I could be way off here, but I don't see the summer of fire and brimstone that most are anticipating. I also don't see the middle that already decided to vote R going back. I think it is good this came out so far in front of the mid-terms instead of being dropped the week before.
Many states already have laws in place in preparation for the overturning of Roe. Once those kick in, the birthing people of those states will see plainly what they have voted for, and either be happy or sad. So the sad people might protest, but hopefully the middle will understand and move forward.
I hope you are right, but the other side despises federalism and is prone to one size fits all edicts. I think they will whip their minions into a frenzy over codifying abortion nationally.
My experience with that side is that they have a short attention span on real issues. Also, speaking as one who does favor leaving this matter to the woman's choice, I will observe that it is a morally expensive issue because the other side has the easy advantage of being able to claim to be against the killing of little babies, a position against which it is very difficult to argue. Given the past two years, any frenzy the Ds manage to whip up over the abortion issue will probably only redound to making them even more despised than they already are.
It’s interesting that the same people demanding “my body, my choice” were not so accommodating for those of us who felt the same about the state mandating the jab. And this decision does not ban choice @ all.
That's a good point. Those of us who oppose the mandates can still use the argument, regardless of where we stand on abortion. But the pro-abortionists who support the mandates have lost that argument.
Don't forget they have just come from supporting Ukrainian neo Nazis and a regime that shuts down opposition media, imprisons political rivals and has killed several thousand civilians over the last 8 years in eastern Ukraine so nothing they think or do is based on rational thinking.
That would be interesting. As noted by several justices (including Ginsberg), congress has had more than 50 years to do just that and has not. Someone else made the parallel with immigration: if there was in fact a desire to reform the law it would have at least been brought to the floor. What we've seen for 50 years is distractions, not actions.
I agree. It has been fifty years of very profitable distractions to let the issue languish a la immigration. However, Schumer, Warren, Sanders, and others are now very "angry", and appear to be pushing for a national solution.
I suspect the court will now avoid an substantive actions. That would be the point of the "leak" and the various fabrications around it: to demonstrate to the justices that there can not be tolerated any deliberations, no matter how brief, that deviate from the agenda. And that they are not safe from retaliation if they deviate. Just listen to the reactions and it's clear the message is "we can destroy you" to each justice.
It seems SCOTUS is in a bind. It either releases the decision that's been leaked, or it releases a different decision (with some sort of explanation that no one will believe) and its reputation and integrity is destroyed. In world where there had been no leak and had the decision been to uphold Roe, pro-lifers, like myself, would have been disappointed, but not surprised really. Now, all bets are off. What a mess.
The chief justice already "released" an accurate description of the "leaked" report - and it is not a decision, it has not been voted, it was one of SEVERAL working documents being prepared for discussion by the justices. He was VERY clear it was not an action of or by the court, never voted nor proposed to be voted, nor in anyway a decision of the court. His words have been ignored.
RvW has been built up to be a tinderbox under a powder keg attached to a nuclear destructive device: the mere mention of "repeal Roe" is sure to spark violent reactions. So now we have it: this entire fiasco is about intimidating the court. It seems to be working.
Yes, I read Roberts' statement. I guess my point is, depending on the final ruling, the opposing side will have a grievance. The pro-aborts are having their tantrums now whereas if the ruling ultimately upholds Roe, pro-lifers will have to wonder what effect, if any, the actions and rhetoric of the pro-aborts had on it. I totally agree that there could be violence.
According to Roberts, there may be no final ruling. His position seems to be they can address the case in front of them without reopening Roe. I would imagine now the other justices will agree to leave it alone. The threat of violence (and in particular the threat of violence to them personally) surely supports such a conclusion. Which I am now convinced is exactly why this document was leaked.
Whatever it does, the court will uphold the Mississippi statute. To do that, it has to overrule Roe and Casey. That's a big deal already, even if it rules that abortions in the first trimester have to be allowed.
I believe someone elsewhere wrote that Justice Roberts was trying to convince some to rule that, basically, "the Mississippi statute doesn't violate Roe v Wade", so that in theory it would still stand. Though I can't see that actually making a lot of sense legally.
I could be way off here, but I don't see the summer of fire and brimstone that most are anticipating. I also don't see the middle that already decided to vote R going back. I think it is good this came out so far in front of the mid-terms instead of being dropped the week before.
Many states already have laws in place in preparation for the overturning of Roe. Once those kick in, the birthing people of those states will see plainly what they have voted for, and either be happy or sad. So the sad people might protest, but hopefully the middle will understand and move forward.
I hope you are right, but the other side despises federalism and is prone to one size fits all edicts. I think they will whip their minions into a frenzy over codifying abortion nationally.
My experience with that side is that they have a short attention span on real issues. Also, speaking as one who does favor leaving this matter to the woman's choice, I will observe that it is a morally expensive issue because the other side has the easy advantage of being able to claim to be against the killing of little babies, a position against which it is very difficult to argue. Given the past two years, any frenzy the Ds manage to whip up over the abortion issue will probably only redound to making them even more despised than they already are.
It’s interesting that the same people demanding “my body, my choice” were not so accommodating for those of us who felt the same about the state mandating the jab. And this decision does not ban choice @ all.
Exactly! They threw away the "my body, my choice" argument when they supported the vaccine mandates.
I actually think you can still use that argument. What the Left forgets is that there are two bodies involved when it comes to pregnancy.
That's a good point. Those of us who oppose the mandates can still use the argument, regardless of where we stand on abortion. But the pro-abortionists who support the mandates have lost that argument.
Actually, three bodies.
Now back w/ a vengeance….
Entirely predictable to be fair.
Don't forget they have just come from supporting Ukrainian neo Nazis and a regime that shuts down opposition media, imprisons political rivals and has killed several thousand civilians over the last 8 years in eastern Ukraine so nothing they think or do is based on rational thinking.
That would be interesting. As noted by several justices (including Ginsberg), congress has had more than 50 years to do just that and has not. Someone else made the parallel with immigration: if there was in fact a desire to reform the law it would have at least been brought to the floor. What we've seen for 50 years is distractions, not actions.
I agree. It has been fifty years of very profitable distractions to let the issue languish a la immigration. However, Schumer, Warren, Sanders, and others are now very "angry", and appear to be pushing for a national solution.
I suspect the court will now avoid an substantive actions. That would be the point of the "leak" and the various fabrications around it: to demonstrate to the justices that there can not be tolerated any deliberations, no matter how brief, that deviate from the agenda. And that they are not safe from retaliation if they deviate. Just listen to the reactions and it's clear the message is "we can destroy you" to each justice.
I hope you are wrong. But I am already hearing about protests being organized at the homes of various Justices...
It seems SCOTUS is in a bind. It either releases the decision that's been leaked, or it releases a different decision (with some sort of explanation that no one will believe) and its reputation and integrity is destroyed. In world where there had been no leak and had the decision been to uphold Roe, pro-lifers, like myself, would have been disappointed, but not surprised really. Now, all bets are off. What a mess.
The chief justice already "released" an accurate description of the "leaked" report - and it is not a decision, it has not been voted, it was one of SEVERAL working documents being prepared for discussion by the justices. He was VERY clear it was not an action of or by the court, never voted nor proposed to be voted, nor in anyway a decision of the court. His words have been ignored.
RvW has been built up to be a tinderbox under a powder keg attached to a nuclear destructive device: the mere mention of "repeal Roe" is sure to spark violent reactions. So now we have it: this entire fiasco is about intimidating the court. It seems to be working.
Yes, I read Roberts' statement. I guess my point is, depending on the final ruling, the opposing side will have a grievance. The pro-aborts are having their tantrums now whereas if the ruling ultimately upholds Roe, pro-lifers will have to wonder what effect, if any, the actions and rhetoric of the pro-aborts had on it. I totally agree that there could be violence.
According to Roberts, there may be no final ruling. His position seems to be they can address the case in front of them without reopening Roe. I would imagine now the other justices will agree to leave it alone. The threat of violence (and in particular the threat of violence to them personally) surely supports such a conclusion. Which I am now convinced is exactly why this document was leaked.
Whatever it does, the court will uphold the Mississippi statute. To do that, it has to overrule Roe and Casey. That's a big deal already, even if it rules that abortions in the first trimester have to be allowed.
I believe someone elsewhere wrote that Justice Roberts was trying to convince some to rule that, basically, "the Mississippi statute doesn't violate Roe v Wade", so that in theory it would still stand. Though I can't see that actually making a lot of sense legally.
I hope I am wrong. But I'm not.
I agree.