Breaking: Abortion Rights Overturned

Kyle

Kyle

Beloved Misanthrope
PREMO Member
That street needs a napalm strike.

We can call it a postpartum, public abortion.
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member




It's worth noting that in a lengthy Twitter thread by Will Chamberlain from May 3 offers that Elizabeth Deutsch, a law clerk of the retiring Justice Stephen Breyer who is, according to the draft not voting to overturn Roe, may have been the leaker. Chamberlain notes that Deutsch's husband, Isaac Arnsdorf, previously worked for POLITICO and shared a byline and appears to be friends with Gerstein.

POLITICO has, since Gerstein and Ward's report, and beyond the leaked draft, published more takes on abortion, multiple articles a day in fact.

This includes an opinion column known as "Altitude," by John F. Harris. While Justice Alito has reportedly had to flee his home with his family for an undisclosed location for doing his job, Harris looks to be placing the blame on him. "Alito Wants a Brawl and Looks Likely to Get One," Harris wrote for Tuesday morning.

A Supreme Court justice wants a brawl? Or maybe he was assigned to write an opinion that the majority of justices signed onto. That it is a contentious topic does not mean Alito "wants a brawl," though he's looking to get it regardless.




townhall.com

POLITICO Going All Out on Horrific Takes on Abortion

townhall.com townhall.com
 
B

Bobwhite

Well-Known Member
Tilted said:
If the Supreme Court flatly overturns Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey, abortion will become illegal in 13 states immediately. Most of those states will have an exception for the life of the mother, but most won't have any other exceptions.

It will become illegal in 5 more states fairly quickly, either 30 days later or 5 days later or when a specified body certifies that the state's ban is to take effect. In most of those states there will be exceptions for rape and incest as well as for the life of the mother.

In 4 other states bans on abortions after 6 weeks (or detected heartbeats), which are currently enjoined, will go into effect.

That is - by my admittedly fallible count - a total of 22 states in which abortions will, without new legislation, be banned or banned after 6 weeks with varying, but limited, exceptions. I think it's likely that a handful of other states will, before long, pass new legislation banning abortion or banning abortion after something like 6 weeks.

That said, while the leak of Justice Alito's draft opinion is pretty significant, I think many are making more of it than we should - or, at least, more than we definitively can. I think some nuance regarding the way the Court works is lost and unwarranted assumptions have been made.

Before the leak, I'd have handicapped an outright overturning of Roe as quite possible but not particularly likely - maybe a 3:1 proposition. I'd have handicapped a trimming of Roe, about enough to uphold the Mississippi law at issue, as something like 1:3 though - fairly likely to happen. Based on the leaked opinion I'd shift those odds some, to something like 1:1 for an outright overturn and very likely for enough trimming to uphold the Mississippi law. In other words, I would be surprised if the Mississippi law is struck down and I wouldn't be surprised if Roe is outright overruled, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it is only trimmed some.

The leaked opinion is a first draft. So there's nothing saying that all of the Justices that initially voted in the majority on the outcome of the case (i.e. that the Mississippi law would be upheld) agree with its reasoning. Some no doubt think Roe should be overturned. But some others might think Mississippi should win even while they don't think Roe should be completely overturned. I'd possibly put Chief Justice Roberts and/or Justice Kavanaugh in the latter category.

They would have taken a vote and if the result was that Mississippi wins, writing of the Court's opinion would have been assigned to one of the Justices that voted that way - either with or without guidance on the reasoning that would be accepted by everyone in the majority. At that point the assigned Justice (in this case, Justice Alito) would write the first draft of the opinion. Maybe he writes the opinion that he wants, hoping that enough other Justices will more or less agree with that reasoning and it won't have to be dramatically changed in order to hold a majority. Or maybe he writes the opinion that he wants realizing that it won't hold a majority, and that he'll later have to change the reasoning dramatically (e.g., such that Roe isn't completely overturned) in order to hold a majority - e.g., because otherwise he'd lose the Chief Justice or Justice Kavanaugh or both as they wouldn't be willing to go so far as to completely overturn Roe.

The point is, the leaked opinion doesn't necessarily tell us that a majority of the Court is willing to overturn Roe - or even that a majority initially voted that way. (If they did, it's still possible that they have already or will later change they're mind. To get a majority decision you have to find reasoning that a majority is, in the end, willing to join; an initial majority vote one way or another isn't enough.)

What we probably do know from the leaked draft opinion is (1) a majority of the Justices voted for Mississippi to prevail and (2) Justice Alito would, if he could, overturn Roe and Casey. It's safe to assume that others in the initial majority would be willing to join Justice Alito in doing that. But would 4 others? Specifically, would the Chief Justice and/or Justice Kavanaugh? We can speculate on that, but the leaked draft opinion doesn't necessarily tell us the answer.

If I had to bet now, I'd probably bet that Roe ultimately is overturned when the Dobbs opinion is issued. But I think it's still close to an even money bet. And would it be 6-3 or 5-4? If the latter, will it be with Chief Justice Roberts joining or with Justice Kavanaugh joining? And if Roe isn't ultimately overturned, did one or both join the majority when it came to outcome (i.e. that Mississippi prevails) while disagreeing about reasoning (i.e. on whether Roe should be completely overturned)? Or did one or both change their mind somewhere along the way? Does the timing of the leak - well after the first draft was initially circulated and likely after a newer draft has been circulated - have something to do with a Justice changing their mind or not being willing to go along with the reasoning?

Another thought I have, if the Chief Justice initially voted with the majority, would he have assigned the opinion to Justice Alito? I might have expected him to keep it for himself to write - especially if he wasn't willing to go along with completely overturning Roe. So maybe he wasn't in the majority? Or maybe he is willing to go along with completely overturning Roe? If he wasn't in the majority, that would mean that Justice Thomas would have been the one to assign the opinion to Justice Alito. I can more easily see Justice Thomas assigning the opinion to Justice Alito (rather than keeping it for himself) as they're more likely to agree on the basic reasoning - i.e., that Roe and Casey should be overturned.
Click to expand...
I am unable to articulate the pleasure I get from a thoughtful, even-tempered and brilliantly delivered opinion with no foul language, name-calling or finger-pointing. Thank you and welcome back.
 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Tilted said:
If the Supreme Court flatly overturns Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey, abortion will become illegal in 13 states immediately. Most of those states will have an exception for the life of the mother, but most won't have any other exceptions.

It will become illegal in 5 more states fairly quickly, either 30 days later or 5 days later or when a specified body certifies that the state's ban is to take effect. In most of those states there will be exceptions for rape and incest as well as for the life of the mother.

In 4 other states bans on abortions after 6 weeks (or detected heartbeats), which are currently enjoined, will go into effect.

That is - by my admittedly fallible count - a total of 22 states in which abortions will, without new legislation, be banned or banned after 6 weeks with varying, but limited, exceptions. I think it's likely that a handful of other states will, before long, pass new legislation banning abortion or banning abortion after something like 6 weeks.

That said, while the leak of Justice Alito's draft opinion is pretty significant, I think many are making more of it than we should - or, at least, more than we definitively can. I think some nuance regarding the way the Court works is lost and unwarranted assumptions have been made.

Before the leak, I'd have handicapped an outright overturning of Roe as quite possible but not particularly likely - maybe a 3:1 proposition. I'd have handicapped a trimming of Roe, about enough to uphold the Mississippi law at issue, as something like 1:3 though - fairly likely to happen. Based on the leaked opinion I'd shift those odds some, to something like 1:1 for an outright overturn and very likely for enough trimming to uphold the Mississippi law. In other words, I would be surprised if the Mississippi law is struck down and I wouldn't be surprised if Roe is outright overruled, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it is only trimmed some.

The leaked opinion is a first draft. So there's nothing saying that all of the Justices that initially voted in the majority on the outcome of the case (i.e. that the Mississippi law would be upheld) agree with its reasoning. Some no doubt think Roe should be overturned. But some others might think Mississippi should win even while they don't think Roe should be completely overturned. I'd possibly put Chief Justice Roberts and/or Justice Kavanaugh in the latter category.

They would have taken a vote and if the result was that Mississippi wins, writing of the Court's opinion would have been assigned to one of the Justices that voted that way - either with or without guidance on the reasoning that would be accepted by everyone in the majority. At that point the assigned Justice (in this case, Justice Alito) would write the first draft of the opinion. Maybe he writes the opinion that he wants, hoping that enough other Justices will more or less agree with that reasoning and it won't have to be dramatically changed in order to hold a majority. Or maybe he writes the opinion that he wants realizing that it won't hold a majority, and that he'll later have to change the reasoning dramatically (e.g., such that Roe isn't completely overturned) in order to hold a majority - e.g., because otherwise he'd lose the Chief Justice or Justice Kavanaugh or both as they wouldn't be willing to go so far as to completely overturn Roe.

The point is, the leaked opinion doesn't necessarily tell us that a majority of the Court is willing to overturn Roe - or even that a majority initially voted that way. (If they did, it's still possible that they have already or will later change they're mind. To get a majority decision you have to find reasoning that a majority is, in the end, willing to join; an initial majority vote one way or another isn't enough.)

What we probably do know from the leaked draft opinion is (1) a majority of the Justices voted for Mississippi to prevail and (2) Justice Alito would, if he could, overturn Roe and Casey. It's safe to assume that others in the initial majority would be willing to join Justice Alito in doing that. But would 4 others? Specifically, would the Chief Justice and/or Justice Kavanaugh? We can speculate on that, but the leaked draft opinion doesn't necessarily tell us the answer.

If I had to bet now, I'd probably bet that Roe ultimately is overturned when the Dobbs opinion is issued. But I think it's still close to an even money bet. And would it be 6-3 or 5-4? If the latter, will it be with Chief Justice Roberts joining or with Justice Kavanaugh joining? And if Roe isn't ultimately overturned, did one or both join the majority when it came to outcome (i.e. that Mississippi prevails) while disagreeing about reasoning (i.e. on whether Roe should be completely overturned)? Or did one or both change their mind somewhere along the way? Does the timing of the leak - well after the first draft was initially circulated and likely after a newer draft has been circulated - have something to do with a Justice changing their mind or not being willing to go along with the reasoning?

Another thought I have, if the Chief Justice initially voted with the majority, would he have assigned the opinion to Justice Alito? I might have expected him to keep it for himself to write - especially if he wasn't willing to go along with completely overturning Roe. So maybe he wasn't in the majority? Or maybe he is willing to go along with completely overturning Roe? If he wasn't in the majority, that would mean that Justice Thomas would have been the one to assign the opinion to Justice Alito. I can more easily see Justice Thomas assigning the opinion to Justice Alito (rather than keeping it for himself) as they're more likely to agree on the basic reasoning - i.e., that Roe and Casey should be overturned.
Click to expand...
I agree with your statement but have one thing to add . You stated
That said, while the leak of Justice Alito's draft opinion is pretty significant, I think many are making more of it than we should - or, at least, more than we definitively can. I think some nuance regarding the way the Court works is lost and unwarranted assumptions have been made.

Then you went on to prove it was significant by changing your odds .

IMO it is definitely significant and making more of it than we should is what needs to be done. It did exactly what the leaker wanted it to do.
It put pressure on the court and could change the decision.
 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Kyle said:
FBI Sternly Warns Mob At Justice Kavanaugh's Home To Stay Away From School Board Member's House Next Door


babylonbee.com

FBI Sternly Warns Mob At Justice Kavanaugh's Home To Stay Away From School Board Member's House Next Door

WASHINGTON, D.C.—FBI agents confronted the mob surrounding Justice Kavanaugh's home today, warning them to steer clear of the house next door as a local school board member lives there.
babylonbee.com babylonbee.com
Click to expand...
That is funny.
A school board member protected by the FBI while a Justice of the Supreme Court is not.
 
LightRoasted

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

I found these funny ... some modified.

Spoiler alert: Abstinence is the most effective form of birth control.
Spoiler alert: Having your tubes tied is an effective form of birth control.
Spoiler alert: Having your uterus removed is the most effective form of birth control.
Spoiler alert: While laying your back and keeping your legs closed, is the most effective form of birth control.
Spoiler alert: Individual responsibility is the most effective form of birth control.
Spoiler alert: Anal is the most effective form of birth control.
Spoiler alert: Preforming fellatio, twice, before copulation is an effective form of birth control.
Spoiler alert: Masturbation is the most effective form of birth control.
Spoiler alert: Celibacy is the most effective form of birth control.
 
Bare-ya-cuda

Bare-ya-cuda

Well-Known Member
herb749 said:
Haven't seen or heard mention what may happen to Planned Parenthood in all this. Big budget cut .?

Maybe in a few days Biden will float the idea of funding their budget with electric buses to transport those to states that will still allow abortions at any time.
Click to expand...
Planned parenthood launders money of democrat politicians. No budget cuts to see here.
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot urges ‘call to arms’ against Supreme Court​


Several people have slammed Lightfoot’s tweet saying that the tweet provoked violence as several Supreme Court Justices face protests outside of their homes.

“The Mayor of the most violent city in America is here to worry about woke nonsense instead of people literally dying in the streets there,” wrote one Twitter user.

YouTuber Mark Dice echoed the criticism asking the mayor of the embattled city already had enough crime problems.

Chicago has reported a staggering 194 murders in 2022, a six percent drop from this time last year. According to police, crime all over the Windy City has increased almost 35 percent.
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member






“Insurrectionist,” Boebert tweeted in response while following up in another tweet by calling Lightfoot out on her city’s violent crime rate.

“While people are being slain in her streets on a daily basis, all she can worry about is endangering more lives with her reckless words. Shame on her. She should resign,” Boebert wrote.

Several hours later, Lightfoot returned to Twitter and while she didn’t address the tweet calling on her to resign, she did try tangling with Boebert over her other assertion – that she was an insurrectionist.

“Excuse me. Insurrection is your thing. Not ours,” Lightfoot proclaimed to Boebert.

As I write this, Lightfoot’s reply is getting ratio’d like crazy, with hundreds of conservative Twitter users pointing out how the phrase “call to arms” leaves nothing open to interpretation considering a “call to arms” is literally a call to take up weapons against your opposition.


redstate.com

Lori Lightfoot Tries Tangling With Lauren Boebert on ‘Call to Arms’ Tweet With Disastrous Results

redstate.com redstate.com
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Unhinged O’Donnell: ‘Weak’ Constitution Means We Should Strip SCOTUS of Its ‘Secrecy!’​


The unhinged reaction by liberals in the media to the leaking of a draft decision by the Supreme Court overturning Roe is escalating on MSNBC. Radical host Lawrence O’Donnell on Monday night attacked the Constitution as a “much weaker document than we thought” and openly called for stripping the high Court of its “secrecy.” In effect, he praised the shocking leak of the opinion.

Talking to former Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill, The Last Word host suddenly decided that politicizing the Supreme Court is okay, so long as it might stop a conservative ruling:

Right up until the time when I was holding a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion in my hands, I respected and I think believed in all of the institutional practices of the Supreme Court, including the secrecy of the conference of nine and the deliberative processes. But then I realized, “Wait a minute, I’m holding the law of the land in my hand, and according to Supreme Court practice -- and not according to any law -- but according to Supreme Court practice, I'm not supposed to know a word about this until it is the law of the land.”
On the legislative side, that would be like we discover what is in legislation only when the president signs it into law. This thing is kind of like the bill the committee votes on in the Senate, and then get sent to the floor, where it might change in various ways, and the public knows every word of that process or they`re free to know every word of that process as it`s going along. I’m not so sure that the Supreme Court secrecy process around developing these opinions is actually worth preserving.
Click to expand...

So there you go. Leaking an entire draft opinion is fine because the Court is now a legislature.
 
O

OccamsRazor

Well-Known Member
Isn't it absolutely hilarious that the same people who shrilled in terror that Elon Musk was going to allow "Conservative" voices back to Twitter are the ones using Twitter for the "call to arms" and the instigation of violence against those who oppose their views?
Talk about hypocrisy and idiocity!
 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
This piece of trash is a lesbian, who has no need to worry about pregnancy why is she so concerned about normal women.
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Tweeting that conservative SCOTUS Justices ‘should be targeted for assassination’ apparently doesn’t violate Twitter’s ‘safety policies’​



By now, you guys are pretty familiar with our policy when it comes to Twitter randos. We try not to devote much time to posts about them.

But sometimes, we need to do posts about them. Maybe because we’re suckers for an especially hot take.

Or, maybe because, as is the case here, those randos help to expose a serious problem. Like, say, Twitter shrugging at calls for assassinating Supreme Court Justices.

Earlier this week, we told you about former California congressional candidate Steve Cox and his suggestion that the pro-abort mob “empty [Brett Kavanaugh’s] house and burn his crap in front of the hotel” Kavanaugh and his family are staying at. That wasn’t Cox’s only problematic tweet on the subject of SCOTUS:




 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top