US Politics: Roe v Wade into the quiet part of the stream

[Mindwalker]

1 hour ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

My growing cynicism probably isn't making things very clear. Sorry.

Trying to get around to the idea: what's left for the grifters who use these causes to make money, when the authoritarians kill the causes before any cash rolls in?

Pity the anti abortion lobbyist? Pity the anti anything conservative lobbyist? 

They've been hyped for many months against trans people, it'll do.

[Martell Spy]

50 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

They've been hyped for many months against trans people, it'll do.

Yes, other rights will be attacked. An obvious early choice will be the rights of blue states to protect abortion rights. States rights until it's no longer convenient to conerservative activists.

And come to think of it, the right to fly to Canada or France to get an abortion. It depends I guess on how hard they want to make it for Republican politicians to procure abortions. Maybe they could have a special island for members and staffers.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

An interesting Twitter thread on why the leak may be a right wing attempt to lock in Alito’s opinion…

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

8 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Maybe they could have a special island for members and staffers.

And I thought Peter Thiel's libertarian seasteading plan joined Atlantis on the ocean floor of bad ideas.

[Jaxom 1974]

1 hour ago, Mindwalker said:

They've been hyped for many months against trans people, it'll do.

Yes. But it isn't going to be a battle for nearly 50 years. It'll be done within a year of power changing hands.  

What happens when there are no longer any bogeymen to rail against?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

17 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Yes. But it isn't going to be a battle for nearly 50 years. It'll be done within a year of power changing hands.  

What happens when there are no longer any bogeymen to rail against?

There'll always be something that threatens to frail masculinity of an Ameriman. 

[Ormond]

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Or a Unitarian Universalist, for which access to reproductive freedom has been part of the faith since long before Roe. 

According to Pew both Conservative and Reform Judaism, the Unitarian Universalists, the United Church of Christ, and the Presbyterian Church (USA) all support abortion rights with "few or no limits" as their official position.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/21/where-major-religious-groups-stand-on-abortion/

And here are Pew's figures from 2018 on % of those who self-designate as members of various religious faiths who support abortion rights. As you can see the Unitarian Universalists are the highest, above even atheists and agnostics, in their support. And a majority of members of some otherwise conservative denominations, such as the Orthodox and the smaller Presbyterian Church in America (a primarily Southern group), support abortion rights.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/22/american-religious-groups-vary-widely-in-their-views-of-abortion/

[teej6]

33 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

An interesting Twitter thread on why the leak may be a right wing attempt to lock in Alito’s opinion…

 

A NYT piece that states the same… leak likely from a supporter of overturning RvW. Limited clicks so pasting part of piece.

Quote

Still, Justice Alito was no doubt worried that Chief Justice Roberts, who sketched out a middle-ground position at the argument, might threaten his majority. The chief justice suggested that the court could uphold the Mississippi law at issue in the case, which bans abortions after 15 weeks, but stop short of overruling Roe outright…

… In an editorial last week, The Wall Street Journal expressed concern that Chief Justice Roberts was trying to persuade Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett to take his narrower approach.

The point of the leak, then, may have been to lock in the five-justice conservative majority.

“I would be wary of jumping to a conclusion that the leaker is necessarily someone who opposes overturning Roe v. Wade,” said Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine.

Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said the source was probably trying to increase the price of switching positions.

“In terms of who leaked it and why, it seems much more likely to me that it comes from the right in response to an actual or threatened defection by one of the five who voted to overturn Roe,” he said. “Leaking this early draft makes that more costly for a defector because now people will think that they changed their vote after the leak in response to public outrage.”

Professor Hasen said there was another benefit to the right from the disclosure of the draft opinion.

“This kind of leak could in fact help the likely future majority overturning Roe if it deflects the conversation to the question of Supreme Court secrecy and the danger of leaks to the legitimacy of the process,” he said. “That’s better than a conversation about the potential illegitimacy of overturning longstanding precedent allowing reproductive choice. It also could be intended to soften the blow by signaling to everyone the earthquake to come.”

 

[sologdin]

the slavery slippery slope is kinda embarrassing, y'all. it's banned pursuant to amendment 13, despite its textual exceptions and ugly jurisprudence. different posture from penumbral theories such as the progeny of griswold.

 

do we know if alito wrote this draft? i worked for a court of appeal, and wrote many drafts there. some were signed by a judge as written, and many others were substantially amended. circulation of a draft may indicate where the court is headed, but it may also be the first crack at it by an overzealous federalist society law clerk.

[MercenaryChef]

I was just outside the supreme court. they are erecting further barriers. metro pd and capital police are assembling en masse. camera and news crews everywhere. maybe a 2:1 thinking people vs fascist. 

as a nation we are going backwards. what a complete fucking joke. 

i have a lot of hatred for the republican party that has orchestrated this since roe v wade was decided. but my hatred is quickly growing for the democratic party. they let this happen. bad presidential nominees, not being ruthless, reaching across the aisle only to constantly have their hand slapped. they care too much about appealing to the low-calorie republicans who call themselves moderates and wanting to appear somehow morally superior to do any fucking thing useful. 

fuck them,  fuck the republicans,  fuck the supreme court. 

[butterbumps!]

2 hours ago, Morpheus said:

Pelosi’s daughter tried to stir up some shit and has been getting dragged because of her shitbird mother’s less than consistent stance on choice.

 

I don't know if I'm missing something, but I'm not really sure how this makes Sarandon look vindicated?    Was Sarandon trumpeting the importance of maintaining the right to abortion when she told people not to vote for Hillary because she was indistinguishable from Trump?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, sologdin said:

the slavery slippery slope is kinda embarrassing, y'all. it's banned pursuant to amendment 13, despite its textual exceptions and ugly jurisprudence. different posture from penumbral theories such as the progeny of griswold.

 

do we know if alito wrote this draft? i worked for a court of appeal, and wrote many drafts there. some were signed by a judge as written, and many others were substantially amended. circulation of a draft may indicate where the court is headed, but it may also be the first crack at it by an overzealous federalist society law clerk.

That fact makes me think this really may be an effort by Alito to force his right-wing brethren to sign onto this extreme draft.  

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, sologdin said:

but it may also be the first crack at it by an overzealous federalist society law clerk.

So basically Sam Alito 45 years ago.

[Week]

26 minutes ago, teej6 said:

A NYT piece that states the same… leak likely from a supporter of overturning RvW. Limited clicks so pasting part of piece.

 

The fervent and consistent messaging from the Right pearl clutching at the leak and to suggest Roe v Wade as no big deal is really giving up the con. Clear coordination IMO.

12 minutes ago, sologdin said:

the slavery slippery slope is kinda embarrassing, y'all. it's banned pursuant to amendment 13, despite its textual exceptions and ugly jurisprudence. different posture from penumbral theories such as the progeny of griswold.

Now do marriage equality, sodomy laws, inter-racial marriage. Hell, Brown v Board has been touted by a Nut-ional Review columnist (IIRC).

[A Horse Named Stranger]

13 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

I don't know if I'm missing something, but I'm not really sure how this makes Sarandon look vindicated?    Was Sarandon trumpeting the importance of maintaining the right to abortion when she told people not to vote for Hillary because she was indistinguishable from Trump?

Yep, people like her telling everbody not to vote for Hillary and effectively giving Federalist nutjobs two supreme court justices (the Scalia and RBG seats)... that lack of self-awareness is stunning. If anything today would be another fuck you Susan Sarandon day in my book. But what does a horse care about the woes and wishes of American humons?

And fwiw Pelosi is right. That horse has bolted, running on abortion now is playing into the rethuglicans hands. 

[Kalbear]

30 minutes ago, sologdin said:

the slavery slippery slope is kinda embarrassing, y'all. it's banned pursuant to amendment 13, despite its textual exceptions and ugly jurisprudence. different posture from penumbral theories such as the progeny of griswold.

Oh, I know that. My point is that the reasoning - that states should decide fundamental rights like personhood - applies to those things too.

 

[Zorral]

Members of what used to be republicans have been known not to hide their belief that slavery wasn't a bad thing.

[Mindwalker]

45 minutes ago, sologdin said:

the slavery slippery slope is kinda embarrassing, y'all. it's banned pursuant to amendment 13, despite its textual exceptions and ugly jurisprudence. different posture from penumbral theories such as the progeny of griswold.

 

do we know if alito wrote this draft? i worked for a court of appeal, and wrote many drafts there. some were signed by a judge as written, and many others were substantially amended. circulation of a draft may indicate where the court is headed, but it may also be the first crack at it by an overzealous federalist society law clerk.

I don't know, but lawyer type pundits say it very much sounds like him. Does it matter?

 

Meanwhile, the mainstream media are lapping up the Republican narrative of the leak being more important than what was actually leaked... sigh.

[Larry of the Lawn]

24 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Yep, people like her telling everbody not to vote for Hillary and effectively giving Federalist nutjobs two supreme court justices (the Scalia and RBG seats)... that lack of self-awareness is stunning. If anything today would be another fuck you Susan Sarandon day in my book. But what does a horse care about the woes and wishes of American humons?

And fwiw Pelosi is right. That horse has bolted, running on abortion now is playing into the rethuglicans hands. 

Pelosi is endorsing at least one anti abortion Dem this year.  Blaming Susan Sarandon for this situation is nonsense.

[Morpheus]

41 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

I don't know if I'm missing something, but I'm not really sure how this makes Sarandon look vindicated?    Was Sarandon trumpeting the importance of maintaining the right to abortion when she told people not to vote for Hillary because she was indistinguishable from Trump?

Not interested in vindicating Sarandon. Admittedly, not the best pick for an example of what I was talking about. As usual, Pelosi whiffed on an important issue and is feigning outrage today while currenly supporting an anti-choice Democrat.