dimitrig said:

---

Today's decision is the result of Mitch McConnell's hard work destroying democracy.

Nice job, Mitch!

Four years of an orange jackass in office will be the gift that keeps on giving.

Can you imagine if Hillary had won the election? We'd still have faith in government, elections, and the courts. Instead, we have a deeply divided nation pitting neighbor against neighbor.

What a sad day.

---

Trump in 2016: I will put 2-3 judges on the Supreme Court and we will overturn Roe v Wade pic.twitter.com/ndxQp4ohCd

— No Roe Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) June 24, 2022

Orange Man promise comes true.

Cant wait to see Mike Pence, Pompeo, Hell to Pay, and BearFarce adopt black infants from Alabama who would have otherwise been aborted. Even the one's who came into this world through Rape or Incest.

I know how much being PRO-LIFE means to them.
The same people who were chanting "My Body My Choice!" when it came to the Covid vaccine.

DiabloWags said:

---

Cant wait to see Mike Pence, Pompeo, Hell to Pay, and BearFarce adopt black infants from Alabama who would have otherwise been aborted. Even the one's who came into this world through Rape or Incest.

I know how much being PRO-LIFE means to them.
The same people who were chanting "My Body My Choice!" when it came to the Covid vaccine.

---

How come you never mention white infants from Alabama?

The concern for preserving the offspring of incest is directly related to the concern for restocking the "Patriot" bench.

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

6 - 3

Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett
Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan in dissent.

Judge Roberts wrote a separate concurring opinion.

26 states are certainly to be impacted.

No exceptions for cases of rape, incest, or health risk to the mother.

---

I don't think Roberts overruled Casey, but did give a thumbs-up to allowing the law in question. At this juncture, it is meaningless point of law.

The no exceptions part is rather disturbing. Normally, with the price of gas at whatever, no one who would vote GOP cares that much. Women with means will just go to another state, and the really poor who want an abortion don't vote GOP much. But the health risk to the mother may have to be an immediate decision. I guess doctors will do what they need to do to save the mom and doctor the paperwork to make it work. You would think the rights of someone to live would be rather fundamental.

---

This ruling is what you voted for in 2016. One would think an attorney would have known the lives of women were at stake.

---

Sure, I knew exactly how long Ginsburgh had to live, etc.

And you and I voted for Biden supposedly knowing that would lead to rampant inflation and shortages, C-19 variants, and not being prepared for what seems like probable eventualities like more testing, and flip flops on mask mandates and C-19 restrictions. The "disaster" of a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, that great BBB plan would go nowhere, the increase in illegal immigration and violent crimes, and obliterated the competency thesis that things would get a lot better now that we had a President that knew what he was doing, also is on us. Oh, and we also knew he can't seem to neutralize one freakng Senator from West Virginia.

…and I'll take all that over the theocratic dictatorship tRump and his operators (The Federalist Society) planned on imposing on the United States. Although tRump got halfway there by stacking the SCOTUS with fanatics.

Its too bad that Trump didnt get his wish on Jan. 6th and Pence wasnt lynched. It would have been fun to watch all of the twisted "spin" from Bearinsider's most devout Trumptards and of course, Tucker Carlson...the guy that envies Hungary and Viktor Orban.

But these are the Clowns that compare an environment of high gas prices and inflation with that of an insurrection and attack on our Capitol.

It was just a "tourist" visit.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

6 - 3

Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett
Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan in dissent.

Judge Roberts wrote a separate concurring opinion.

26 states are certainly to be impacted.

No exceptions for cases of rape, incest, or health risk to the mother.

---

I don't think Roberts overruled Casey, but did give a thumbs-up to allowing the law in question. At this juncture, it is meaningless point of law.

The no exceptions part is rather disturbing. Normally, with the price of gas at whatever, no one who would vote GOP cares that much. Women with means will just go to another state, and the really poor who want an abortion don't vote GOP much. But the health risk to the mother may have to be an immediate decision. I guess doctors will do what they need to do to save the mom and doctor the paperwork to make it work. You would think the rights of someone to live would be rather fundamental.

---

This ruling is what you voted for in 2016. One would think an attorney would have known the lives of women were at stake.

---

Sure, I knew exactly how long Ginsburgh had to live, etc.

And you and I voted for Biden supposedly knowing that would lead to rampant inflation and shortages, C-19 variants, and not being prepared for what seems like probable eventualities like more testing, and flip flops on mask mandates and C-19 restrictions. The "disaster" of a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, that great BBB plan would go nowhere, the increase in illegal immigration and violent crimes, and obliterated the competency thesis that things would get a lot better now that we had a President that knew what he was doing, also is on us. Oh, and we also knew he can't seem to neutralize one freakng Senator from West Virginia.

---

wifeisafurd shocked that Trump did exactly what his supporters wanted him to do. Claims ignorance.

BearForce2 said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

I know I'm going to get hammered for this but they could start by not having unprotected sex.

---

Who's they?
Black Americans?
Or the 7500 Americans in general in Alabama?

---

In general "they" are all the human beings who have unprotected sex.

---

But what if the Supreme Court bans contraception?
What if insurance companies and state insurance like Medicaid stop paying for contraceptives?
What if access is limited or denied?

---

Then don't have sex unless you are willing to live with the consequences???

---

Seriously dude?

---

How else are babies made?

---

If that's your end game…basically that abortion under any circumstance is immoral or murder, then there's nothing to discuss. If you had a daughter who was raped or a victim of incest, would she also be forced to carry the baby to full term? While we're at it, how do you feel about gay rights - specifically same sex marriage? Or is that also a result of a lack of self-control or hormones gone wild.

---

In case you want a glimpse at the demonic mindset on display at the Supreme Court today. pic.twitter.com/Jkine2omyv

— Christopher Bedford (@CBedfordDC) June 24, 2022

Don't forget about the rights of the unborn too.

---

Every sperm is sacred.

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

juarezbear 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 agree with you. We need to see polls PER STATE on these issues because blue states' population greatly outnumber red states. Such polls will reveal the great chasm that currently accounts for the ability of the electoral college to tilt national policy in favor of the radically conservative states. Frankly, we are currently engaged in an all-out culture war that's even more severe than the Vietnam era. My wife and many of her friends along with many gay relatives and friends are legitimately frightened about their civil liberties.

---

I'm sorry they feel that way. We have lurched so far to the left it's very odd to me people could see it differently. @13 years ago then candidate Obama was in favor of Civil Unions. President Obama evolved to favor gay marriage. Gay marriage was made law of the land 7 years ago. Now we are debating Trans bathroom and athletic participation issues not any gay rights, which are entrenched

---

Gay marriage rights were granted by the Supreme Court. After today, are you SURE those rights are actually entrenched?

---

Good point. I'm generally aligned with the dissent on this point. The majority's "trust us, abortion is different, we aren't going any further" line is not one which makes people warm and fuzzy.

BearForce2 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

Ginsburg was on the court for 20 years before the whole "Notorious R.B.G." thing started. (The Notorious R.B.G. book was released in 2015 and suddenly she became this iconic figure for women. But the Notorious R.B.G thing was a backlash to people in 2013 and 2014 calling on her to step down before the Dems lost the Senate in 2014...so Ginsburg's legacy is Amy Comey Barrett and this ruling.

---

Even the Late Ruth Bader Ginsburg Knew Roe v. Wade Was Hot Garbage https://t.co/xFDyEPnQNy

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) May 6, 2022

"Roe isn't really about the woman's choice, is it?" Ginsburg told the University of Chicago Law School in May 2013. "It's about the doctor's freedom to practice...it wasn't woman-centered, it was physician-centered."

---

That is why Casey overruled Roe for the most part. It was the protections in Casey that were overurled today

“People cried. They screamed. They begged for help, she said. It was ‘complete despair.’”

To find out how people are living with today’s news, ⁦@ChabeliH⁩’s latest is a must-read https://t.co/V9qzqocjN5

— Shefali Luthra (@shefalil) June 24, 2022

Exhibit A in commitment hearing:

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

Ginsburg was on the court for 20 years before the whole "Notorious R.B.G." thing started. (The Notorious R.B.G. book was released in 2015 and suddenly she became this iconic figure for women. But the Notorious R.B.G thing was a backlash to people in 2013 and 2014 calling on her to step down before the Dems lost the Senate in 2014...so Ginsburg's legacy is Amy Comey Barrett and this ruling.

---

Even the Late Ruth Bader Ginsburg Knew Roe v. Wade Was Hot Garbage https://t.co/xFDyEPnQNy

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) May 6, 2022

"Roe isn't really about the woman's choice, is it?" Ginsburg told the University of Chicago Law School in May 2013. "It's about the doctor's freedom to practice...it wasn't woman-centered, it was physician-centered."

---

That is why Casey overruled Roe for the most part. It was the protections in Casey that were overurled today

---

I believe Casey left abortion as a fundamental right "found" in the constitution intact but removed the trimester approach (literally made up in Roe by Blackmun legally speaking) in favor of a viability standard. Casey also replaced strict scrutiny with "undue burden" which resulted in 30 years of federal abortion litigation. So I think its not correct to say Roe was overruled by Casey "for the most part."

And for those freaking out re Thomas' concurrence. I agree he went full metal jacket (in a way consistent with his prior dissents on these issues), but he didn't garner 1 other justice's vote. In fact, the 8 other justices went out of their way to overtly disagree. Thomas did provide good fodder for the dissent. But there is no appetite for revisiting the other substantive due process cases.

BearGoggles said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

Ginsburg was on the court for 20 years before the whole "Notorious R.B.G." thing started. (The Notorious R.B.G. book was released in 2015 and suddenly she became this iconic figure for women. But the Notorious R.B.G thing was a backlash to people in 2013 and 2014 calling on her to step down before the Dems lost the Senate in 2014...so Ginsburg's legacy is Amy Comey Barrett and this ruling.

---

Even the Late Ruth Bader Ginsburg Knew Roe v. Wade Was Hot Garbage https://t.co/xFDyEPnQNy

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) May 6, 2022

"Roe isn't really about the woman's choice, is it?" Ginsburg told the University of Chicago Law School in May 2013. "It's about the doctor's freedom to practice...it wasn't woman-centered, it was physician-centered."

---

That is why Casey overruled Roe for the most part. It was the protections in Casey that were overurled today

---

I believe Casey left abortion as a fundamental right "found" in the constitution intact but removed the trimester approach (literally made up in Roe by Blackmun legally speaking) in favor of a viability standard. Casey also replaced strict scrutiny with "undue burden" which resulted in 30 years of federal abortion litigation. So I think its not correct to say Roe was overruled by Casey "for the most part."

And for those freaking out re Thomas' concurrence. I agree he went full metal jacket (in a way consistent with his prior dissents on these issues), but he didn't garner 1 other justice's vote. In fact, the 8 other justices went out of their way to overtly disagree. Thomas did provide good fodder for the dissent. But there is no appetite for revisiting the other substantive due process cases.

---

Thomas' words are a useful hint at what, at root, the conservative movement REALLY wants. That's where they're going, given enough time and power.

BearGoggles said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

Ginsburg was on the court for 20 years before the whole "Notorious R.B.G." thing started. (The Notorious R.B.G. book was released in 2015 and suddenly she became this iconic figure for women. But the Notorious R.B.G thing was a backlash to people in 2013 and 2014 calling on her to step down before the Dems lost the Senate in 2014...so Ginsburg's legacy is Amy Comey Barrett and this ruling.

---

Even the Late Ruth Bader Ginsburg Knew Roe v. Wade Was Hot Garbage https://t.co/xFDyEPnQNy

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) May 6, 2022

"Roe isn't really about the woman's choice, is it?" Ginsburg told the University of Chicago Law School in May 2013. "It's about the doctor's freedom to practice...it wasn't woman-centered, it was physician-centered."

---

That is why Casey overruled Roe for the most part. It was the protections in Casey that were overurled today

---

I believe Casey left abortion as a fundamental right "found" in the constitution intact but removed the trimester approach (literally made up in Roe by Blackmun legally speaking) in favor of a viability standard. Casey also replaced strict scrutiny with "undue burden" which resulted in 30 years of federal abortion litigation. So I think its not correct to say Roe was overruled by Casey "for the most part."

And for those freaking out re Thomas' concurrence. I agree he went full metal jacket (in a way consistent with his prior dissents on these issues), but he didn't garner 1 other justice's vote. In fact, the 8 other justices went out of their way to overtly disagree. Thomas did provide good fodder for the dissent. But there is no appetite for revisiting the other substantive due process cases.

---

Considering the court in Casey said it was overruling Roe and the entire construct of the lead decision in
Roe, Blackman's tri-semester decision tree was laid to waste, I guess very little happened. Actually in the world of legal commentators a lot more happened. Casey overruled Roe by saying that states may regulate abortions so as to protect the health of the mother and the life of the fetus, and may outlaw abortions of "viable" fetuses. As a result, the bulk of an anti-abortion bill in question was held to be legal even when applied to the first two trimesters. That would have never been the case under Roe. But there is even more, Casey, though less famous than Roe, is actually a more important case because it began paving the way for anti-aborton states to greatly restrict abortion access through legislation that required counseling before an abortion, waiting periods and parental involvement for a minor. There were also additional physician and hospital restrictions added all in the name of the mother's health. Thus, as a practical matter, it became difficult to get abortions in anti-abortion states if you were poor. But yes, other than those minor changes which for some reason legal commentators and people who want abortions think are pretty significant, it didn't overrule Roe for the most part (Query, what part of Roe's lead decision did it actually keep?).

Thomas' concurrence will be quoted in new cases exactly never.

BearForce2 said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Personally, I blame the Republicans.

---

Hillary shares a lot of the blame herself for largely ignoring the Rust Belt.
States that had been part of the traditional "blue wall".

Even her own husband, one of the greatest political strategists of all-time, was highly critical of her and her campaign managers who largely ignored and paid little attention to Michigan and Wisconsin.

To me, she was totally out of touch with the very real angst and frustration by blue collar workers in those States who had been passed by during the recovery from the Great Recession.

The Rustbelt States Hillary Clinton Neglected Led to Her Defeat - The Atlantic

---

Agree with you here. I distinctly remember late in the race when Hillary was at a huge fundraiser party in NY and Trump was in Michigan and Wisconsin. He has much better strategists. Hillary thought of it as n entitlement. Trump does t give a **** about his base - he simply recognized that the white working class felt abmdones and ignored and like the evil, devious mother****** he is, exploited them for all they're worth. Do you think he is sincerely religious??! What a nightmare we've been left with.

---

Big win for America!

---

Thank you for reinforcing my point. Anybody who believes a word that man, who still doesn't accept the 2020 election, deserves what they get. He knows how to manipulate people like you very well.

BearForce2 said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

I know I'm going to get hammered for this but they could start by not having unprotected sex.

---

Who's they?
Black Americans?
Or the 7500 Americans in general in Alabama?

---

In general "they" are all the human beings who have unprotected sex.

---

But what if the Supreme Court bans contraception?
What if insurance companies and state insurance like Medicaid stop paying for contraceptives?
What if access is limited or denied?

---

Then don't have sex unless you are willing to live with the consequences???

---

Seriously dude?

---

How else are babies made?

---

If that's your end game…basically that abortion under any circumstance is immoral or murder, then there's nothing to discuss. If you had a daughter who was raped or a victim of incest, would she also be forced to carry the baby to full term? While we're at it, how do you feel about gay rights - specifically same sex marriage? Or is that also a result of a lack of self-control or hormones gone wild.

---

In case you want a glimpse at the demonic mindset on display at the Supreme Court today. pic.twitter.com/Jkine2omyv

— Christopher Bedford (@CBedfordDC) June 24, 2022

Don't forget about the rights of the unborn too.

---

At what point do you believe those rights begin?

Pence draws contrast with Trump on abortion decision


https://www.axios.com/2022/06/25/pence-draws-contrast-with-trump-on-abortion-decision

BearGoggles said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

Ginsburg was on the court for 20 years before the whole "Notorious R.B.G." thing started. (The Notorious R.B.G. book was released in 2015 and suddenly she became this iconic figure for women. But the Notorious R.B.G thing was a backlash to people in 2013 and 2014 calling on her to step down before the Dems lost the Senate in 2014...so Ginsburg's legacy is Amy Comey Barrett and this ruling.

---

Even the Late Ruth Bader Ginsburg Knew Roe v. Wade Was Hot Garbage https://t.co/xFDyEPnQNy

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) May 6, 2022

"Roe isn't really about the woman's choice, is it?" Ginsburg told the University of Chicago Law School in May 2013. "It's about the doctor's freedom to practice...it wasn't woman-centered, it was physician-centered."

---

That is why Casey overruled Roe for the most part. It was the protections in Casey that were overurled today

---

I believe Casey left abortion as a fundamental right "found" in the constitution intact but removed the trimester approach (literally made up in Roe by Blackmun legally speaking) in favor of a viability standard. Casey also replaced strict scrutiny with "undue burden" which resulted in 30 years of federal abortion litigation. So I think its not correct to say Roe was overruled by Casey "for the most part."

And for those freaking out re Thomas' concurrence. I agree he went full metal jacket (in a way consistent with his prior dissents on these issues), but he didn't garner 1 other justice's vote. In fact, the 8 other justices went out of their way to overtly disagree. Thomas did provide good fodder for the dissent. But there is no appetite for revisiting the other substantive due process cases.

---

IMO Casey's biggest flaws are exactly these two things. The changed legal standard created years of new litigation, further dividing the country on the issue instead of letting it settle. The trimester test was a legal fiction but it reflected the true/correct competing interests at play; moving to Undue Burden fundamentally changed that (for the worse IMO), ignoring the state's interest in the future life and instead making this pretty purely a woman's right issue. IMO for as bad as Roe was on the law Casey is worse for its practical implications. We would have been a lot better off with just Roe. If anything the lesson from this is in Robert's Concurrence, which is ironic because up to the point of Casey, Justice O'Connor was known for avoiding expansive opinions

bearister said:

---

Pence draws contrast with Trump on abortion decision


https://www.axios.com/2022/06/25/pence-draws-contrast-with-trump-on-abortion-decision

---

This is what these right-wing extremists really want: a national abortion ban. The door is open now.

To be fair, people like BearFarce are easily manipulated. They practically beg for it.

AunBear89 said:

---

To be fair, people like BearFarce are easily manipulated. They practically beg for it.

---

He knows exactly what he's doing.

sycasey said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

To be fair, people like BearFarce are easily manipulated. They practically beg for it.

---

He knows exactly what he's doing.

---

That may be true, but he doesn't know it until Charlie Kirk or Poso or The RNC tells him first.

One clinic physician thought the decision would come next week. She flew in a doctor from CA, hoping to get as many patients seen today as possible.

Instead, they spent the day telling patients one by one that they could not get the abortions they’d been scheduled for. https://t.co/KuSFnji2nQ

— Shefali Luthra (@shefalil) June 25, 2022

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

Ginsburg was on the court for 20 years before the whole "Notorious R.B.G." thing started. (The Notorious R.B.G. book was released in 2015 and suddenly she became this iconic figure for women. But the Notorious R.B.G thing was a backlash to people in 2013 and 2014 calling on her to step down before the Dems lost the Senate in 2014...so Ginsburg's legacy is Amy Comey Barrett and this ruling.

---

Even the Late Ruth Bader Ginsburg Knew Roe v. Wade Was Hot Garbage https://t.co/xFDyEPnQNy

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) May 6, 2022

"Roe isn't really about the woman's choice, is it?" Ginsburg told the University of Chicago Law School in May 2013. "It's about the doctor's freedom to practice...it wasn't woman-centered, it was physician-centered."

---

That is why Casey overruled Roe for the most part. It was the protections in Casey that were overurled today

---

I believe Casey left abortion as a fundamental right "found" in the constitution intact but removed the trimester approach (literally made up in Roe by Blackmun legally speaking) in favor of a viability standard. Casey also replaced strict scrutiny with "undue burden" which resulted in 30 years of federal abortion litigation. So I think its not correct to say Roe was overruled by Casey "for the most part."

And for those freaking out re Thomas' concurrence. I agree he went full metal jacket (in a way consistent with his prior dissents on these issues), but he didn't garner 1 other justice's vote. In fact, the 8 other justices went out of their way to overtly disagree. Thomas did provide good fodder for the dissent. But there is no appetite for revisiting the other substantive due process cases.

---

Thomas' words are a useful hint at what, at root, the conservative movement REALLY wants. That's where they're going, given enough time and power.

---

Thomas' view is that substantive due process is BS and that the SC should not be "finding" new rights in the constitution on that basis. The conservative position is that neither conservatives nor liberal justices should engage in this type of policy making, irrespective of whether the results are "good".

Maybe it would be best if both liberals and conservatives didn't try to use the SC to effect policy changes and didn't perpetuate the appearance that the SC is the place for political partisans to gain victories they can't win at the ballot box?

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

Pence draws contrast with Trump on abortion decision


https://www.axios.com/2022/06/25/pence-draws-contrast-with-trump-on-abortion-decision

---

This is what these right-wing extremists really want: a national abortion ban. The door is open now.

---

What's more extreme, a nationwide ban on abortions or a law permitting third trimester abortions of viable fetuses on demand (through the ninth month), like Colorado and many other states have?

Maybe "right-wing" and "left-wing" people have both taken extreme positions? The Colorado law says that embryos, fertilized eggs and fetuses as lacking any standing under state law, which strikes me as very extreme in the case of viable fetuses.

https://www.cpr.org/2022/05/02/if-roe-v-wade-really-is-really-overturned-what-happens-to-abortion-in-colorado/

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/05/1091041608/colorado-abortion-law

Personally, I find both positions extreme. And I am pro-choice for early term pregnancies (and in cases involving the life of the mother or pre-viability cases involving rape or incest). My position is the mainstream one, based on polling.

In terms of the nationwide ban, I suspect we will start finding a lot of liberal federalists. I think any congressional law banning or affirming a nationwide abortion right is quite possibly unconstitutional. Any such law is also unlikely to ever defeat a filibuster (assuming the dems do not foolishly eliminate it).

BearGoggles said:

---

In terms of the nationwide ban, I suspect we will start finding a lot of liberal federalists. I think any congressional law banning or affirming a nationwide abortion right is quite possibly unconstitutional. Any such law is also unlikely to ever defeat a filibuster (assuming the dems do not foolishly eliminate it).

---

1. If Republicans have the votes (say they win a trifecta in 2024), they will eliminate the filibuster to get their nationwide ban through. Guaranteed.

2. This radical right-wing Court will then get to decide what's constitutional. Want to take bets on how they'll rule?

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

In terms of the nationwide ban, I suspect we will start finding a lot of liberal federalists. I think any congressional law banning or affirming a nationwide abortion right is quite possibly unconstitutional. Any such law is also unlikely to ever defeat a filibuster (assuming the dems do not foolishly eliminate it).

---

1. If Republicans have the votes (say they win a trifecta in 2024), they will eliminate the filibuster to get their nationwide ban through. Guaranteed.

2. This radical right-wing Court will then get to decide what's constitutional. Want to take bets on how they'll rule?

---

1. McConnell has opposed the elimination of the filibuster repeatedly for legislation - in opposition to Trump and others. He opposed Reid doing it for judges but when Reid made that change, McConnell did expand it to SC judges. Anything is possible - and McConnell won't be around for ever - so who knows. But there are widespread democrat demands to eliminate it now - that was not the case for Trump.

2. We have some indication as to how they would rule, based on conservative views of federalism and enumerated rights. If you look at NFIB vs. Sebelius, there is extensive discussion of the limits of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause. That is the conservative position.

The liberals, on the other hand, would take a very expansive view of congressional powers. It is the liberal judicial theories that would support a nationwide ban, though no doubt Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan are so results oriented they would never issue a ruling contrary to their political preference (i.e., they would support a nationwide law affirming abortion rights, but would oppose a nationwide ban).

I can point to many instances where Scalia, Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and other conservative justices voted based on their view of the law, even when it was against their political preferences. Flag burning, NFIB, and many cases involving the first amendment and/or rights of accused criminals. Can you point me to any cases where Sotomayor's judicial philosophy led her to support a ruling that is contrary to her liberal political preferences? Kagan is more strategic - but mostly applies to her as well.

DiabloWags said:

---

Cant wait to see Mike Pence, Pompeo, Hell to Pay, and BearFarce adopt black infants from Alabama who would have otherwise been aborted. Even the one's who came into this world through Rape or Incest.

I know how much being PRO-LIFE means to them.
The same people who were chanting "My Body My Choice!" when it came to the Covid vaccine.

---

Wigs, have you ever adopted a black infant?

AunBear89 said:

---

Great job, Republicans! Love the fetus, hate the child worked for you! I look forward to the next Republican controlled Congress eliminating WIC, CHIP, Head Start, and other social programs for poor families and their children.

Flaming hypocrites - every last one of you.

---

$50 billion for Ukrainian weapons on top of a trillion dollar plus military budget is going to result in budget cuts somewhere else...

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

In terms of the nationwide ban, I suspect we will start finding a lot of liberal federalists. I think any congressional law banning or affirming a nationwide abortion right is quite possibly unconstitutional. Any such law is also unlikely to ever defeat a filibuster (assuming the dems do not foolishly eliminate it).

---

1. If Republicans have the votes (say they win a trifecta in 2024), they will eliminate the filibuster to get their nationwide ban through. Guaranteed.

2. This radical right-wing Court will then get to decide what's constitutional. Want to take bets on how they'll rule?

---

Didn't the Dems recently eliminate the filibuster in their attempt to pass the abortion bill? IIRC they were thwarted by the WV senator, who believed their bill went far beyond Roe. That bill died because Dem's wouldn't caucus to find a more moderate version of the bill that they could pass; they preferred to have the political issue for November. So let's not pretend that one side is evil and the other side is pure. Both sides have extremists. Both sides game the system for political gain.

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

In terms of the nationwide ban, I suspect we will start finding a lot of liberal federalists. I think any congressional law banning or affirming a nationwide abortion right is quite possibly unconstitutional. Any such law is also unlikely to ever defeat a filibuster (assuming the dems do not foolishly eliminate it).

---

1. If Republicans have the votes (say they win a trifecta in 2024), they will eliminate the filibuster to get their nationwide ban through. Guaranteed.

2. This radical right-wing Court will then get to decide what's constitutional. Want to take bets on how they'll rule?

---

Didn't the Dems recently eliminate the filibuster in their attempt to pass the abortion bill? IIRC they were thwarted by the WV senator, who believed their bill went far beyond Roe. That bill died because Dem's wouldn't caucus to find a more moderate version of the bill that they could pass; they preferred to have the political issue for November. So let's not pretend that one side is evil and the other side is pure. Both sides have extremists. Both sides game the system for political gain.

---

Only one side represents the majority of Americans.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Didn't the Dems recently eliminate the filibuster in their attempt to pass the abortion bill? IIRC they were thwarted by the WV senator, who believed their bill went far beyond Roe.

---

I don't understand the question. Didn't Dems eliminate the filibuster, only they were thwarted by a Senator who is also a Dem? That means they didn't do it.

To be clear, I'm fine with eliminating the filibuster (or returning it to what it used to be, an actual talking filibuster). Conservatives may get short-term gains from it now but in the long run that will benefit progressives. The filibuster is a conservative tool used to prevent change.