countries but sone things are similar. Urban liberals more conservative rural.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

There is something in the U.S. Constitution called the "commerce clause," which the Supreme Court has historically held up, among other things, fining farmers who feed their livestock wheat they grew themselves on their own farm under the guise of potentially affecting interstate commerce.

scotus similarly upheld asset forfeiture, despite that quoted example and forfeiture are both blatant violations of the constitution. it's a good reason to be very suspect of them/federal power.

 

[Farm Boy]

So, the overarching context is that the US doesn't actually has abortion laws aka a Constitutional right to abortion on a federal level?

Well, it will be up to the voters to take a stand at the next elections, I guess. But I really wish that there were 100% watertight partitions between the judicial and legislative/political spheres in the US.

If the judicial bench is to have any meaningful power, the partition cannot be watertight*. Anytime you are forced to apply a passed phrase of words: a law, there is eventually going to be a situation that arises(in the US during a lawsuit) where the -=facts as found under the law in a court of law=- are not a situation that the passed phrase of words from the legislature directly address. The judicial branch then must reconcile the situation by best matching the situation to the vacuum left by the legislature. This is "legislating from the bench" and to some extent(maybe lesser, maybe greater) it is entirely unavoidable because it's intentional behavior by a co-equal branch of government. The legislative branch is then free to step in an clarify the legal language that applies, if it has the ability to do so and the will to do so. Intentional behavior again.

*Also why the selection of the justices is ultimately a political process. It's just that people generally have somewhat higher standards they apply to judges than they do legislators. You can tell the standards are higher by the rates of alcoholism on the federal bench!

scotus similarly upheld asset forfeiture, despite that quoted example and forfeiture are both blatant violations of the constitution. it's a good reason to be very suspect of them/federal power.

I think Sommer and I are still in mild disagreement over whether then entirety of modern federal interstate power rests primarily on the equal protections clause or the commerce clause, and which one works as the secondary counterpoint.

It probably depends on when you're looking.

 

[Remorseless1]

The notion that there has been and continue to be discussions about when to grant civil rights and declare personhood is false. Civil rights go to a living, breathing human being who has been born. Period. A fetus cannot sue or be a party to a lawsuit, own property, vote, and count as a dependent at tax time. The "discussion" is one confined solely to a conservative subset of Christianity.

What this represents is a step in reducing the rights of half of America by having the government inserting itself into a woman's right to control her own body. What did the anti vaccine people say, "my body, my choice"? Apparently, conservatives think that only applies to men.

Beyond that, however, is a broader agenda to roll back progressive gains over the last 50 years. Roe v Wade used as precedents rulings on biracial marriages and access to birth control without a prescription, and Roe was foundational in supporting gay marriage. This could undo a great deal of what has been accomplished in the area of civil rights.

 

[Gorbles]

As it turns out, President Biden has urged people to go to the polls to vote for pro-choice candidates (official POTUS Twitter account), citing the need for even more Democratic gains in order to codify Roe into law.

Meanwhile, back in 2019 this Tweet from Joe Biden has aged . . . poorly (Joe Biden's verified Twitter account, where he claims as President he would codify Roe into law)

 

[Sommerswerd]

Could the U.S. Congress write a federal law legalizing abortion? Here's a lengthy review of that question from 2006, of which I have only read the first two pages before linking it. There is something in the U.S. Constitution called the "commerce clause," which the Supreme Court has historically held up, among other things, fining farmers who feed their livestock wheat they grew themselves on their own farm under the guise of potentially affecting interstate commerce.

Is it confusing? Sometimes!
But it's never boring! Well, maybe it's actually quite boring. Just don't tell @Sommerswerd

It is boring, actually... because all that ultimately matters is how the SCOTUS rules. Marbury v. Madison established early on, that the Constitution means whatever the SCOTUS says it means. That's the bottom line, and essentially always has been. The SCOTUS has been very gradually asserting this more and more strongly with each passing year and I am unsure how the increasingly political lens through which the Court is perceived will impact the popular acceptance of this principle.

As for your other point... Congress could theoretically make a federal law legalizing and standardizing the regulations on abortion nationwide, but in a practical sense, the Congressional makeup needed to pass such a law isn't happening anytime soon.

I think Sommer and I are still in mild disagreement over whether then entirety of modern federal interstate power rests primarily on the equal protections clause or the commerce clause, and which one works as the secondary counterpoint.

While I'll admit that I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "disagreement" in this context, I can also offer that "primarily" probably matters so little as to make any "disagreement" over it academic at best, unless I'm missing something. We seem to agree that on some level, its "both", and I think its fair to extend that reasoning to "it depends on individual facts of the particular situation and/or the particular rights involved."

But going back to my above point, my characteristically cynical view, is that the SCOTUS Justices generally first decide what result they think is "right", "desirable", "practical", "workable", etc., then they work backwards to craft a legal framework to justify the desired result. Which is why the politics of the SCOTUS are so provocative. If the Justices were truly viewed purely as objective interpreters, the politics wouldn't matter, because the results wouldn't be affected.

 

[EgonSpengler]

The notion that there has been and continue to be discussions about when to grant civil rights and declare personhood is false. Civil rights go to a living, breathing human being who has been born. Period. A fetus cannot sue or be a party to a lawsuit, own property, vote, and count as a dependent at tax time. The "discussion" is one confined solely to a conservative subset of Christianity.

What this represents is a step in reducing the rights of half of America by having the government inserting itself into a woman's right to control her own body. What did the anti vaccine people say, "my body, my choice"? Apparently, conservatives think that only applies to men.

Beyond that, however, is a broader agenda to roll back progressive gains over the last 50 years. Roe v Wade used as precedents rulings on biracial marriages and access to birth control without a prescription, and Roe was foundational in supporting gay marriage. This could undo a great deal of what has been accomplished in the area of civil rights.

I've been thinking about the Right to Privacy, which is perhaps the one, great unenumerated right upon which many other things rest, such as the right to marry. iirc, the whole right to privacy is founded on the 3rd and 9th amendments, neither of which mentions a right to privacy (nor of course any of the subsequent rights that are founded on the right to privacy).

U.S. Constitution, 3rd Amendment:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[Farm Boy]

Disagreement isn't always a fight. Sometimes it's if the dress looks blue or gold. I think. But yeah, it's both. And it's definitely right to be cynical about the court. But it's still right too to expect more from Thomas than Pelosi, even if we can't or don't.

 

[El_Machinae]

This leak has me pretty sad. Abortion rights in the US always seemed hard-fought and legally tenuous. And because they export so much, memetically, there will be blowback in lots of places.

This challenge and ruling seemed inevitable, given the sheer success of the Republicans plus Trump in the last cycle. I just hope that people have prepared on-the-ground resources to enact the Plan B ...

 

[Birdjaguar]

Roberts says leaked Alito draft opinion is authentic but not final, opens leak investigation

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said in a statement Tuesday that the leaked draft opinion that proposes overturning Roe v. Wade is authentic but not final, and he is opening an investigation into how it became public.

“To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed,” Roberts said. “The work of the Court will not be affected in any way.” While the statement said the draft provided to Politico was genuine, “it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.” The Politico report said that five justices had decided to uphold a Mississippi law that would ban abortions after 15 weeks, and overturn the decision that established a right to abortion nearly 50 years ago. The press release was another extraordinary development in the court’s normal procedures, which generally is to pay no attention to outside influences. It was a sign that Roe v. Wade is too important, and the breach of Supreme Court too monumental, to ignore.

Here’s the full news release from the court:

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e-court-leak-investigation-abortion-roe-wade/

 

[Snowygerry]

[...]

The vast majority of Republicans and probably about a third or more of Democrats also believe this.

You are delusional about how right-wing the Republican Party is. You are also just completely wrong in this assertion unless "historically speaking" actually just refers to the period when Belgium was under Nazi occupation - I'd concede the Republicans were "left" of that regime.

It refers to time before rights were equal - roughly speaking before the 18th century, but specifically concerning women's rights much later, they couldn't even vote before 1949.

Iirc. in 1830 literally 1% of the population was eligible to vote in national elections here.

Even today, some figure that situation was preferable, or at least more practical

that's what we call the Right

 

[Lexicus]

@Lexicus, I'm just frikkin' confused at this point. Above was my initial post that you responded to, where I quoted Zardnaar. You replied about Manchin (someone clearly "not pure") scuttling Dem initiatives. I then echoed Zardnaar's initial point about Ideological Purity being the cause of having to rely on the Manchins of the world, 'cause that's what I assumed (maybe my bad) you were objecting to - that if you got "more Pure" you wouldn't have to rely on the Manchins of the world (which I disagree with - you'll just be a smaller minority).

But now you're saying the Dems don't seek Ideological Purity, which was the whole thing I was echoing in simply agreeing with Zardnaar's post, so... I dunno, maybe we agree? Meaning the Dems shouldn't be so Ideologically Pure & should accept more people who don't 100% "fall in line"? So they (honestly we in this instance) don't *have* to rely on one single Manchin, because there will be 15-20 Manchins & some will support what they/we want?

Is that what you're saying (in which case I agree), or are you saying the Dems should get more Ideologically Pure & kick the Manchins (but, realistically, a lot of other people) to the curb? I'm hoping it's the former, honestly.

Again, I am simply baffled by the suggestion that the Democrats are in any sense "ideologically pure."
What do I think of the idea of getting a majority that includes 15-20 Manchins? I think we had that during Obama's first two years and the Democrats, shockingly, passed a few pieces of legislation that ended up being watered-down pieces of crap due to the concerns of the Blue Dog democrats, and that led us to where we are now. Pretty similar to Biden's first two years, and likely to have the same results (near-unprecedented Republican wave in the first midterm of the Democratic President's term).

We still have a real "right wing" here - people who do not believe all are "created equal", and the French "Republican Ideals" are just leftist nonsense.

The vast majority of Republicans and probably about a third or more of Democrats believe the same thing. You are drastically underestimating the right-wing extremism of the Republican Party and you are simply wrong with respect to your claim that the Republicans are center-left by Belgian standards, unless the phrase "historically speaking" means you are actually comparing the Republican Party to Belgium in the period of Nazi occupation.

I am unsure how the increasingly political lens through which the Court is perceived will impact the popular acceptance of this principle.

Historically, the Court has gone too far and screwed itself. For example, its ruling the Dred Scott case probably contributed more than any other factor to the situation where the Dred Scott case was undone by Federal troops at gunpoint while the court stood by more-or-less helplessly.
I do think that we're already in a situation where most people understand the court is political and that the decisions it makes are the result of whichever party's President appointed more justices. That's a start but I'm (yet?) not seeing the kind of rhetoric from Democrats re: the Court that Republicans were spouting in 1858.

For example,

To decide against this right in the person of Dred Scott, or the humblest and most whip-scarred bondman in the land, is to decide against God. It is an open rebellion against God’s government. It is an attempt to undo what God has done, to blot out the broad distinction instituted by the Allwise between men and things, and to change the image and superscription of the everliving God into a speechless piece of merchandise.

Such a decision cannot stand. God will be true though every man be a liar. We can appeal from this hell black judgment of the Supreme Court, to the court of common sense and common humanity. We can appeal from man to God. If there is no justice on earth, there is yet justice in heaven. You may close your Supreme Court against the black man’s cry for justice, but you cannot, thank God, close against him the ear of a sympathising world, nor shut up the Court of Heaven. All that is merciful and just, on earth and in Heaven, will execrate and despise this edict of Taney.

 

[Farm Boy]

We won the ACA in 2010. Which is still huge enough to defend even if Obama hasn't done anything for us in the last minute enough to not throw him rhetorically under the bus. Because Blue Dogs that are extinct. And the Kinzingers that democrats are finishing off this year too.

 

[Snowygerry]

@Lexicus - I replied to your post 2 minutes before it was made apparently - must be the new 5G connection