US Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119009393#Comment_119009393

I wouldn't disagree with you at all that the focus should be on Health and Welfare. Religion has absolutely no place in law anywhere.

However , it is an absolute fact that the drive for changes to the law in the US around limiting Abortion is coming exclusively from the White Evangelical Conservatives , that's not up for debate.

The Evangelicals are a very strong unified voting "bloc" and as such hold significant power among the GOP , particularly at State level which is why the US finds itself where it is today.

They (the Evangelicals) do not want Abortion under any circumstances and do not care about any other arguments to the contrary. They are a wealthy, powerful focused collective and are exerting a massively disproportionate influence over the legislative intentions of the GOP due to their ability to influence Primaries etc.

As I showed in my earlier post , they are the only group that want Roe vs. Wade overturned and look like they might be very close to achieving that goal despite the fact that they represent only 14% of the US population and their views are substantially at odds with the other 86% of the population.

This has never been an argument about State vs. Federal rights etc. , that is a stalking horse, this is about banning Abortion, end of story.

I can absolutely guarantee that if they manage to over-turn Roe vs. Wade their focus will then shift to seeing how they can drive for a Federal ban.

That will be a much harder task , but they have shown that they are in this for the long term.

Having said that , time is running out for them as the numbers of people identifying as White Evangelicals is declining rapidly - They've dropped from 23% of the population in 2006 to only 14% in 2021 , which is a huge decline. So I expect them to go all out if they get Roe vs. Wade killed.

wench

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119009444#Comment_119009444

RBG stepping down wouldn't necessarily have helped - Obama did have a vacancy on the court, but McConnell wouldn't allow a vote to fill it.

NUTLEY BOY

Calm down - the leaked document appears to be a working draft.

The actual opinion issued by SCOTUS may be quite different.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119009462#Comment_119009462

Hi Quin,

The issue is about Health and Welfare. There is no need, and no benefit, to trying to fight it by attacking someone else's internal reasons for supporting it. You can't win that argument. All you are doing is giving them "home advantage".

You can only win an argument on objective reasoning. You cannot defeat someone else's subjective reasons if they are strongly enough held and somewhat irrational to begin with.

I'll ask "what is the point" of making it about religion? Do you think you are going to make that Evangelical publicly change their mind? That isn't realistically going to happen. If you attack them and sneer at them, all you will do is galvanise them as a group, and bring some borderline support back across the line to them. As I said above, make it about that and you give them "home advantage".

Your previous post might be helpful in that regard as it shows Catholics to be majority in favour of allowing access to abortion. Most of the anti-religion posters tend to be bigoted mainly towards Catholics. So that fact might shut them up for a while.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119009473#Comment_119009473

She had opportunity to step down in 2008-2010 when her replacement would've been easily confirmed. She'd already had a few bouts with cancer by then. Certainly if she'd stepped down at the beginning of Obama's second term she would've been confirmed.

Term limits for these zombies. No one should be on the Court if they're 70 or older ffs. At least Breyer had the decency to resign before he became completely gaga. Unlike Thomas or Alito.

rossie1977

If you think Republicans are stopping at abortion you might be in for a shock.

Next on chopping board will be interracial and gay marriage and contraception. Many have been very vocal on getting Griswold vs Connecticut overturned https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-03-31/supreme-court-right-to-contraception-same-sex-interracial-marriage

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119009487#Comment_119009487

The "argument" phase is long over to be honest.

The discussion should be about not allowing a single grouping that represent a fraction of the total population to drive the national agenda on any Topic , let alone one as emotive and important as Abortion legislation.

Nonsense like the Filibuster and the rule requiring 2/3rds of States to support constitutional changes etc. are why the US is such a constant battle-ground on these issues. It just empowers minority positions.

These types of group would find it impossible to have this level of influence in any other country. The bizarre, arcane and frankly wildly undemocratic electoral & legislative system in the US has enabled and facilitated fringe groups wielding power far outside their true levels of influence and support.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119009537#Comment_119009537

Well take a stab at that question then - what is the point of attacking them as a group, sneering at and denigrating them as a group. Do you think that that will help them to change their minds? The system they have is the one they have to work with.

Or would it be better to focus on the health and welfare aspects and not bother about religion?

Getting rid of groupings of people of particular religions has been tried in the past. You can't do that.

RobbieTheRobber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119009487#Comment_119009487

Are you suggesting objectively reasoning with someone about an opinion they hold that they did not reach through objective reasoning?

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119009602#Comment_119009602

Nope.

I'm suggestion you don't get dragged into those arguments and stick with the objective ones like Health and Welfare and human rights.

If a minority want to scream from the corner about what their conman tele-evangelist tells them, leave them in the corner screaming away.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119009570#Comment_119009570

Focusing on Health and Welfare isn't going to change their minds either.

The focus should not be on Roe vs. Wade specifically , but on the reasons why a SCOTUS ruling carries such importance - Or indeed why the SCOTUS matters so much in the US at all.

In no other country does the Supreme court (or its equivalent) hold anything like the influence that the US one does.

The legislative process is utterly hamstrung by a few "Bad Actors" because of things like the filibuster etc. so the US Congress passes hardly any real legislation and they are reliant on rulings and interpretations by the Supreme court for far far too many things.

Remove the Filibuster and the US could have passed Federal laws on Gun control , Abortion , Gay Marriage and many more decades ago.

They could have changed back and forth as well , but that's how a Democracy is supposed to work.

Equally, removing the 2/3rds State requirements for Constitutional changes would do wonders for the US Legislative process.

People would actually have to cater to consensus rather than thrive on division and fringe opinions.

It's a broken system leading to broken outcomes.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119009609#Comment_119009609

In every country that derived its legal system from the Common Law, the Supreme Court (or equivalent) will be second only to the Constitution (if there is one). The US Supreme Court cannot change the Constitution - it can only interpret it (and laws) to make decisions and it generally takes a historical interpretation of the Constitution.

The US Constitution can be amended - although it is not as straightforward as it is here to do so so it doesn't happen very often over there.

In Ireland, the ultimate authority is the people. But that is reflected via the Constitution. The people can amend that Constitution.

MrMusician18

I have to say, how this story has been covered here this morning has been really interesting. It's largely focussed on the detail of the likely ruling, with curtailment of abortion in many states resulting. While this is interesting, it's not the reason why this is a relevant story here: which is more to do with the stability of the American political system rather than potential changes in American law which are ultimately unimportant to an Irish audience.

You wouldn't know that though listening to the coverage in Ireland. The Americanisation of everything and the need to participate in these issues that affect only America seems to trump everything, even informing us the reason why this could be impactful here

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119009633#Comment_119009633

Exactly my point , it is the ridiculous barriers to legislative and constitutional change in the US that make the SCOTUS unduly impactful.

Here (and in almost every other country), if the Supreme Court issues a ruling , the government can pretty quickly update the law of the land to reflect that ruling and everything is appropriately codified.

They can equally hold a referendum to update the Constitution if the ruling indicates that is necessary and again they can get things ratified and locked down in fairly short order.

In the US both of the above are extremely difficult if not impossible to do

The Roe vs. Wade ruling happened 49 years ago and no one has managed to pass a Federal law or Constitutional amendment to codify it since, as a result of the Filibuster and other legislative barriers to change.

THAT is the problem here , the fact that there are countless Supreme court rulings that have not had the appropriate and frankly necessary legislative/constitutional updates made because the US system is nonsense.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119009680#Comment_119009680

The SC here can equally strike down any legislation as being Unconstitutional (or prevent it from being promulgated in the first place if it finds it to be unconstitutional after being referred by the President under Article 26).

In the US, the system they have is what they have to work with it. Changing that system is not a practical proposal to anything urgent.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119009720#Comment_119009720

Of course they can , but it is the speed and efficacy of the ability of the Legislative branch that is the problem here.

The US system IS the problem and perhaps the loss of Roe vs. Wade might actually focus the minds of people to drive through the necessary changes to fix the issues.

Honestly , there's nothing "quick" that they can do to stop the decision is that is what is going to happen beyond perhaps removing the filibuster and making it federal law before SCOTUS confirms the decision.

This certainly will make the mid-terms more than interesting..

It's likely that this will become a central issue which might be good for the Democrats

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119008462#Comment_119008462

Wouldn't they make a lot more money if they were in charge of issuing licences to private abortion clinics?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119009480#Comment_119009480

It's highly unlikely to change is thing

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119009846#Comment_119009846

The religious right are funding this. they have no interest in making money from abortions and neither will the politicians they fund.

is_that_so

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119009458#Comment_119009458

What's on the bench is blatantly political and barely nominally detached from the system and you can't expect political rodents to fix a system that works so well for them. Roe v Wade is not in their Constitution, the right to privacy is and that's what the decision relates to.

Fandymo

Crazy how mentioning one religious grouping will get you banned, threads locked and removed.

But abusing another is perfectly fine.

The added wailing and gnashing of teeth for "empathy" is especially humourous when you consider that in some cultures, a woman who is raped either marries the rapist or gets stoned to death or honour killed as an adultress, a lot of the time by her own family. If only empathy was blind, eh?

As for the OP, put it to a vote and let the people decide.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119009948#Comment_119009948

you mean muslims? no problem mentioning them. I've just done it. They just aren't relevant to the thread.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119009948#Comment_119009948

The influence of the religious right in America is pretty well established in US politics... They're also the primary group on the offensive against abortion. The Irish equivalent are amateurs next to them.

RobbieTheRobber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119009948#Comment_119009948

🤣🤣🤣

Me thinks the lady doth deflect too much!

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119009948#Comment_119009948

As for the OP, put it to a vote and let the people decide.

If only they could!!!

That is the core problem , it's never been put to a vote because it's almost impossible to do that because of the utter disfunction of the legislative process in the US.

Congress can't vote on it because the filibuster means a single Senator can block something even getting to the floor for consideration.

The people can't vote on it , because bringing forward a constitutional amendment is next to impossible due the the ridiculously high bar set for advancement.

The whole system is broken beyond belief.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119010033#Comment_119010033

Even if you could, you'd still have some daft electoral college type system where the losing option could very well win.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119008899#Comment_119008899

That would be hard for them to do, unless they somehow determine the unborn are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119009193#Comment_119009193

How often are abortions performed that late? Oh, it's exceptionally rare and done when medically necessary to save a life....

is_that_so

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119009966#Comment_119009966

Few places have examples of the anachronistic vitriol of the US religious right. People do hold personal contradictory positions here but we are far more likely to respect others rights to their own opinions. It's a very European notion which did once set sail for America but was quickly supplanted by descendants of Puritan zealotry dictating to others.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119009342#Comment_119009342

Because, well, as I understand it, abortions are quite often considered bad behavior, "murder" even.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119010052#Comment_119010052

It's beyond ridiculous - This is what's required to change the constitution.

An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

So to actually raise an amendment you need to get 2/3rd of both the House and Senate to agree or for 2/3rds of the States to ask for one.

And then it requires 75% of States to approve the amendment.

All utter ridiculously high thresholds thereby making amending the Constitution functionally impossible.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119010132#Comment_119010132

And/or get 2/3rds of the states to propose one, not both.

The Equal Rights Amendment died this way. Southern States took too long to ratify and the amendment expired. It would have made all sex discrimination unconstitutional, and it would have made this ruling effectively baseless.

There aren't enough States that would support - or oppose - a constitutional amendment on abortion one way or the other. Too many state legislatures are locked up by the same people we've been talking about all thread, especially evangelical politicians.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119010065#Comment_119010065

Many States recognise unborn children as victims for criminal purposes.

i.e. if I shoot a pregnant woman dead, I can be charged with killing her and the unborn child.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119010132#Comment_119010132

Yep. It's such a hideously broken mess of a country and in their two-party system, one party has to exploit this because it can't actually win the requisite votes.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119010228#Comment_119010228

Right, but that doesn't mean the fetus is 'subject to the jurisdiction.' Double-homicide laws don't confer fetal-personhood.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119010237#Comment_119010237

If you have case law to suggest otherwise, please provide it. Else it is undecided at the highest level and therefore open to a challenge. It does not only apply to death. It can also apply to injury.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170312231159/http%3A//news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/unbornbill32504.html

That law has an exception for abortion. Which might very well be challenged should that be removed as a Constitutional right.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119010170#Comment_119010170

Exactly - The entire Legislative process in the US is broken.

It is functionally impossible to pass anything but the most banal forms of legislation.

Almost none of the key rights of US citizens have today are actually based in legislation , they only have the notional protection of a SCOTUS ruling.

• Gay Marriage - Only "legal" due to Obergefell vs. Hodges
• Contraception - Only "legal" due to Griswold vs. Connecticut
• Inter Racial Marriage - Only "legal" due to Loving vs. Virginia
• Homosexuality - Only "legal" due to Lawrence vs Texas

None of these fundamental rights are actually written into Federal law or the US Constitution.

The same people that have been fighting Roe vs. Wade will absolutely go after most if not all of the above if given the opportunity.

And the only reason they can "go after" them is because it's impossible to pass federal legislation in the US if it offends any fringe group with a bit of focus.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119010245#Comment_119010245

You can just look up fetal personhood in the United States. For example, my Congressman supports a fetal personhood bill, but that personhood does not exist in the United States currently. States have tried to challenge the courts before with state level fetal personhood bills.

https://lawreview.wlulaw.wlu.edu/category/online/roundtables/fetal-personhood/#:~:text=It%20redefines%20an%20%E2%80%9Cunborn%20child,goal%20of%20overturning%20Roe%20v.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119008492#Comment_119008492

It's cheap labour force. That's all it is. 

If this is the case, then why are most conservatives against cheap latino migrants coming into the US and taking jobs?

There is a lot of straw-manning going on at the moment.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119010237#Comment_119010237

Correct , which is why Health Insurance companies could do utterly heinous things like declaring a birth defect as a "pre-existing condition" because the child doesn't legally exist until they are born so because you have to be born before you can be added to the Insurance policy , the insurance company could deny you coverage.

The law was changed in 2010 , but only specifically in the case of Health care coverage , it didn't confer "personhood" on a fetus.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119010280#Comment_119010280

Racism.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119010261#Comment_119010261

Not talking about legislation. Was talking about Constitutional protection. Which will only be decided in case law. Should the current draft become official, it would make that route easier. A foetus does not have to be considered a person to be afforded protections. Those people were trying to classify it as such so that it would automatically gain it.

For example, there are many rights which are guaranteed to US citizens by the Constitution. Although not explicitly enshrined therein, I as a vistor to the US could also be afforded those rights. Should I become a citizen, I would be guaranteed those explicitly. But I can also be granted them without being a citizen.

Am I saying it would be successful? No. I am merely saying it would probably be challenged on that basis at some stage

Overheal

https://www.mediaite.com/news/video-of-susan-collins-repeatedly-insisting-justice-kavanaugh-wont-vote-to-overturn-roe-v-wade-goes-viral/

Susan Collins has been roasted all night, for her defense of Kavanaugh during his confirmation, when she insisted he would do nothing to touch Roe v Wade, in numerous statements she made. She was also the Senator who voted to acquit Donald Trump during the first impeachment, telling the media 'I think he's learned his lesson' for trying to politically influence the 2020 election with Zelensky and holding up aid - but he then proceeded to rig the postal service against mail in ballots, declared the election a fraud and sparked an insurrection which he was impeached for, again. She acquitted him, again.

There's talk but probably no action, similarly, of going after Kavanaugh for Perjury, when he said 'roe v wade' was "settled law"

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119010252#Comment_119010252

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 3, 2022

Statement by President Joe Biden

We do not know whether this draft is genuine, or whether it reflects the final decision of the Court.

With that critical caveat, I want to be clear on three points about the cases before the Supreme Court.

First, my administration argued strongly before the Court in defense of Roe v. Wade. We said that Roe is based on “a long line of precedent recognizing ‘the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty’… against government interference with intensely personal decisions.” I believe that a woman’s right to choose is fundamental, Roe has been the law of the land for almost fifty years, and basic fairness and the stability of our law demand that it not be overturned.

Second, shortly after the enactment of Texas law SB 8 and other laws restricting women’s reproductive rights, I directed my Gender Policy Council and White House Counsel’s Office to prepare options for an Administration response to the continued attack on abortion and reproductive rights, under a variety of possible outcomes in the cases pending before the Supreme Court. We will be ready when any ruling is issued.

Third, if the Court does overturn Roe, it will fall on our nation’s elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman’s right to choose. And it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this November. At the federal level, we will need more pro-choice Senators and a pro-choice majority in the House to adopt legislation that codifies Roe, which I will work to pass and sign into law.

https://www.mediaite.com/news/read-president-joe-bidens-full-statement-trashing-leaked-roe-draft-opinion/

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119010280#Comment_119010280

They're not really against them coming in and doing the work.

What they are against is them having any rights or being able to gain citizenship and being able to vote.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119009313#Comment_119009313

The right to an abortion could be added to the constitution but that is up to the legislative to sort out. It's very very difficult to do. Hence why it won't be added.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119010296#Comment_119010296

They want all the 'taxation' they don't want to do any of the 'representing'

Cheap migrant labor, cheap US labor now again too.

Alito in his decision PDF even mentions the idea that abortion is a conspiracy against black babies. Maybe that was the aim of a group 50 years ago, it's not the intent of anyone now. Anyone of any color can choose to terminate a pregnancy. I just wonder, what will Alito and the Tucker Carlsons think about a dwindling white majority if there are, suddenly, much higher birth rates among minorities than among whites.

Also, heard a lot of 'thank gods' from evangelicals and 'finally owning the libs' from MAGA but I'm not hearing a lot of 'now we can finally focus on taking care of the born children' from those that support the repeal of Roe.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119010287#Comment_119010287

It must be great to see the world in such a 8-bit colour, but alas we all know its a bit more complicated than that.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119010312#Comment_119010312

Care to elaborate?

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119010296#Comment_119010296

You may be have right before Trump, the GOP on the face of it was against illegal immigration but secretly happy because it was good for business and kept the price of labour down. Post Trump though the GOP have gone a different way on it, they don't really care all that much what business has to say when it comes to the question of immigration.

Hence why Penn's assertion that the whole thing is about wanting a cheap workforce and stopping abortion is one way of achiveing this.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119010312#Comment_119010312

You asked why most conservatives are against southern migration, that was your answer. Racism.

Most conservatives watch the #1 'news' shows in America: Hannity and Carlson, who both have been evidenced working directly as a Republican apparatus (direct communication with Trump WH on what to propagandize, new texts reveal and older call logs already showed) and these shows routinely push Great Replacement Theory, a racist conspiracy theory. As I also mentioned above, the conservative movement also seems obsessed with black abortion rates.

We can talk about that in 8-bit, 32-bit or 512-bit if you want but I think that would be getting off track. Suffice to say, racism is indeed a critical part of why most conservatives do not want foreigners in their country. Where in the US do you live? I'm in South Carolina and I certainly see indications of racism out in public quite often.