Breaking... US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

Sudden Valley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119386456#Comment_119386456

Not all contraceptives are taking lives

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119387234#Comment_119387234

That’s somewhat besides the point though. At issue was whether or not Washington State regulations violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment -

Nevertheless, in 2007 the Washington State Board of Pharmacy (Board) issued rules mandating that pharmacies like Ralph’s stock and sell contraceptives like Plan B. Under these regulations, a pharmacy may not “refuse todeliver a drug or device to a patient because its owner objects to delivery on religious, moral, or other personal grounds.”

Brief in Opposition for Washington State Respondents. The dilemma this creates for the Stormans family and others like them is plain: Violate your sincerely held religious beliefs or get out of the pharmacy business.

Ralph’s, joined by two pharmacists with similar beliefs who work at other pharmacies, contends that the regulations target religiously motivated conduct for disfavored treatment and thereby “suppress religious belief or practice” in violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.

Washington State Board of Pharmacy appears to have changed it’s rules since then to allow for facilitating refusal and referral -

Other states have laws regarding healthcare providers that may also be applied to pharmacists. These states may have conscience laws with or without patient protections. For example, they may allow pharmacists to reject certain prescriptions and services pertaining to abortion and sterilization. These states include: 

1. Alabama
2. Illinois
3. Maine
4. Nevada
5. New Jersey
6. Washington
7. Wisconsin

https://www.singlecare.com/blog/can-a-pharmacist-refuse-to-fill-a-prescription/

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119387231#Comment_119387231

As far as I know, it was a choice, though I must admit to not having heard anything either way. Around here in Texas, pharmacies were 'authorised' to provide the vaccine, not 'had to'. That said, I'm not aware of any which chose not to, though I wouldn't be surprised to discover a couple did.

I have no argument with the rest of your paragraph, as a practical matter. The problem is the anti-abortionists are looking at it as moral matter.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119387231#Comment_119387231

It is about control. Not about any actual care for others. Only reason the same states that are against abortion will have more against contraceptives and more against proper sexual education. It makes no sense in terms of actually helping anyone.

Similar to the set of rules the Church managed to get enforced in Ireland in the not so distant past as part of its control on the country.

Manic Moran

CNN today. Roberts was trying to get Kavanaugh and maybe Barrett to relent. When the draft leaked, that killed any chance.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/26/politics/supreme-court-john-roberts-abortion-dobbs/index.html

(CNN)Chief Justice John Roberts privately lobbied fellow conservatives to save the constitutional right to abortion down to the bitter end, but May's unprecedented leak of a draft opinion reversing Roe v. Wade made the effort all but impossible, multiple sources familiar with negotiations told CNN.

Igotadose

Easy to say this today. They both have prior art around being economical with the truth.

Overheal

That just cements that it was a political issue, not a legal one.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119389831#Comment_119389831

If legal issues were so cut and dried, there would be no circuit splits and no need for a Supreme Court. Neither would there be need to circulate opinions and discuss them before release.

A position can be adjusted to reflect legal thought as well as political.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119390049#Comment_119390049

Especially when someone like Alito or Thomas leaked that decision in advance, exactly for the reason in the article - to pressure Roberts and perhaps Kavanaugh to toe the line. Mission accomplished. As I recall this was the speculation when the leak happened. Maybe Ginny Thomas leaked it.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119390049#Comment_119390049

Come off it. I meant more the fact that Boofs clearly felt like he wasn't going to turn his thinking around on this to spite the home protestors.

Sudden Valley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119390049#Comment_119390049

I think you are being very generous in your opinion of the current supreme court. Roe vs wade survived 50 years of different make ups of supreme courts without it being repealed and as soon as religous motivated justices are appointed suddenly is appealed. That is a fact and heavily implied their judgement was based on non legal reasons but their own religious beliefs, otherwise the suggestion would be the supreme court justics for 50 years didnt know the law.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119390404#Comment_119390404

Scotus has reversed itself on average more than once a year. The law which allowed segregation survived some 70 years. Did judges for 70 years not know the law either? Did the judges in the other 250 or so reversed SCOTUS cases not know the law? How do circuit courts end up with their splits?

Or are there differences on interpretation of law?

Sudden Valley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119390455#Comment_119390455

The social views changed over segregation as the population became more enlightened so the supreme court decision reflected that. Unlike the segregation decisuon , since the roe vs wade decision the social views against abortion has actually decreased, so i dont think the two decisions can be compared. I think it just shows that the supreme court is not blind and not unbiased to different politicial climates. Will you concede that the justices are biased on religious grounds if they repeal the same sex marriage act?

Manic Moran

I have no indication that they will repeal the same sex marriage act if it should be passed. There is a world of difference between saying 'there is no legislation saying something must be allowed' and 'the legislation saying something is allowed must be overruled', especially absent any direct Constitutional guidance.

Were the judges selected were religious people who happened to be originalists and textualists, or were they originalists and textualists who happened to be religious? Are the rulings contrary to the legal principles of originalism and textualism? Why did Ginsburg think Roe was bad law? Religion isn't a legal argument.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way claiming that judges aren't nominated by anyone with some form of expectation as to how they are going to rule, but legal methodology is as good a metric of this, if not even a better one than religious preference.

Faugheen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119389532#Comment_119389532

As I suspected. Kavanaugh would have absolutely swapped over. Wherever Roberts goes, Kavanaugh tends to follow.

It was absolutely one of the conservatives (or a certain wife) who leaked this. They saw they were going to lose so leaking this would have made switching very difficult.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119390681#Comment_119390681

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way claiming that judges aren't nominated by anyone with some form of expectation as to how they are going to rule, but legal methodology is as good a metric of this, if not even a better one than religious preference.

What is it now, 80% Catholic SCOTUS while they make up about 25% of the US population - and most of that 25% are pro-choice.

Of course this could all just be a coincidence and it's actually all about legal methodology...

Sudden Valley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119390681#Comment_119390681

One of the justices did state in the repeal of roe v wade decision that same sex marriage should be next to be repealed but funnily enough not the Loving judgement which would effect him and is not against his religion, but yes he sounds unbiased. I think his other conservative colleagues may agree with him if it came to the supreme court. Also didnt some of these justices lie about not going after roe vs wade when they were challenged about it before they were appointed. Yet still you give them the benefit of the doubt of being unbiased. I guess at least you acknowledged that those politicians supporting their nomination did so in the expectstion they would strike Roe down.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119391113#Comment_119391113

You know better than to argue correlation implies causation.

Especially when you’re willing to acknowledge that most of the 25% of Catholics are pro-choice, as if that ratio wouldn’t extend to the 80% of Catholic SCOTUS, and your reasoning isn’t simply based upon one decision, foregoing their decades of legal experience by which they earned the right to be nominated by the President?

You’d have to have better evidence of any bias on the part of individual Justices than just the idea that when you’re dissatisfied with the outcome of a review, the Court is biased based upon the criteria you’ve selected. You probably have little interest in reviewing the other 150 or so cases -

In almost all instances, the Supreme Court does not hear appeals as a matter of right; instead, parties must petition the Court for a writ of certiorari. It is the Court’s custom and practice to “grant cert” if four of the nine Justices decide that they should hear the case. Of the approximately 7,500 requests for certiorari filed each year, the Court usually grants cert to fewer than 150. These are typically cases that the Court considers sufficiently important to require their review; a common example is the occasion when two or more of the federal courts of appeals have ruled differently on the same question of federal law.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-judicial-branch/

Sudden Valley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119391473#Comment_119391473

Are you arguing that most of the conservative catholic justices are prochoice because most catholics are? Why would the republicans nominate pro choice justices when they have explicitly called out their objective to repeal Roe since before George W was in power. I guess its a happy coincidence that those justices nomimated by pro life politicians voted the way those politicians wanted them to vote. Sounds like they were neutral and unbiased.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119391505#Comment_119391505

Are you arguing that most of the conservative catholic justices are prochoice because most catholics are?

No, I’m questioning why HD doesn’t extend the same logic to the Justices on the basis that they too are Catholic. The only rationale I can think of which would explain HDs inconsistency is that he knows there’s more than just one single factor involved than the one which seems the most obvious conclusion. What those factors are, is really anyone’s guess, let alone whether or not those factors also influence the Judges decisions.

Why would the republicans nominate pro choice justices when they have explicitly called out their objective to repeal Roe since before George W was in power.

They wouldn’t, any more than it wouldn’t seem reasonable for Democrats to nominate Justices which they weren’t certain would be likely to provide them with outcomes they would hope for. Just now, out of my own curiosity since your question prompted a question of my own, I looked up how many nominees have been unsuccessful. Turns out there’s been a few -

There have been 37 unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States. Of these, 11 nominees were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, 11 were withdrawn by the president, and 15 lapsed at the end of a session of Congress. Six of these unsuccessful nominees were subsequently nominated and confirmed to seats on the Court. Additionally, although confirmed, seven nominees declined office and one died before assuming office.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Similarly, only recently, the current POTUS promised to nominate a black woman, and she might well align with Biden’s political views, difficult to know what way she’ll go as she claims to have no judicial philosophy, but also claims to be an originalist “sees value in originalism” and is a non-denominational Protestant. Sounds like a live one 😁

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketanji_Brown_Jackson

I guess its a happy coincidence that those justices nomimated by pro life politicians voted the way those politicians wanted them to vote. Sounds like they were neutral and unbiased.

I don’t think they’re unbiased. I’m questioning the backwards rationalisation being used to explain their decisions as though individuals are actually that simple, when there’s plenty of evidence that people can’t be so easily pigeon-holed and labelled according to simplistic views of identity politics typology.

Sudden Valley

Ah so you admit the supreme court is now biased, which the court should not be. I think that like the democrats should feel shame for their role in supporting segregation through the dixiecrats and starting the vietnam war the republicans should feel shame for destroying the neutrality of the supreme court and causing people to lose faith in the voting system to their spreading of the big steal lie.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119391936#Comment_119391936

Ah so you admit the supreme court is now biased

I don’t think that’s fair - you originally referred to the Justices as being biased, and I admitted that I don’t think they’re unbiased, I’m just not sure they’re biased in the way HD is arguing they’re biased.

In the same way, I don’t think the SCOTUS is biased in a way which would support your beliefs either; evidence would suggest it’s trending in the opposite direction -

https://stanforddaily.com/2021/05/24/analyzing-ideological-bias-on-the-supreme-court/

Sudden Valley

I cant remember anytime the supreme court equivalents in the uk or ireland was ever accused of being biased or linked to the policies of one political party. I dont think it really matters how the SC is biased or to which side , the problem is that that they are biased at all. Though i do note that study you referenced was performed when the sc was evenly split 5-4, a year ago. I just fear the SC will damage its reputation for neutrality by only supporting republican views on gun control, gay rights and contraception based on their biases.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119391298#Comment_119391298

Loving was decided on an entirely different basis to Obergefell, though. Obergefell was ruled mainly on due process, whilst Loving was a very simply and unanimously decided case based on equal protection.

Sudden Valley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119392464#Comment_119392464

If a decision is made on the basis of equal protection why would gay marriage be under threat? I feel that the conservative justices have an outcome they wish to achieve and then are retrospectively trying to find a legal reason to support it. My only hope is that the primary motivation stated by republicans to pack the court with friendly justices and block the democrats from appointing theres was to kill Roe vs Wade. The other issues gay marriage and contraceptives are only now getting any momentum behind them from republicans to get them before the supreme court.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119391473#Comment_119391473

As if these justices would have been appointed in the first place if their views were representative of the views of US Catholics as a a whole, never mind the US population as a whole.

A hilariously delusional conceit.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119392985#Comment_119392985

The argument about finding a desired solution and then trying to support it is made equally folks opposed to rulings by Breyer and Sotomayor..

The obvious conclusion from this line of argument is that none of the nine top judges care about the law and are merely political animals. I'm almost as cynical as they come, but even I won't go as far as to say that some of the most respected judiciary minds out there have abandoned respect for the legal profession. There are different judicial philosophies. There are different ethical philosophies. That doesn't make one of them wrong or invalid.

Sudden Valley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119394988#Comment_119394988

I would be cynical of kavanaugh and Gorsuch who stated roe vs wade was a precedent in their confirmation hearings and wouldnt be overturned. I dont know enough about the history of the supreme court but i havent seen it mentioned in any media articles about the judgement saying that there is a similar case in history of the SC with justices being chosen based on their personal view of a judgement and then going on to reverse a previous judgement. I dont think it is cynical when justices are reversing precedents that as a coincidence align with their not just personal but religious views.

Loafing Oaf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119394988#Comment_119394988

No but neither does it make it inconceivable that the conservative Catholic judges on the court embraced the 'judicial philosophies' that enabled them to impose their religious beliefs on the country as a whole and to maintain 'plausible deniability' about what they were up to. Ever hear of

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10195b.htm

Overheal

It's past $214K now

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/27/matt-gaetz-insult-olivia-julianna-abortion-rights/

Matt Gaetz tried to troll a 19 year old abortion rights protester on Twitter and got repeatedly ratio'd for it. Gaetz had originally told a reported to "be offended" that he believes abortion rights protesters are not attractive enough to have sex or to be raped or impregnated. This prompted Ms. Julianna to speak out on Twitter, where Geatz responded personally by trolling her profile photo etc.

https://twitter.com/0liviajulianna/status/1551271014809608192?s=20&t=alYqCflRwlOwhGEWtkP5lg

https://twitter.com/0liviajulianna/status/1551665933621403648?s=20&t=alYqCflRwlOwhGEWtkP5lg

https://twitter.com/0liviajulianna/status/1551403475682066444?s=20&t=alYqCflRwlOwhGEWtkP5lg

https://twitter.com/0liviajulianna/status/1551401822249750528?s=20&t=alYqCflRwlOwhGEWtkP5lg

https://twitter.com/0liviajulianna/status/1552036451218513921?s=20&t=alYqCflRwlOwhGEWtkP5lg

https://twitter.com/0liviajulianna/status/1552309602649358343?s=20&t=alYqCflRwlOwhGEWtkP5lg