Or maybe the Trump Justices will celebrate their victory and their party bus will fall off of a bridge.
If? It just happened or did you miss the news? Roe is gone. And Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurrence that Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell are next.
Of course the self serving POS didn’t mention Loving.
it wasn’t trump, it was mcconnell. mcconnell rolled the dice on trump being elected in 2016 then changed the senate rules. that gave them 2 court openings that should have been obama and biden picks.
any republican president would have chosen judges to do what was done today.
Agree. AIUI Trump just rubber-stamped the nominees McConnell had pre-selected from the Federalist Society rolls. There was already a pipeline of conservative nominees lined-up for any opening on the SC - any Republican President would likely have just done the same thing. The whole RBG thing near the end of Trump was just a bonus for McConnell - that was probably the happiest day of McConnell’s life during the Trump Presidency.
If anyone is interested, this is an excellent Frontline episode detailing the background of McConnell’s quest to shape the SC (54 minutes): Supreme Revenge: Battle for the Court.
My greatest wish is that women only get pregnant when they want to. If only. This feels…historic. Back when covid started, I said, I dont think we’re in Kansas anymore. Wow. What next?
We’re going back to Kansas.
Exactly. This wasn’t done by Super-Maga Republicans.
This wasn’t done by Maga Republicans.
This was done by Republicans, period.
tl;dr: Can anyone summarize the technical legal grounds for the reversal? Is there more to it than “we think Roe v. Wade was pulled out of Harry Blackmun’s ass”? Stare decisis is important in our judicial system.
Biden is speaking on this now.
Exactly what Republicans want you to say.
Against whom, how, and for how long?
This has the same vibe as “we know the names and addresses of the twenty people driving climate change.” Violence may be the result, but it almost certainly isn’t going to “save” anything.
That’s it, basically.
“Roe was wrong and we need to re-examine all of the other substantive due process cases.”
With a lot of leaning on the history of abortion in America - basically “abortion has always been illegal and the Court had no authority to make it a right”.
Roberts didn’t actually sign on to the complete reversal of Roe (not that it matters) - he just agreed that the 15-week ban was OK.
They were nominated by people who lied in their campaigns, who were elected by people who lied about their reasons for voting for them.
That’s exactly what the Jan 6th insurrectionists said.
I can’t laugh at this today.
Something I’ve been pondering: headlines like CNBC’s, saying that the opinion “overturn[s] 50 years of federal abortion rights,” feels to me like it’s agreeing with or playing into the notion that the Supreme Court half a century ago created this out of thin air, and it doesn’t sit well with me. But I’m not sure how to better phrase it. “Abortion right protections,” maybe?
I just read Thomas’s concurrence. To be more precise, Thomas argues that those cases were wrongly decided because they relied on “substantive due process” (whatever exactly that means) which he believes does not exist. He does say that it is possible that the rights defined in those cases might survive, but only if one can find another constitutional basis for justifying them:
After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
But, yeah, it seems likely that many if not all of those rights would be toast if the Court follows Thomas’s logic. My hope is that at least Roberts and Kavanaugh would refuse to go that far.
And, if there is any other silver lining in Thomas’s concurrence, he does agree with the Court’s statement that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” So, he’s saying basically that in essence that they haven’t overturned these other precedents yet, but I think he thinks that they should do so at the “earliest opportunity”, which is probably an invitation to people to bring them cases that would challenge these precedents.
How curious that Justice Thomas doesn’t think Loving v. Virginia should be revisited. 
Thats always been the fundamental problem with Roe. There is nothing magical about 24 weeks which makes it constitutionally less worthy of protection than 23 weeks and 6 days.
Stare decisis is important in our judicial system.
Well, yes, But its never stood for the proposition that Courts are bound by their own previous decisions as opposed go those from superior Courts.
I feel you .I’m safe and sound so far in the Netherlands, but this is a HUGE step back for all women. Our mothers fought for this. I grew up knowing that I would have access to care and assistance if need be. I’m almost out of child bearing age, and this is f*cking frightening, even for me.
{{{{{o}}}}}
The opinions convince me more that ever that it was a conservative who leaked the draft specifically to ensure Kavanaugh stayed on board. His concurrence is almost apologetic, and stresses what the ruling does NOT do to restrict abortion.
Another conservative (or maybe even one of his own clerks) thought he was going squishy and leaked the draft to box him in.