Supreme Court targets Roe vs Wade

[deepwatersolo]

Not sure if this has been posted already, but SCOTUS has decided to take up a Mississippi case on a 15 weeks ban on abortion that seems to have been designed for a direct overturn of Roe vs. Wade. (Sorry, can‘t link to the Slate Article on my Phone).

Yes, Foo, as I described above. In the last year of Obama's presidency, Justice Anthony Scalia died. Obama tried to replace him with Merrick Garland. Then head of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, Republican, a walking, talking sack of testes, refused to hold the Senate hearings that would allow Garland's appointment to go through. He justified this on the basis that a president should not be able to fill a SC seat in their last year. There was absolutely no precedent, law, anything justifying this. But the Dems were stuck.

When RGB died, the situation was similar but not exactly the same. She died in September 2020, and at that time, Trump still potentially had 4 more years in office. However, should he be voted out, he had less time in office than Obama had had. There were also major Senate elections in the offing, so the people who could drive through the Republican pick could, in a matter of months, be out of office.

Most notably, Sanator Lindsay Graham, scrote of the highest order, had and head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, had said back in 2016 that he would apply the appointment blocking tactic to any president of any party who was up for election. Except that he changed his mind. And thus, RGB was replaced by arch anti abortionist Amy Coney Barratt.

None of that disproves what I said, and none of that makes your assertion that asking RGB to resign early would have been sexist. She was the logical person to stand down. Her sex had nothing to do with it. As I said above, I think they should be asking Justice Stephen Breyer to stand down now to ensure they don't get fucked over again, should he die at a time in the future when the Democrats either don't hold the presidency, or can't get their pick because they don't have the Senate majority. It's not about blame or ego. It's about playing the long game, and making a sacrifice to a) preserve the liberal/Democratic legacy and b) counteract the utter contempt with which the Republican parties treat the Democrats, even when they are in power.

Fightingthefoo: And I may be mistaken but didn't Obama try to push someone onto the SC in his last few weeks, before Trump was sworn in - which set the precedent for Trump doing the same for the end of his term (or is that what PP referred to above?)

Indeed, you ARE mistaken. Obama nominated Merrick Garland on 16 March 2016 to replace Antonin Scalia, a serving Supreme Court Judge who had died in office on 13 February 2016 (he died in his sleep, so we don't know the exact date, but his body was discovered on 13 Feb). Later that day, Senate Republicans led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a statement that they would not consider any nominee put forth by Obama, and that a Supreme Court nomination should be left to the next President of the United States.

The next US Presidential election was scheduled to occur, and did occur, on 8 November 2016. The court continued to function with 8 Justices, but was limited in its remit.

Compare that to the handling of Ruth Bader Ginsberg's replacement. RBG died on 18 September 2020. Amy Coney Barrett was nominated on 26 September 2020 and sworn in on 26 October 2020, with the election upcoming on 3 November 2020. I don't think Obama's your bad guy here.

@TheThermalStair

Jesus god will you stop it? I’m having a very difficult time at the mo and being chastised for not sitting on this board waiting to pounce on every thread is really unnecessary. I didn’t realise I wasn’t allowed to take part in feminist chat unless I did it full time.

Wow chill out - I've literally never interacted with you before. I thought this thread might be of interest since you said you wanted to engage in feminism related threats that aren't gender ID related.

@Maduixa

Fightingthefoo: And I may be mistaken but didn't Obama try to push someone onto the SC in his last few weeks, before Trump was sworn in - which set the precedent for Trump doing the same for the end of his term (or is that what PP referred to above?)

Indeed, you ARE mistaken. Obama nominated Merrick Garland on 16 March 2016 to replace Antonin Scalia, a serving Supreme Court Judge who had died in office on 13 February 2016 (he died in his sleep, so we don't know the exact date, but his body was discovered on 13 Feb). Later that day, Senate Republicans led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a statement that they would not consider any nominee put forth by Obama, and that a Supreme Court nomination should be left to the next President of the United States.

The next US Presidential election was scheduled to occur, and did occur, on 8 November 2016. The court continued to function with 8 Justices, but was limited in its remit.

Compare that to the handling of Ruth Bader Ginsberg's replacement. RBG died on 18 September 2020. Amy Coney Barrett was nominated on 26 September 2020 and sworn in on 26 October 2020, with the election upcoming on 3 November 2020. I don't think Obama's your bad guy here.

Ok so I'm mistaken. Big deal. I'm not the bad guy here either.

And blaming the current situation on RBG may not be sexism but it's still a pointless exercise. She was entitled to the office until death and that's what she did. End of.

This court case is exactly the kind of issues American feminism concerns itself with. I got a lot of heat from some UK women who thought voting Biden was anti-feminist because of of males in women sports...but the GOP hated women too. I chose the President who also cares about climate change.

And RBG is a queen! She devoted her life to justice for American women and should have been able to enjoy a pleasant retirement reading novels and sipping wine...instead she fought for us until her dying day.

Amy Coney Barrett? Sigh...

I don't find following American law easy but this certainly is concerning.

As an outside observer it feels like both parties have used it in an underhand way for the last 50 years. The Republicans for obvious reasons but I think numerous Democratic presidencies could have looked at ways to shore up the right to choose in a more secure and permanent way.

It's been allowed to underpin election campaigning for too long and in my opinion both sides are wary of it losing that power over their core voters.

American women deserve better than this awful game of political ping pong.

Basic problem here is that if the law depends (to high degree) on whether liberal/conservative judges are appointed to the Supreme Court, that's not really the "interpretation" of the law. It's finding the meaning you want to be in there.

The Supreme Court should have just stayed out of the abortion issue completely and let it get legalized in a different way.

Fightingthefoo: Ok so I'm mistaken. Big deal. I'm not the bad guy here either.

No one said you were the "bad guy". You yourself posted a conspiracy theory and said you might be wrong. You were wrong. I've explained why, as did tedimgoingmad, (our posts crossed; I think she covered everything that I did and I wouldn't have posted if I'd seen her post) with links to primary sources. Get over it, or do your research up front next time and don't openly invite criticism you can't handle.

And blaming the current situation on RBG may not be sexism but it's still a pointless exercise. She was entitled to the office until death and that's what she did.

Of course.

@FightingtheFoo
And blaming the current situation on RBG may not be sexism but it's still a pointless exercise. She was entitled to the office until death and that's what she did. End of.

"End of"?. Having an entitlement is not an end in itself, not when there is something bigger at stake than your own interests. The Democrats knew this, constitutional scholars knew this and Obama knew this. He and his aides tried to persuade RGB to resign when he had control of the Senate. She would not. She more or less said there was nobody better than her to replace her.

If you know even a little about tactical political play in the US, you know it's not a pointless exercise to talk about this. It's a learning exercise. The Dems need to learn from their past mistakes if they are to have any hope of having a Supreme Court majority in the future.

The Republicans definitely learned from the RBG mistake, because they persuaded one of their justices, Justice Anthony Kennedy, to retire in 2018. Yes, he did not die in office as was his "entitlement", he retired, so that his seat was locked down for the next generation. Brett Kavanaugh was his replacement.

Why do you thing RGB's dying request was that she not be replaced until a new government was in place? To ask for this was not part of her "entitlement". A sitting President can nominate who they want to, and if the Senate appoints them, so be it. That it didn't happen under Obama for Merrick Garland was a Republican stitch up, not a rule that had to be honoured at RBG's behest. Do you think her wish acknowledged that there had been a missed opportunity to lock down her seat, and this was her way of trying to mitigate its impact, via an appeal to Republican decency?

The Dems are currently outnumbered 3 to 6. If 82 year old Justice Breyer passes away at a time when there is a Republican President and/ or a Republican controlled Senate willing to play dirty again, they will be down to 2 against their 6 or 7. The Republican justices are aged 72, 71, 66, 56, 53 and 49. The Dems are aged 82, 66 and 61. All things being equal on the health front, who would you bet on passing away first? That's not a distasteful question. It is a system that appoints for life and replaces upon death. It is the cold reality.

What do you think of my suggestion that Justice Breyer should stand down while the Democrats have power over the Senate, and can replace him without Republicans interfering in the process? Thus ensuring that they keep at least 3 justices in place for the foreseeable future. If you think it's a good idea now, then it was a good idea back in 2008 when retirement was being requested of RGB.

Going on about RGB being a queen or whatever is all very well, but it's going to be small comfort to American women once they are living in Gilead. Her decision to stay is not something that stands alone and separate from the wider game that's been played for decades between Republicans and Democrats and their battle over abortion. People wring their hands and ask, "How has it come to this, how is Roe v Wade under threat, how is America going backwards?"

It has always been under threat. Pro-lifers have always had influence disproportionate to the pro-choice support amongst the wider American public. The pro lifers, in league with sympathetic conservative state legislators, have been playing the long game and waiting for the day they had the Supreme Court sewn up. They've tested the waters several times over recent years, pushing forward abortion related legislation at state level they knew full well was unconstitutional - being incompatible with the fundamental right to abortion before foetal viability enshrined in Roe v Wade - in order to compel the Supreme Court to revisit RvW's core precedent. The last time they tried it, they were narrowly defeated. This time, it's the State of Mississippi's turn. The pro-lifers have 2 more rabid pro-lifer in situ than last time it was challenged. The Democrats hold all 3 houses of government, but are powerless do a single thing about this move, and that is in no small part due to their own past failures. It is tragic and stupid and was completely predictable. In the words of the Federal District Judge Carlton Reeves, who first struck down the Mississippi legislation that is now being looked at by the Supreme Court:

"The state chose to pass a law it knew was unconstitutional, to endorse a decades-long campaign, fueled by national interest groups, to ask the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade."

Thing is that the USA is a massive country. We share a language. But in the end they are a long way away and a very different culture.

Around the world loads of countries have laws around abortion that are terrible. And in some places being made harder.

This is a global issue.

In practice you can't get an abortion in loads of areas in the States.

And in NI which is part of the UK despite the change in law, in practice there are still massive barriers.

It’s so brutal already for U.S. women, many of whom can’t access abortion in their home state. In some states they can face punitive rules about travelling out of state for an abortion (if they are old enough and solvent enough to afford it). In some states where abortions can be provided, that’s with many conditions attached to narrow down women’s eligibility as far as possible or to force the experience to be as emotionally gruelling for her as possible- specific requirements around scans etc. And women will need to find their own money to pay for the treatment themselves as insurance plans won’t fund which is another barrier.

The dark practical politics of it all at Supreme Court level is really interesting and I hadnt really understood it, thanks Ted. Just also observing from personal experience that I have noticed that those who reach the top in a field weighted against them sometimes do tend to hold on to their role or power, probably part of the drive and self narrative that enabled them to get that far in the face of unspeakable opposition in the first place. Also possibly an understandable feeling of deserved ‘reward’ in role for having made it that far and finally living to see more support than criticism. Also possibly just a feature of a deceptively simple but ultimately very demanding feeling of taking very seriously the public duty that the person has taken on as part of the role, that can perhaps be hard to relate to for other people who don’t share that view.

It’s not been long ago since I noticed fairly frequently that UK people might say to me that our Queen should be passing on the baton to Charles or to William based on her age. Now for lots of different reasons, not least because she continues to do the ‘job’ very effectively; I notice many more people saying how very sad and unmooring it will be for the country when she dies and how the country will be changed by her death. It’s no longer suggested she ‘gives Charles a chance’ or isn’t up for the job- it’s like we want her to be an icon like Elizabeth 1. Not really a human being any more but a living symbol of something very important. We’re also doing that to the naturalist David Attenborough regarding the environment and climate emergency. RBG had that iconisation happen to her in her later years over and above the other judges. There’s ageism and sexism in there but also a strange kind of political hopelessness and complacently walking away from a fundamental political challenge. A bit like when some people say Greta Turnberg and the younger generation will sort out climate change..

As an outside observer it feels like both parties have used it in an underhand way for the last 50 years. The Republicans for obvious reasons but I think numerous Democratic presidencies could have looked at ways to shore up the right to choose in a more secure and permanent way.
Another outsider here who has long wondered why the Democrats didn't try harder to fix this when they were in office. US posters - you among then Delphinium20 and thank you - have very patiently explained how it's not as straightforward as it seems, nevertheless I'm still left with the impression that it has suited the Democrats to have this hanging over women at every election.

Flo you’re right. And that is so cynical of them and awful. I feel naieve hadn’t thought of that but it’s true isn’t it. Keep women needing a reason not to stray from voting left. Vote left just for the hope of pro-choice progress. It’s infuriating.

I'd never thought of it like that Flo, but it does seem expedient.

I think it looks like very cynical behaviour. I really noticed it last November when there were so many posts yelling, 'If you don't vote Democrat then women will lose their abortion rights and it'll be All Your Fault' and I was thinking, 'How many years have you had to sort this out? Have you even tried and isn't this convenient for you?'

Yeah I know I'm across the Atlantic and not as well informed as some but it left a bad taste.

The biggest issue I see is that making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortions, it stops safe abortions. Those who want to push their dogma conveniently ignore this.

@NiceGerbil

Thing is that the USA is a massive country. We share a language. But in the end they are a long way away and a very different culture.

Around the world loads of countries have laws around abortion that are terrible. And in some places being made harder.

This is a global issue.

In practice you can't get an abortion in loads of areas in the States.

And in NI which is part of the UK despite the change in law, in practice there are still massive barriers.

This is a global issue, and won't stop being so.

nevertheless I'm still left with the impression that it has suited the Democrats to have this hanging over women at every election

Flo That's an interesting idea.

It reminds me what I hear from Black Americans who say, "you count on our vote, but where's our concrete improvements?"

While girls' and women's rights are my focus, climate change policy, health care, etc are big issues that Democrats have better answers on. It's a package deal in our politics. - and you get Package A or B, there's no C.

So, they know this...

Her decision to stay is not something that stands alone and separate from the wider game that's been played for decades between Republicans and Democrats and their battle over abortion

I also think RBG (judicial branch) was trying to reinforce that the judiciary is separate from the Executive (president) and legislative branch. If she were to bow to political pressure to resign, then she was truly not impartial. As much as I agree with Democrat's and Obama's policies, our country was founded on these three branches to check the other and to remain independent. Idealism and adherence to our constitution did have political fallout for women, which is why I want the ERA to pass.

Another note, WOLF suggests the ERA won't protect women like we think it will. I'm unsure about this.

The pro lifers, in league with sympathetic conservative state legislators, have been playing the long game and waiting for the day they had the Supreme Court sewn up

Ted, you are absolutely correct on this

I also think RBG (judicial branch) was trying to reinforce that the judiciary is separate from the Executive (president) and legislative branch. If she were to bow to political pressure to resign, then she was truly not impartial. As much as I agree with Democrat's and Obama's policies, our country was founded on these three branches to check the other and to remain independent.
I think that's a good point. As a Brit I was infuriated by what I saw as RBG's stubbornness - arrogance even - and I did feel let down. But I see what you mean, that it would have been the act of a politician not a member of the judiciary.

Two thirds of the Supreme Court is Catholic, compared to one-fifth of the population. That's deliberate and planned as far as I'm concerned. It can't be a coincidence.

And they clearly don't understand statistics in anti-abortion land. The countries with the most abortions have the least access to sex education, contraception and free safe abortions'. If you want fewer abortions, give women education and choices.

@deepwatersolo

The article I read on „Slate“ bears the headline „Supreme Court takes direct aim at Roe vs. Wade“. It explains in more detail why the SCOTUS actions hint at an effort to knock Roe vs. Wade down alltogether, instead of tinkering around...

Imagine using scum like Conrathe to go after the bodily autonomy of trans children and thinking he and his followers wouldn't expand their bigotry to vulnerable women. If you believe women have choice, he hates you slightly less than he hates me. Owning the trans is helpful for some but, he really isn't your friend.

is a good summary of why this is happening and what can be done by Neal Katyal who served as Acting Solicitor General under Obama.

Oh, I‘m late to this. (Life got in the way). A joy to read through all your comments! And enlightening.
I do get what a previous poster said about RGB trying to Stress the separation of the second branch.
But the fact of the matter is that with this ‚high mindedness‘ we will never win. And sometimes I feel that this ‚high mindedness‘ is really a lack of understanding, how dire the situation is for some, because the decision makers are isolated from the worst horrors by class. (I feel this way about RBGs decision as much as about Obama‘s political decisions/failures.)
The fact of the matter is that pro-lifers fight no holds barred. In 2008 a (Moderate) Republican IT Guy, Michael Spoonamore, even made noises about his suspicion, that Diebold Voting machines were hacked by Carl Rove‘s pro lifer IT guy, Michael Connell, to further their agenda. I know how that sounds. But that IT guy was in fact called for a deposition in that matter, but it never came to that, because the small plane Connell travelled in crashed. These are facts. After that Spoonamore turned silent (but his vids are still online).
It is painful to watch Democrats lose the farm again and against by ‚taking the high road‘. There is a German phrase for that: „in Schönheit sterben (to die artfully)“. I don‘t think they really, in a viceral sense, understand, what the consequences are. Otherwise, they would fight harder.