5 ms·

The concern is less that Roe v Wade will be overturned outright so much as it will be de facto overturned by death by a thousand cuts. Dozens of abortion-rights

by wycy 6y ago

The concern is less that Roe v Wade will be overturned outright so much as it will be de facto overturned by death by a thousand cuts. Dozens of abortion-rights cases are heading toward the Supreme Court, and Mississippi's attempt to pass a 15-week abortion ban is just the start.

fastball 6y ago
Not sure why you think all the originalists on the SCOTUS would want to death-by-a-thousand cuts Roe v Wade. If states pass constitutional laws, I'm sure they'll be upheld by the current SCOTUS. If laws are unconstitutional, I'm sure they won't be. What is the problem here? That originalist conservatives won't be legislating from the bench as has been happening? If abortion needs to be a protected right then amend the constitution.
- wycy 6y ago
  The idea that the conservatives on the court are "originalists" is a complete farce. Kavanaugh just wrote an opinion last week that it is critical that election results must be called by TV networks on the night of the election. This is of course despite the fact that (a) there is no such law, (b) none of the founding fathers could have ever imagined TV networks calling elections day-of, (c) and election results are routinely not known for many days/weeks after an election. This bizarre opinion is just one of countless that disproves the "originalism" myth. And as for legislating from the bench, few are more guilty of that than Alito and Thomas.
  - fastball 6y ago
    Um. What? The case I think you're talking about (DNC v WSL) was literally about whether or not state legislatures can decide when to require ballots. Wisconsin's legislature decided election day. A lower court said this was unconstitutional, but it's not, so the majority opinion was for WSL. Please show me where in this opinion the assertion was made that election results must be called by TV networks on election night.
    - wycy 6y ago
      https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/us/kavanaugh-voting-rights.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/us/kavanaugh-voting-right... Also funny about his opinion is that he doesn't seem to understand that states rarely (never?) "definitively announced results on election night." States typically don't certify their results for weeks. Only TV networks call elections on election night based on projections of what the final results might be after states count all their legally cast ballots. Kavanaugh either doesn't understand or has a problem with how elections in this country have always worked.
      - fastball 6y ago
        Huh, literally nothing about announcing results on TV. How can you straight-facedly opine on the opinion when you clearly haven't read it? Instead of reading a NYT article, which is basically a partisan rag at this point, try reading the actual opinion. And then you can quote back to me the parts about television. Except you can't, because they're not there. > Kavanaugh just wrote an opinion last week that it is critical that election results must be called by TV networks on the night of the election. This is a lie. Stop lying.
        wycy 6y ago
        Media networks are the only entities that can call an election on election night. States can't and don't do that. Therefore, Kavanaugh is either talking about (1) the networks "calling" the election or (2) he's talking about some fantasy world in which states certify their elections night-of. Either is lunacy and either flies in the face of originalism. I have a lot of problems with NYT, including ideological problems, but to say it's just a partisan rag tells me all I need to know about this conversation.
        fastball 6y ago
        How can you say that and not agree that it is a partisan rag? A reputable news org shouldn't have a handful of problems, much less "a lot". And certainly not blatantly obvious ideological / bias problems. Back to SCOTUS, the quote was: > Those states also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night, or as soon as possible thereafter. Emphasis mine. Nowhere did the majority opinion say "certify" the results. States (or to be more precise, the districts within them) absolutely do start reporting their results on election night.
- AshWolfy 6y ago
  Because of different interpretations of the constitution. What do you believe constitutes a reasonable health regulation?
  - fastball 6y ago
    Whatever you can pass as long as it doesn't violate the constitution.
    - krapp 6y ago
      But in Roe V. Wade, SCOTUS already determined that abortion rights don't violate the constitution. Why do you believe a constitutional amendment is necessary for a right already determined to be constitutional?
      - fennecfoxen 6y ago
        It is possible that this was decided in error. The reasoning referred to it using fuzzy terms about “emanations” and “penumbras” from the fourth amendment, and the right thus found is not clearly stated by the text of the law (let alone the intent of those who wrote it). The late RBG sorta thought it was trash as an opinion. An explicit constitutional amendment would establish it much more firmly, and would be impeccably legitimate in precisely the way Roe isn’t. These are very desirable properties if you value democracy, or if you wish to establish things more permanently.
        krapp 6y ago
        I don't know that RGB thought it was trash as an opinion. She believed in a woman's right to an abortion, but also believed the basis for the decision in Roe V Wade was weak and its scope made it vulnerable to attack (and she was correct in hindsight.) From what I read, she believed a stronger argument could have been made from the equal protection clause rather than right to privacy. But she certainly believed the underlying right was valid. But let's be honest - almost no one opposing Roe V. Wade does so on the grounds that the argument from the fourth amendment is weak, they argue primarily from religious grounds that pregnant women fundamentally do not have the right to terminate, as they consider such to be an act of murder in nearly all, or all cases. The crux of the matter regarding abortion for most people has never really been a legalistic one but a metaphysical and often religious one - the rights of the unborn versus the rights of a woman's autonomy over her body. While I would hope that Republicans who drape themselves in Christian piety and refer to themselves as pro-life in order to imply that their opponents are pro-death, and who have made an existential pillar out of repealing Roe V. Wade for forty years, would stack the courts with judges who would consider the matter without undue bias, I suspect that bias is the intent for stacking the court to begin with,and that the actual constitutional validity of the decision isn't meant to matter.

by wycy 6y ago

fastball 6y ago

Not sure why you think all the originalists on the SCOTUS would want to death-by-a-thousand cuts Roe v Wade. If states pass constitutional laws, I'm sure they'll be upheld by the current SCOTUS. If laws are unconstitutional, I'm sure they won't be. What is the problem here? That originalist conservatives won't be legislating from the bench as has been happening? If abortion needs to be a protected right then amend the constitution.

wycy 6y ago
The idea that the conservatives on the court are "originalists" is a complete farce. Kavanaugh just wrote an opinion last week that it is critical that election results must be called by TV networks on the night of the election. This is of course despite the fact that (a) there is no such law, (b) none of the founding fathers could have ever imagined TV networks calling elections day-of, (c) and election results are routinely not known for many days/weeks after an election. This bizarre opinion is just one of countless that disproves the "originalism" myth. And as for legislating from the bench, few are more guilty of that than Alito and Thomas.
- fastball 6y ago
  Um. What? The case I think you're talking about (DNC v WSL) was literally about whether or not state legislatures can decide when to require ballots. Wisconsin's legislature decided election day. A lower court said this was unconstitutional, but it's not, so the majority opinion was for WSL. Please show me where in this opinion the assertion was made that election results must be called by TV networks on election night.
  - wycy 6y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/us/kavanaugh-voting-rights.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/us/kavanaugh-voting-right... Also funny about his opinion is that he doesn't seem to understand that states rarely (never?) "definitively announced results on election night." States typically don't certify their results for weeks. Only TV networks call elections on election night based on projections of what the final results might be after states count all their legally cast ballots. Kavanaugh either doesn't understand or has a problem with how elections in this country have always worked.
    - fastball 6y ago
      Huh, literally nothing about announcing results on TV. How can you straight-facedly opine on the opinion when you clearly haven't read it? Instead of reading a NYT article, which is basically a partisan rag at this point, try reading the actual opinion. And then you can quote back to me the parts about television. Except you can't, because they're not there. > Kavanaugh just wrote an opinion last week that it is critical that election results must be called by TV networks on the night of the election. This is a lie. Stop lying.
      - wycy 6y ago
        Media networks are the only entities that can call an election on election night. States can't and don't do that. Therefore, Kavanaugh is either talking about (1) the networks "calling" the election or (2) he's talking about some fantasy world in which states certify their elections night-of. Either is lunacy and either flies in the face of originalism. I have a lot of problems with NYT, including ideological problems, but to say it's just a partisan rag tells me all I need to know about this conversation.
        fastball 6y ago
        How can you say that and not agree that it is a partisan rag? A reputable news org shouldn't have a handful of problems, much less "a lot". And certainly not blatantly obvious ideological / bias problems. Back to SCOTUS, the quote was: > Those states also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night, or as soon as possible thereafter. Emphasis mine. Nowhere did the majority opinion say "certify" the results. States (or to be more precise, the districts within them) absolutely do start reporting their results on election night.
AshWolfy 6y ago
Because of different interpretations of the constitution. What do you believe constitutes a reasonable health regulation?
- fastball 6y ago
  Whatever you can pass as long as it doesn't violate the constitution.
  - krapp 6y ago
    But in Roe V. Wade, SCOTUS already determined that abortion rights don't violate the constitution. Why do you believe a constitutional amendment is necessary for a right already determined to be constitutional?
    - fennecfoxen 6y ago
      It is possible that this was decided in error. The reasoning referred to it using fuzzy terms about “emanations” and “penumbras” from the fourth amendment, and the right thus found is not clearly stated by the text of the law (let alone the intent of those who wrote it). The late RBG sorta thought it was trash as an opinion. An explicit constitutional amendment would establish it much more firmly, and would be impeccably legitimate in precisely the way Roe isn’t. These are very desirable properties if you value democracy, or if you wish to establish things more permanently.
      - krapp 6y ago
        I don't know that RGB thought it was trash as an opinion. She believed in a woman's right to an abortion, but also believed the basis for the decision in Roe V Wade was weak and its scope made it vulnerable to attack (and she was correct in hindsight.) From what I read, she believed a stronger argument could have been made from the equal protection clause rather than right to privacy. But she certainly believed the underlying right was valid. But let's be honest - almost no one opposing Roe V. Wade does so on the grounds that the argument from the fourth amendment is weak, they argue primarily from religious grounds that pregnant women fundamentally do not have the right to terminate, as they consider such to be an act of murder in nearly all, or all cases. The crux of the matter regarding abortion for most people has never really been a legalistic one but a metaphysical and often religious one - the rights of the unborn versus the rights of a woman's autonomy over her body. While I would hope that Republicans who drape themselves in Christian piety and refer to themselves as pro-life in order to imply that their opponents are pro-death, and who have made an existential pillar out of repealing Roe V. Wade for forty years, would stack the courts with judges who would consider the matter without undue bias, I suspect that bias is the intent for stacking the court to begin with,and that the actual constitutional validity of the decision isn't meant to matter.