@TheOtherMaven

for the lesson in history and context.

#2

Matter of fact, the Supreme Court has been political since Marbury v. Madison (1803), which is when the Court arrogated to itself the power to declare actions or laws "unConstitutional".

(Most people don't know about Marbury v. Madison - it generally isn't taught in schools.)

@lotlizard @lotlizard

But I’ll never forget those two words. I’ve always loved them as they translated to ’sleep deliciously’. My former husband's first language was Dutch and he always described anything delicious tasting as lekker, and often said that as a goodnight wish to our daughter. I like the expression even more than sweet dreams.

Thanks for the video, those are some sweet/lekker monsters ; ).

#3  
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWOmKMaGR1s]

@Cassiodorus

who was discussing all the protections CT was putting into its law preserving the right to an abortion. They expanded the list of people who were allowed too provide abortions, and they put in a protection for women who traveled to CT from out of state because the governor was concerned about Texas prosecutors coming after those women. So it may a a Constitutional protection, but that won't stop states from trying to restrict travel for certain purposes. And, as we know, a guaranteed liberty is just a piece of paper.

#7 Be sure your organizations have lawyers familiar with the case law substantiating this right.

@snoopydawg When the democrats have a choice they reject the most left leaning candidate in favor of the right leaning candidate. They promise much, but refuse to deliver when they have the power. It's all just factions of the Corporate Party doing a Punch and Judy show for our benefit.

#11

In a joint statement, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)—who has supported anti-choice Democrats and in 2017 opined that focusing on reproductive rights helped elect former President Donald Trump—said that “if the report is accurate, the Supreme Court is poised to inflict the greatest restriction of rights in the past 50 years, not just on women but on all Americans.”

“The Republican-appointed justices’ reported votes to overturn Roe v. Wade would go down as an abomination, one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history,” they added.

Connor Lamb is a blue dawg republican democrat who goes against what the democrats want to pass and yet when a better candidate comes up there’s Pelosi squashing them down and supporting the person who is anti abortion.

A week before the Barrett hearing a few democrats told the media that Feinstein was losing her faculties and then democrats gave her the gavel on them. She of course did a poor job and Barrett was confirmed. And then Feinstein gave Lindsay Graham a big hug. Dems did the bare minimum to keep her off the court. Pelosi left her quiver of arrows at home. They could have done things to slow it down until after the election. They wanted her on the court.

I think this goes farther than just Roe. Time will tell.

@snoopydawg noted, putting it back in the hands of the states does put the issue closer to the voters, who are usually by most polls in a strong majority in favor of the right of women to have an abortion, as opposed to a group of unelected elites in robes.

If I'm not mistaken, way back, several left-leaning legal scholars came out against Roe on the grounds that it took away the growing momentum of the time (early 70s) in favor of affording such rights to women at the state level, while also helping the Right get organized and galvanized under the pro-life banner. Some also argued that Roe wouldn't prevent just what we might be seeing today, namely a more conservative Ct coming along later and reversing it in one fell swoop.

Iirc, early anti-Roe liberals included Alan Dershowitz, John Hart Ely (ex Law Dean of Stanford), and one Ruth Bader Ginsberg. In AD's case, he is now opposed to overruling Roe, I believe on the basis it has been too-long established as the law of the land (50 yrs). See his The Hill piece for an interesting take on the leaking of it etc. https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3475703-who-leaked-the-roe-draft-o...

#12

Indeed, Millhiser's argument here — unelected Supreme Court Justices have no business mucking around in abortion rights — is supremely ironic given that it was unelected judges who issued Roe back in 1973, in the process striking down numerous democratically elected laws. Worse, this rhetoric perfectly echoes the arguments which opponents of Roe have made for decades: namely, it is the democratic process, not unelected judges, which should determine what, if any, limits will be placed on the legal ability to provide or obtain an abortion. Indeed, Roe was the classic expression of the above-described anti-majoritarian and anti-democratic values: seven unelected men (for those who believe such demographic attributes matter) struck down laws that had been supported by majorities and enacted by many states which heavily restricted or outright banned abortion procedures. The sole purpose of Roe was to deny citizens the right to enact the anti-abortion laws, no matter how much popular support they commanded.

This extreme confusion embedded in heated debates over the Supreme Court was perhaps most vividly illustrated last night by Waleed Shahid, the popular left-wing activist, current spokesman for the left-wing group Justice Democrats, and previously a top aide and advisor to Squad members including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Shahid — who, needless to say, supports Roe — posted a quote from Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address, in 1861, which Shahid evidently believes supports his view that Roe must be upheld.

But the quote from Lincoln — warning that the Court must not become the primary institution that decides controversial political questions — does not support Roe at all; indeed, Lincoln's argument is the one most often cited in favor of overruling Roe. In fact, Lincoln's argument is the primary one on which Alito relied in the draft opinion to justify overruling Roe: namely, that democracy will be imperiled, and the people will cease to be their own rulers, if the Supreme Court, rather than the legislative branches, ends up deciding hot-button political questions such as abortion about which the Constitution is silent. Here's the version of the Lincoln pro-democracy quote, complete with bolded words, that Shahid posted, apparently in the belief that it somehow supports upholding Roe:

It is just inexplicable to cite this Lincoln quote as a defense of Roe. Just look at what Lincoln said: “if the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, [then] the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.” That is exactly the argument that has been made by pro-life activists for years against Roe, and it perfectly tracks Alito's primary view as defended in his draft opinion.

Sounds like an argument for state’s rights.

@snoopydawg

"I’ve never understood why the pro birth crowd gives a damn about this issue when they abandon kids after they are born."

#13

only effect the poor class and maybe that’s the point of their ruling? It’s definitely not for the child so it can have a chance at life because then government would make sure that women could take time off and be with the kid instead of having to go back to work ASAP. They’d also up the money for support systems. I’ve never understood why the pro birth crowd gives a damn about this issue when they abandon kids after they are born.