US Politics: Turkeys Available Here

[Varysblackfyre321]

22 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Supreme Court hears oral arguments in an abortion rights case that could overturn Roe v. Wade. Listen live

Conservative legal activists watch SCOTUS abortion cases with worry over what happens if they lose

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/30/politics/conservative-judges-legal-movement-abortion/index.html

But others say that if the Supreme Court disappoints conservatives with its upcoming rulings, the prevailing lesson is that the vetting process for nominees must be drastically revised -- even if that means dismantling the conservative legal movement in its current form. Advocates for such change said more stakeholders should be consulted in the vetting process and more probing questions about how potential judges might rule in certain cases should be encouraged.

"If the court gets this wrong, future administrations will need to consult a far wider group of people than they have previously, and we need more people in the room asking more direct questions," Bovard said.

Sigh, I feel the urge to pointless bemoan the hypocrisy. 

[Kalbear]

Seeing these arguments and the responses the only thing I don't know is whether SCOTUS will find all abortion 100% illegal everywhere or whether they'll only make it up to states until some ludicrously low viability standard. 

[sologdin]

will find all abortion 100% illegal everywhere

has that question been presented?

 

 ludicrously low viability standard. 

this is already implicit in the rule of casey, which in theory permits a state to regulate the pregnancy at twenty or twelve or two weeks if medical science moves the point of viability there. 

[Kalbear]

8 minutes ago, sologdin said:

will find all abortion 100% illegal everywhere

has that question been presented?

I don't think it matters. Its what 4 of the 9 clearly want and will clearly use whatever they can to get. 

The question now is what either gorsuch or roberts will do. 

8 minutes ago, sologdin said:

 

 ludicrously low viability standard. 

this is already implicit in the rule of casey, which in theory permits a state to regulate the pregnancy at twenty or twelve or two weeks if medical science moves the point of viability there. 

Sure, except we aren't there yet at 15 weeks, much less 6. 

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, sologdin said:

will find all abortion 100% illegal everywhere

has that question been presented?

 

No and the notion is absurd.

[Kalbear]

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

No and the notion is absurd.

Why do you say that? What so far presented gives you a viewpoint that they will not go that far?

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

Why do you say that? What so far presented gives you a viewpoint that they will not go that far?

Because overturning Roe is not about making abortion 100% illegal everywhere, a position that is only held by ~10 to 15 percent of Americans.

[Kalbear]

Just now, DMC said:

Because overturning Roe is not about making abortion 100% illegal everywhere, a position that is only held by ~10 to 15 percent of Americans.

I should have been more precise in my wording - by 100% illegal i meant that Mississippi's current law would become the new standard everywhere and states could be MORE restrictive. Kavanaugh saying that the middle ground is states individually deciding is an indicator to me that the argument is between making Mississippi the law of the land, making it applicable per state, or keeping status quo. 

[sologdin]

conceivably there could be a case wherein someone sues the US and all states on behalf of all fetals, stating that they have a right to life that may not be violated under any circumstance.  that'd be the case that tries to ban abortion 100% in the US.

overturning casey from the right would simply make regulating termination of pregnancy a state's rights question, rather than a federal constitutional one.  

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Kalsandra said:

I should have been more precise in my wording - by 100% illegal i meant that Mississippi's current law would become the new standard everywhere and states could be MORE restrictive. Kavanaugh saying that the middle ground is states individually deciding is an indicator to me that the argument is between making Mississippi the law of the land

Well, I guess I'm still not clear what you mean, but the case is not about making the Mississippi law the law of the land.

[HoodedCrow]

And so, they just want to harass anyone providing an abortion. Birth control pills are talked of as an abortifactant, as are IUDs. I wouldn’t be surprised if Dems are automatically suspected of “ something”, and may now be preyed on with guns or informing tittle tattle. It’s not good. Women may target women, especially in religious cultures.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, sologdin said:

conceivably there could be a case wherein someone sues the US and all states on behalf of all fetals, stating that they have a right to life that may not be violated under any circumstance.  that'd be the case that tries to ban abortion 100% in the US.

overturning casey from the right would simply make regulating termination of pregnancy a state's rights question, rather than a federal constitutional one.  

I don't think that applies. They can choose to expand this ruling and apply it everywhere, and I'm pretty sure they've done this in the past in various places. Its unusual, but SCOTUS powers are pretty broad and it has happened. 

As with a lot of things the reason they don't do it more is because of norms, not laws. That's what Sotomayor was arguing to.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Well, I guess I'm still not clear what you mean, but the case is not about making the Mississippi law the law of the land.

Again, just because that's what the case is about means nothing as far as applicability. They can choose to make it limited or broad reaching because ultimately their ruling is how the US constitution is applied, not how a specific case can apply. If they, for instance, decide that the limit for abortions is arbitrary and 15 weeks is a happy compromise for every state they can do that.

[sologdin]

am not saying that it won't do somehting crazy--but normally the court can only decide a 'case or controversy,' that is, an actual live question being pushed by litigants from different directions.  because the underlying state statutes can't ban abortion everywhere, it would be a leap to ban it everywhere.  leaving the mississippi statute in place simply rolls it back to the pre-roe situation of state regulation. by contrast, moving the viability line back to 15 weeks would be entirely consistent with casey, which always envisioned a moving target. that's what pissed people off when the decision came out. because it extinguished roe's strict trimester schema.

neither of those results is a total ban--though both conceivably could become a total ban in the fullness of time.

[DMC]

Just now, Kalsandra said:

Again, just because that's what the case is about means nothing as far as applicability.

Yes, it does.  What you're suggesting is the court invalidating the 15 states with laws that protect the right to abortion.  This is not remotely where the court is right now and, unless public perception changes drastically, is unlikely to ever approach.

[JGP]

This is just, such a gross take, as if pregnancy itself doesn't have an effect on your career/work, or your day to day life. I can only imagine, of course, but my ex wasn't even close to comfortable during hers. 

[Fez]

26 minutes ago, sologdin said:

am not saying that it won't do somehting crazy--but normally the court can only decide a 'case or controversy,' that is, an actual live question being pushed by litigants from different directions.  because the underlying state statutes can't ban abortion everywhere, it would be a leap to ban it everywhere.  leaving the mississippi statute in place simply rolls it back to the pre-roe situation of state regulation. by contrast, moving the viability line back to 15 weeks would be entirely consistent with casey, which always envisioned a moving target. that's what pissed people off when the decision came out. because it extinguished roe's strict trimester schema.

neither of those results is a total ban--though both conceivably could become a total ban in the fullness of time.

I'm forgetting literally all the details, so this isn't that helpful, but there was a case a year or two ago where the court went way, way beyond what the litigants asked for and struck down a whole extra heaping of stuff as well. I could easily see the court doing the same here; saying something like the litigants demonstrated a compelling interest in overturning all statutes in all states that allow abortion beyond 15 weeks.

[Kalbear]

26 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yes, it does.  What you're suggesting is the court invalidating the 15 states with laws that protect the right to abortion.  This is not remotely where the court is right now and, unless public perception changes drastically, is unlikely to ever approach.

I don't think that's accurate with respect to where the court is, but we both do agree that a possibility that scotus can do is decide this case in such a way that those state laws become de facto unconstitutional, right?

I also think that using public perception is a good guide for figuring out roberts - but not the other 5. Certainly not the other 4, though its hard to say with gorsuch. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

2-3 yrs in juvey ain't gonna cut it for this 15 y.o.'s violence.

Try him as an adult and remove him as a threat to society for the foreseeable future.

Authorities look for motive with 15-year-old Michigan high school shooting suspect in custody. Here's what we know

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/01/us/oxford-high-school-shooting-what-we-know/index.html

[Varysblackfyre321]