In a solo concurring opinion, Thomas says the court should reconsider rulings that protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage. pic.twitter.com/zcQNko6NVR

— Matt Ford (@fordm) June 24, 2022

okaydo said:

---

I think conservatives leaked it to blunt the impact of the ruling...When it's leaked, it's not official so there isn't as much outrage (even though there was outrage). And when it becomes official, you knew it was coming, so there isn't as much outrage as there would've been if this wasn't expected.

---

okaydo said:

---

In a solo concurring opinion, Thomas says the court should reconsider rulings that protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage. pic.twitter.com/zcQNko6NVR

— Matt Ford (@fordm) June 24, 2022

---

DiabloWags said:

---

okaydo said:

---

I think conservatives leaked it to blunt the impact of the ruling...When it's leaked, it's not official so there isn't as much outrage (even though there was outrage). And when it becomes official, you knew it was coming, so there isn't as much outrage as there would've been if this wasn't expected.

---

But I also think the Court takes a big hit in credibility.
As it is, polls show that American confidence in SCOTUS is at a record low.

Confidence in Supreme Court hits record low amid Roe v. Wade (nypost.com)

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Justice Roberts does not join the Conservatives who overturn Roe.
He had tried to uphold the current law of 15 weeks (before viability)

In his opinion, he states that he wanted to reconsider Grizwold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.


19-1392 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (06/24/2022) (supremecourt.gov)

So, essentially a woman has no rights from the time of conception as free and equal citizens.
The Govt. controls them.

It will be interesting to see what kind of Health Policy response is made by (and to) the States.

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

I haven't read the opinion. I believe the vote was 6-3. Sounds like Roberts did vote to overturn Roe but wrote a concurrence to express different legal views.

---

DiabloWags said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

I haven't read the opinion. I believe the vote was 6-3. Sounds like Roberts did vote to overturn Roe but wrote a concurrence to express different legal views.

---

The vote was 6 - 3 with Roberts writing a separate concurring opinion.

He concurred in the judgement only, and would have limited the decision to upholding Mississippi law at issue in the case, which banned abortions after 15 weeks.

Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending right to abortion upheld for decades : NPR

---

The Supreme Court has ended constitutional protections for abortion in a 5-4 decision by its conservative majority to overturn Roe v. Wade.@AP explains. https://t.co/fk9IWbTNsN pic.twitter.com/dEbiLnrn61

— The Associated Press (@AP) June 24, 2022

okaydo said:

---

The Supreme Court has ended constitutional protections for abortion in a 5-4 decision by its conservative majority to overturn Roe v. Wade.@AP explains. https://t.co/fk9IWbTNsN pic.twitter.com/dEbiLnrn61

— The Associated Press (@AP) June 24, 2022

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

okaydo said:

---

The Supreme Court has ended constitutional protections for abortion in a 5-4 decision by its conservative majority to overturn Roe v. Wade.@AP explains. https://t.co/fk9IWbTNsN pic.twitter.com/dEbiLnrn61

— The Associated Press (@AP) June 24, 2022

---

"ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., and KAVANAUGH, J., filed concurring opinions. ROBERTS, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion."


I don't remember if a concurrence without joining make it a 6-3 decision or a 5-3-1 decision. I would think a Concurrence can't make it a 5-4 decision.

---

DiabloWags said:

---

okaydo said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

okaydo said:

---

I think conservatives leaked it to blunt the impact of the ruling...When it's leaked, it's not official so there isn't as much outrage (even though there was outrage). And when it becomes official, you knew it was coming, so there isn't as much outrage as there would've been if this wasn't expected.

---

But I also think the Court takes a big hit in credibility.
As it is, polls show that American confidence in SCOTUS is at a record low.

Confidence in Supreme Court hits record low amid Roe v. Wade (nypost.com)

---

Polling doesn't matter.

Polling showed the vast majority of Americans were okay with gay people…and in the past 6 months, republicans have turned being gay into something evil again. And they won't suffer for it.

---

I disagree.
American confidence in SCOTUS is at a record low.
That's the topic that I raised.

---

Worth saying that the idea that this will be determined through the democratic process is a cruel joke since this Court has also systematically dismantled the federal protection of voting rights and fair representation from state lawmakers who seek to limit both. https://t.co/oOJhAGVRIF

— b-boy bouiebaisse (@jbouie) June 24, 2022

dajo9 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Wonder what happens to in vitro fertilization (IVF)
Is that now illegal because of the eggs that are not used that get disposed off (killed)?

65% of voters questioned in a Fox News National Poll conducted last September said that they wanted to keep in place Roe, which legalized abortion nationwide.

Most Americans favor keeping Roe v. Wade: polling | Fox News

---

The polls are all over the place and change depending on the specific question asked. A recent poll also says 54% favor eliminating / restricting abortion after 15 weeks.

---

And that was the basic framework that had survived until today.

Again: radical right wing court.

---

The Warren Court was radical until it and those that followed with similar ideology were in place long enough for people to not understand there are different valid ways to interpret the C. I personally don't like that characterization either way; I think both approaches to interpreting the C are legitimate.

As a practical matter I think there is a lot of good public policy that could come from this decision. Eventually conservatives are going to get over their good news today and realize they really do not like the permissive policies in NY, CA, etc. Liberals already know they don't like what is going to happen in 26(?) states. The solution is that old thing where people compromise, get some of what they want and give up stuff they don't like giving up. Ironically, something in the range of the original Roe decision (recognizing competing interests between women and society's interest in the fetus/life/future life) is a probable framework for a solution. That is really what this SCOTUS decision is about - certain unenumerated rights are best left to the political process.

---

You are completely at odds with the Constitution which states, "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". That does not mean unenumerated rights are best left to the political process. It means people have rights not listed in the Constitution.

The Supreme Council has only ever defended the rights of the minority when Warren was Chief Justice. You are right, that was radical.

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Wonder what happens to in vitro fertilization (IVF)
Is that now illegal because of the eggs that are not used that get disposed off (killed)?

65% of voters questioned in a Fox News National Poll conducted last September said that they wanted to keep in place Roe, which legalized abortion nationwide.

Most Americans favor keeping Roe v. Wade: polling | Fox News

---

The polls are all over the place and change depending on the specific question asked. A recent poll also says 54% favor eliminating / restricting abortion after 15 weeks.

---

And that was the basic framework that had survived until today.

Again: radical right wing court.

---

The Warren Court was radical until it and those that followed with similar ideology were in place long enough for people to not understand there are different valid ways to interpret the C. I personally don't like that characterization either way; I think both approaches to interpreting the C are legitimate.

As a practical matter I think there is a lot of good public policy that could come from this decision. Eventually conservatives are going to get over their good news today and realize they really do not like the permissive policies in NY, CA, etc. Liberals already know they don't like what is going to happen in 26(?) states. The solution is that old thing where people compromise, get some of what they want and give up stuff they don't like giving up. Ironically, something in the range of the original Roe decision (recognizing competing interests between women and society's interest in the fetus/life/future life) is a probable framework for a solution. That is really what this SCOTUS decision is about - certain unenumerated rights are best left to the political process.

---

You are completely at odds with the Constitution which states, "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". That does not mean unenumerated rights are best left to the political process. It means people have rights not listed in the Constitution.

The Supreme Council has only ever defended the rights of the minority when Warren was Chief Justice. You are right, that was radical.

---

I am familiar with the 9th Amendment. I suspect you are too, in which case you know that it was basically not invoked by SCOTUS for @170 years, that it is called the "enigma," etc, etc, etc. I haven't read Roe in a long while but my recollection is it was not a core basis for the decision; likewise (IIRC) Casey said abortion rights were based on 14th Am Due Process Rights, not 9th Amendment.

The 9th Amendment does not mean every unenumerated right is protected or the degree to which it is protected. The Court has a framework for dealing with unenumerated rights. I'm reading the current opinion - it addresses this head on in depth. Reasonable people can disagree about the courts reasoning here.

I understand that a more expansive reading of the 9th Am is easy when it is your/our own right at stake and it is easier to read it more restrictively when it is someone else's right at stake.

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Wonder what happens to in vitro fertilization (IVF)
Is that now illegal because of the eggs that are not used that get disposed off (killed)?

65% of voters questioned in a Fox News National Poll conducted last September said that they wanted to keep in place Roe, which legalized abortion nationwide.

Most Americans favor keeping Roe v. Wade: polling | Fox News

---

Maybe you can use your brain once and realize the rules are governed by the states now.

---

okaydo said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

I disagree.
American confidence in SCOTUS is at a record low.
That's the topic that I raised.

---

It doesnt matter if American confidence is at a record low. (Okay, it may matter to Roberts.) they aren't answerable to anybody and they don't seem to care about public opinion.

---