4 ms·

>And do you thinkt he cons on the SCOTUS are satisfied with this? They’ll be glad to ban abortion nationwide completely. Did you read what Alito wrote? He's ex

>And do you thinkt he cons on the SCOTUS are satisfied with this? They’ll be glad to ban abortion nationwide completely. Did you read what Alito wrote? He's explicitly stating he doesn't want SCOTUS ruling on the legality of abortion. How, precisely, would SCOTUS "ban abortion" in this scenario?

ceejayoz 5y ago
They'll be glad to uphold a Federal ban passed by an upcoming Republican Congress and White House.
- remarkEon 5y ago
  And they'd just as likely uphold a Federal protection of abortion if an upcoming Democrat Congress and White House passed one. What's your point?
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Why would you think this court makeup would uphold a Federal abortion protection? They largely won’t even uphold the VRA.
    - xyzzyz 5y ago
      How did this court makeup rule in the Bostock case?
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        This court didn’t, unless I missed some news about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s miraculous resurrection.
        rayiner 5y ago
        Bostock was 6-3, with Gorsuch and Robert’s joining the majority. Even swapping RBG for Barret, Bostock still would have come out the same way. Also note that only Alito and Thomas wrote in criticism of Obergefell to concur in the denial of cert for the Kim Davis case. I know you think conservatives are just as results oriented as liberals, but that’s not true. No liberal Justice will ever go wobbly on a liberal social issue. It’s always a conservative justice that breaks the party line on cases like Bostock (O’Conner, Kennedy, Roberts, and now Gorsuch). Roe is uniquely at risk because it embraces the liberal notion of Supreme Court as national moral tribunal in its purest form. Even liberals struggle to defend the decision on its on merits. Tim Carney has collected an entire list of quotes from prominent liberal academics criticizing Roe https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/restoring-america/equality-not-elitism/there-is-no-valid-defense-of-roe-thats-why-that-side-resorts-to-threats https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/restori... > One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” That's liberal legal scholar Laurence Tribe. Decisions like Oberrgefell and Bostock are on far firmer legal footing.

ceejayoz 5y ago

They'll be glad to uphold a Federal ban passed by an upcoming Republican Congress and White House.

remarkEon 5y ago
And they'd just as likely uphold a Federal protection of abortion if an upcoming Democrat Congress and White House passed one. What's your point?
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Why would you think this court makeup would uphold a Federal abortion protection? They largely won’t even uphold the VRA.
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    How did this court makeup rule in the Bostock case?
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      This court didn’t, unless I missed some news about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s miraculous resurrection.
      - rayiner 5y ago
        Bostock was 6-3, with Gorsuch and Robert’s joining the majority. Even swapping RBG for Barret, Bostock still would have come out the same way. Also note that only Alito and Thomas wrote in criticism of Obergefell to concur in the denial of cert for the Kim Davis case. I know you think conservatives are just as results oriented as liberals, but that’s not true. No liberal Justice will ever go wobbly on a liberal social issue. It’s always a conservative justice that breaks the party line on cases like Bostock (O’Conner, Kennedy, Roberts, and now Gorsuch). Roe is uniquely at risk because it embraces the liberal notion of Supreme Court as national moral tribunal in its purest form. Even liberals struggle to defend the decision on its on merits. Tim Carney has collected an entire list of quotes from prominent liberal academics criticizing Roe https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/restoring-america/equality-not-elitism/there-is-no-valid-defense-of-roe-thats-why-that-side-resorts-to-threats https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/restori... > One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” That's liberal legal scholar Laurence Tribe. Decisions like Oberrgefell and Bostock are on far firmer legal footing.