RIP RBG

[Deleted User 310]

So pro-life is no abortions under ANY circumstances basically?

[ousdahl]

Basically.

Even if there are exceptions, they tend to be fewer and fewer, while the obstacles toward a woman’s constitutional right get greater and greater.

I remember a Catholic priest who told me there should be no exceptions in the instance of rape, cuz rape is bad but so is abortion and two wrongs don’t make a right, so that woman should pray until she realizes that rape baby was actually a blessing all along.

[Deleted User 310]

Back to the topic....

Is the any evidence, both public statements and/voting history, that the current sitting "conservative" Supreme Court Justices want to overturn Roe v Wade?

Or are we just worried about it because trump said so?

[Deleted User 89]

google is your friend

[jfish26]

Back to the topic....

Is the any evidence, both public statements and/voting history, that the current sitting "conservative" Supreme Court Justices want to overturn Roe v Wade?

Or are we just worried about it because trump said so?

I tend to think there is zero chance Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would vote against overturning, if presented the correctly-picked case (which it would be). I think Alito would join.

Thomas has made no bones about his feelings on the matter.

As usual, this would result in Roberts being the lone wild card. Unless you fill RBG's seat with a Fed Society stoogette, which would of course be the pick.

[Deleted User 310]

Back to the topic....

Is the any evidence, both public statements and/voting history, that the current sitting "conservative" Supreme Court Justices want to overturn Roe v Wade?

Or are we just worried about it because trump said so?

I tend to think there is zero chance Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would vote against overturning, if presented the correctly-picked case (which it would be). I think Alito would join.

Thomas has made no bones about his feelings on the matter.

As usual, this would result in Roberts being the lone wild card. Unless you fill RBG's seat with a Fed Society stoogette, which would of course be the pick.

Yes, i understand you "think" those things, but my question is if there is evidence as far as public statements or prior rulings that support those thoughts? Or if is it just an assumption? Just genuinely curious.

I will look up what Thomas has said on the matter since you are seemingly indicating he has made a public statement on it.

[Sparko]

Thomas’s wife fundraises on it.

[jfish26]

I think his opinions have also reflected his view that Roe was decided incorrectly, or at least that he presumes a government interest in female reproductive rights that is not consistent with not overturning Roe if the right facts are presented.

[ousdahl]

Let’s all remember that the legal question at the heart of Roe v. Wade was one of the 14th amendment, and whether due process affords a woman a right to privacy. The court ruled it did.

There was never a war on abortion. It’s a war on personal freedom.

[Deleted User 89]

Back to the topic....

Is the any evidence, both public statements and/voting history, that the current sitting "conservative" Supreme Court Justices want to overturn Roe v Wade?

Or are we just worried about it because trump said so?

I tend to think there is zero chance Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would vote against overturning, if presented the correctly-picked case (which it would be). I think Alito would join.

Thomas has made no bones about his feelings on the matter.

As usual, this would result in Roberts being the lone wild card. Unless you fill RBG's seat with a Fed Society stoogette, which would of course be the pick.

Yes, i understand you "think" those things, but my question is if there is evidence as far as public statements or prior rulings that support those thoughts? Or if is it just an assumption? Just genuinely curious.

I will look up what Thomas has said on the matter since you are seemingly indicating he has made a public statement on it.

you do know, don’t you, that it is at minimum frowned upon for justices to make statements about cases/rulings that may come before their court, right?

it opens the door for potential calls for recusal, due to the optics of potential bias

[Deleted User 318]

I think his opinions have also reflected his view that Roe was decided incorrectly, or at least that he presumes a government interest in female reproductive rights that is not consistent with not overturning Roe if the right facts are presented.

I haven't played the "I agree with Roe, I just don't like how it was decided" game for a while. Is there an issue with Congress codifying Roe, or has it just been too politically toxic (maybe until now). Might be something a nuked filibuster Dem-led Congress to take up in 2021 to just shut up the issue.

[sdoyel]

[twocoach]

Eh, wasn't this according to Ginsberg's granddaughter?

[jfish26]

I agree with this.

You are a mom in a relatively well-to-do household, and your sexually-active daughter (the daughter isn't fooling anyone) goes to Blue Valley West or Shawnee Mission East or Lawrence Free State or the rich Wichita high school or Salina South or Hays High or the equivalent in the swing states.

Why would a mom in those Kansas areas allow some folks from Scott City dictate what happens to her daughter?

This reminds me of the movie Footloose.

Trump is going to overplay his hand.

What screams out at me (and likely Ronna/Mitch) is the result among Republicans.

[Deleted User 318]

I'm still trying to find the timeline when we avoid a government shutdown (next week), do anything with Covid (probably not going to happen, RIP to those millions unemployed and under-employed), and jam a justice down our throat, and still have vulnerable GOP senators campaign.

GOP can lose several seats if they do this, both through voter outrage, and not able to campaign.

[jfish26]

I'm still trying to find the timeline when we avoid a government shutdown (next week), do anything with Covid (probably not going to happen, RIP to those millions unemployed and under-employed), and jam a justice down our throat, and still have vulnerable GOP senators campaign.

GOP can lose several seats if they do this, both through voter outrage, and not able to campaign.

The only thinking that makes sense to me is that the GOP is resigned to getting beaten like a drum in November. And the play here is to cement at least a 5-4 majority that will be a buffer on D policies until the GOP can entirely retool.

[Deleted User 318]

Until nuked filibuster, two new states, and expanded courts. Oh, and SCOTUS-blessed gerrymandering. I think the Dems finally play dirty like NC Repubs and start putting in the legwork if they jam this down our throats.

[Deleted User 318]

Also, some GOP senators are calling for them to skip judicial, skip hearings, and just go to a vote. Even with Mitt, Susan and Lisa dissenting, I'm not sure you get one more senator to come to their senses here. This whole thing is wild.

[ousdahl]

That’s a good illustration of the GOP strategy.

I don’t think they’re resigned to loosing a thing.

I think they’re planning on winning just by continuing to be manifestations of their base: stubborn ignorant assholes.

So what if no good faith, or if they don’t even know a thing about who they’re confirming, as long as they’re owning the libs.

#MAGA

[jfish26]

Until nuked filibuster, two new states, and expanded courts. Oh, and SCOTUS-blessed gerrymandering. I think the Dems finally play dirty like NC Repubs and start putting in the legwork if they jam this down our throats.

Ultimately, though, don't those things get challenged? And then decided by...a 6-3 or 5-4 vote?