The Supreme Court is what must be overturned


We all knew this was coming.

Goddamn this corrupt, theocratic, criminal Supreme Court. Not only are they killing women, they’re killing any trust we might have in the law.


Oh, you’re not a woman? You think this won’t affect you? Get ready.

They’re coming after the privacy, health, and safety of every American.

Comments

  1. weylguy says

    Don’t forget Trump stacked the Court so all this would happen. Conservatives will now hail him as a hero and saint, and any chance for his conviction and imprisonment for election fraud and other crimes is now moot. It’s truly Trump’s country now.

  2. kome says

    Thomas, in his concurrent opinion, made explicit calls to start putting cases before the courts overturning Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.

    Good job, Democrats, for doing fuck all over the past 50 years to protect reproductive rights. Thanks, Pelosi and Clyburn, for working your asses off to protect anti-abortion Democrats, like Henry Cueller, from their progressive challengers. Thanks Joe Manchin, for being the unbelievable piece of shit that you are. Thanks, Hillary, for picking anti-abortion Democrat Tim Kaine as your running mate. Thanks, Obama, for campaigning on protecting a person’s right to choose and then deliberately ignoring the issue for your entire two terms. Thanks, Bill, for being a huge reason for the transformation of the Democratic party into a neoliberal corporate shitshow that is willing to throw every single vulnerable and marginalized community under the bus in the name of money.

    Great job. Great job all around. This is what we get when the Democrats fight progressives harder than they’ve EVER fought conservatives.

  3. microraptor says

    According to the supreme court, states don’t have the authority to regulate guns but can regulate women.

  4. raven says

    Supreme Court overturns Roe versus Wade.

    So, are we going to let 6 unelected Catholic bigots wreck a nation of 331 million people?
    After all, we outnumber them by 55 million to 1.

    Yeah, we are going to do exactly that.
    For now.
    What the Supreme Court has reversed can always be reinstated sometime in the future.
    Stare Decisis is dead as well as the US Supreme Court’s credibility and legitimacy.
    It is now just a political football.

  5. Susan Montgomery says

    So, how are all the aloof hipsters and BernieBros feeling about their motal purity today?

  6. muttpupdad says

    Wonder when he is going to go after Loving vs Virginia, wasn’t it the case that started all this allowing sin to flourish in our laws?

  7. HidariMak says

    The Supreme Court deciding to meet on a Friday, suggested they might be doing this. The American democracy is now dependent on the campaigning strategies of the Democratic party and its candidates. Good luck, America.

  8. raven says

    Meanwhile in Realityland, a place that the US Supreme Court has no interest in visiting, this isn’t going to stop abortions. It is just going to criminalize abortion. Facts.

    .1. The Romanian dictator Ceausescu, outlawed contraception and abortion because he decided he needed more Romanians. The birth rate went up and then,…went right back down again. What happened is that people found ways around the laws, both in obtaining contraception and getting abortions.
    .2. It was also a major crime against humanity. This caused the Romanian orphan crisis. People who had children they couldn’t take care of turned them over to the state. Which also couldn’t take care of them.
    Around 1/2 million Romanian orphans grew up in deprived and appalling conditions, and many or most of them had short, unhappy lives.
    .3. There was a minor happy ending though.
    After an uprising, Ceausescu and his wife were executed by firing squad by their own people.

    We humans are intelligent tool users and are good at getting what we want.
    The US tried to outlaw alcohol and Cannabis. It didn’t work.
    When the laws are wrong and in the way, prohibition doesn’t work because people just ignore them and work around them.

  9. consciousness razor says

    Some options:
    (1) Dems do the same shit they’ve been doing, which has … not worked.
    (2) Dems somehow become more effective at winning elections, big or small, so that very gradually they can replace the current set of justices, and hopefully we’re not all dead before then.
    (3) End lifetime appointments. Maybe also create age limits for them, as well as members of Congress, the president and vice president, and cabinet members.
    (4) We add more justices, maybe with them working on a rotation or whatever, so that Biden (as sad as that is) has the chance to pick a bunch of them.
    (5) Congress can basically ignore the court whenever they want, since judicial review is a power they just made up for themselves anyway, one which isn’t in the Constitution. It can still give its views which may be useful sometimes, but it doesn’t make or overturn laws, since Congress is the only thing able to do that. (I think they should take back some powers handed off to the executive too.) There are already checks/balances and powers are already separated within Congress, because there are many of them (multiple ones from every state and in two different bodies) who are actually elected by popular vote unlike these justices, because no one legislator has the only vote in them, and because it isn’t a system ruled by only one party (although you wouldn’t know it, sometimes).

  10. R. L. Foster says

    @#6, Susan Montgomery — You nailed it. We wouldn’t be here but for those half-bright, sewlf righteous quibblers. I’m male and well past my reproductive years but this pisses me off. Taking away anyone’s rights is an attack on us all. I’m spitting, fucking mad. 50 years of precedent out the window. Stare decisis my ass.

  11. consciousness razor says

    Another one, in this particular case:
    (6) Congress writes actual legislation, and we simply don’t depend on court decision to do it all for us in the first place.

  12. says

    So Uncle Thomas, in his concurring opinion, wants to “reconsider” Obergefell, but doesn’t mention Loving. That says a lot about him, at least; because the arguments he’s used in public speeches against the former, can just as easily apply to the latter.

  13. Akira MacKenzie says

    Now watch as the Democratic Party has a “Road to Damascus” moment and realizes that they were so very, very wrong about abortion. Watch as the “very serious” people tell us that sometimes progress requires us to take a step back to take a step forward. Witness the Dems throw other marginalized people under the bus in the vain hope to win back white working class voters they lost to Reagan, Dubbya, and Trump.

  14. dbinmn says

    @#7 Exactly, that case was a pure example of Virginia arguing for its states’ rights.

  15. rorschach says

    “Justice” Thomas, is that the criminal kook whose wife should be in jail for taking part in an attempt to subvert the result of the last US presidential election? Just so we overseas readers understand the context.

  16. velociraptor says

    YOU. WERE. WARNED.

    Every death from a botched abortion IS. ON. YOU.

    The coming overturning of Griswold and Obergefell IS. ON. YOU.

    Own it.

  17. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    I’m sorry.
    I haven’t been here in a while, but I remember reading about all the restrictions in individual states described by Caine and others. About how they are getting worse and worse.
    But I did not expect this.
    Selfishly, I fear what this means for some of us accross the pond, who religiously (heh) follow America’s worst examples. Where religious organizations against women are probably financed by sister organizations in the States.

  18. rorschach says

    “The Supreme Court has become the third leg of the coup.”

    You mean the alcoholic alleged rapist who had his credit cards paid off by mysterious benefactors? Or the crumb maiden who makes Handmaid’s Tale look like a documentary? Or the guy who McConnell pushed through after blocking Obama’s candidate because hey, you can’t appoint a judge before an election! And all these 6 radical theocrat liars raised their hand and swore an oath that Roe is established law and noone was going to overturn it.
    The US Supreme Court now is about as competent and functional as a Taliban village council.

  19. raven says

    Georgia Just Criminalized Abortion. Women Who Terminate Their Pregnancies Would Receive Life in Prison and/or the death penalty.
    BY MARK JOSEPH STERN MAY 07, 2019 2:03 PM Slate.com

    Even women who seek lawful abortions out of state may not escape punishment. If a Georgia resident plans to travel elsewhere to obtain an abortion, she may be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment. An individual who helps a woman plan her trip to get an out-of-state abortion, or transports her to the clinic, may also be charged with conspiracy. These individuals, after all, are “conspiring” to end of the life of a “person” with “full legal recognition” under Georgia law.

    Georgia’s law making abortion a death penalty offense just became legal. It was passed in 2019 but suspended by a federal court.

    This law also prevents women from traveling out of state for abortions.
    Which is slavery!!!
    If you don’t own and control your own body, what are you? A slave.
    If you aren’t free to move around and travel, what are you? A slave.
    In Georgia, women are now subject to female slavery, forced birthing, and possibly the death penalty.

  20. birgerjohansson says

    Old Sleepy Joe has ruled out expanding the supreme court (before the election he promised the rich donors there would be no changes, the one promise he has managed to keep), -and he will not even deal with college debts- so any progress will have to wait for able men & women to replace the legacy Democrats.

  21. raven says

    Old Sleepy Joe has ruled out expanding the supreme court …

    It is moot. He doesn’t have the votes. Now anyway.
    With the current rules, it would take 60 Senators and he probably doesn’t even have 50.

    A huge number of people don’t have a problem expanding the Supreme Court.
    It is just a political football, having lost its legitimacy.
    Right now we don’t have the votes. Yet.

  22. birgerjohansson says

    OT
    There was just now the 40th anniversary of the battle of Goose Green at the Falklands, not strategically important but psychologically very important as it showed the small expeditionary force could beat the (fascist-ruled) argentinians.
    It would be great if Democrats could inflict some psychological victory on the Republicans, even if it is just bringing some corrupt congressman to justice.

  23. donfelipe says

    It’s pretty clear that precedent no longer matters; the will of the 6 on the Supreme Court rule this country. Any law they don’t like they will come up with a reason why it isn’t constitutional and strike it. While passing a federal law that grants abortion legal would be another hurdle, there’s no doubt the Supreme Court would find a reason to invalidate it. This goes for any law that is now or has ever been passed. You can’t prevail by following the rules when your opponent makes them up as we go along.

    I don’t see what the purpose of continuing this country is anymore. Until enough people in Texas, Florida, and Pennsylvania decide sending Republicans to the White House and Senate is a stupid idea, we will continue down this rabbit hole. From the west coast, there appears to be zero value to continuing to be in the United States when the majority of people in the south and Midwest seem to be content in turning the entire country into a theocratic hellscape.

  24. rorschach says

    “Old Sleepy Joe has ruled out expanding the supreme court”

    Look, I don’t think making derogatory comments about Biden’s health are helpful here. How many justices would you suggest to be added, and how would you ensure they are not again crazy Taliban-like theocrats, but non-corrupt people with some basic understanding of law? In my view, this should be sorted by removing the justices who are clearly there based on nepotism and corruption. Put there by the same people who seek to steal the 2024 election. The Dems better wake up to this very soon.

  25. rietpluim says

    The Supreme Court is an abomination. It is only a court in name. In reality it is a political body, but without the necessary checks and balances. They should rename it to Politburo.

  26. donfelipe says

    @27

    It seems to be that half the people who are upset with this want to blame Democrats for this. Not like the actual people doing this or the tens of millions of the people that give them power. It truly is strange and confused logic.

  27. drew says

    @5

    So, how are all the aloof hipsters and BernieBros feeling about their motal purity today?

    Democrats lie. Women die. Voting Democrat has done fuck all to fix this known eventual problem for the last five decades.

    So maybe, just maybe, point your blame finger at some liberals who intentionally left things this way (to get votes in the next election and the next) instead of progressives trying to change things.

  28. areyouashoggoth says

    @#11, ConsciousnessRazor:
    You’ve left a big one off of your list: the voters themselves. This happened because the right has been working tirelessly since the 80s to MAKE this happen. they vote in every election,not just the presidential, not just the midterms, but the local races as well. They have big, well funded misinformation and disinformation machines to spread lies, they are aggressive in promoting their causes, they lie, cheat and break election laws willy nilly all to stack the entire federal court system with judges that will impose their theocratic will on us. Meanwhile, what does the center and leftward do?- NOT PAY ATTENTION. Too many of them can’t be bothered to vote in any except a presidential election, or they get all moral purist and refuse to vote or throw away their vote on a 3rd party candidate who stands no chance of winning because the dem is not their exact, perfect candidate in every way. Remember Nader’s claim that people should vote for him because ‘bush and gore are just the same’? I do. If you don’t like the dem candidate, then figure out how to get involved to promote candidates that you like better. I think Paul Wellstone said that politics is determined by those who show up, and that is what the fascists and theocrats do- they show up. When it comes to elections, too many people act like hipster consumers in a boutique shop and not like citizens. We are citizens; we need to start acting like it!

  29. areyouashoggoth says

    @29 DonFelipe
    Many people always blame the dems when things don’t turn out the way they like, instead of the people who actually made the bad thing happen. Case in point: the recent failure to get crucial infrastructure legislation that included some things addressing climate change through the senate. It failed because Joe Manchin (senator from WV, whose considerable personal fortune is built on coal) along with EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN SENATOR opposed it. So who do people want to blame? Joe Manchin. Or the dems in general because Joe Manchin exists. If even ONE republican senator had bucked their party it would have passed- so why are we not blaming them instead? Or the voters in WV who put Manchin there in the first place? or the votes in KY who keep inflicting Mitch McConnell on us? Can the democratic party be improved? Absolutely. But people seem to talk like this just magically happens, and it doesn’t. It takes hard work and lots of dedication- from everyone!

  30. Alverant says

    @2
    Keep in mind that even if Obama DID have laws passed to support the right to an abortion this ruling would have invalidated that too. Just like how they’re going to invalidate the gun control law being debated now.

  31. consciousness razor says

    donfelipe, #29:
    It’s strange that you think this happened because of “following the rules.” It happened because people (in the court and outside of it) have been disregarding our actual rules and just making up shit as they go, which generally boils down to pure lunacy that goes something like this: the Supreme Court can absolutely veto any law Congress makes and there is nothing which can ever stop that.

    It seems to be that half the people who are upset with this want to blame Democrats for this.

    Why shouldn’t we? They had decades to pass some real laws, which they never did. They could do so even now. They’re still not doing it.

    Related: we should also blame them for being such awful liars.

    From the west coast, there appears to be zero value to continuing to be in the United States when the majority of people in the south and Midwest seem to be content in turning the entire country into a theocratic hellscape.

    West coast states (and northeastern ones and a handful of others — see here but fair warning that it’s Reason.com) will not have more restricted access to abortion because of this. So what are you complaining about, exactly? If you want to secede because you don’t really care what happens to those of us in rest of the country, then you’ll probably need to find a different excuse.

  32. consciousness razor says

    You’ve left a big one off of your list: the voters themselves.

    That’s … not a thing that can be done? Because it’s a noun, or we are, so to speak.

    I’m pretty sure what you’re saying goes into bucket #2.

  33. velociraptor says

    @32 areyouashoggoth

    Yup. Don’t expect the folks here to get that, though.

    Every death from a botched abortion is on them. And in their hearts, they KNOW it.

    BUTTERYMAILS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  34. Dennis K says

    @24 raven

    Right now we don’t have the votes. Yet.

    Nor will it matter when “we” do. Voting is going to become a sham after 2024, just like it is in modern Russia.

  35. Susan Montgomery says

    @30. What good did voting third-party or not at all do?

    We took it all for granted. “We’re on the right side of history” we smugly declared and, despite all the evidence to the contrary, thought it was all over but the shouting.

    The women who die are the consequence of that complacency. They’re the price of our smug self-righteousness.

  36. donfelipe says

    @35
    I think you misread what I wrote about following the rules, I specifically said Republicans make them up as they go along.
    Which leads to: what is the point of passing laws when SCOTUS is just going to overturn them?

    My interest in no longer being part of the USA is not exclusively tied to abortion, but to the signaling of the Supreme Court that they will be the one’s deciding what happens in the country. These states with a minority of voters are controlling federal laws and have stacked federal judiciary with people who invalidate laws they don’t like. Sure, I care about what happens to people in those states, but there’s nothing I can do NOW, when we are in the same country. The citizens of those states repeatedly vote for fascists, why would I want to share a country with them? I have no more influence over those states than other authoritarian governments in places like Saudi Arabia, Russia, or China.

  37. kome says

    @39

    Speak for yourself. “We” didn’t take it for granted. YOU did. YOU felt comfortable attacking progressives and defending center-right Democrats because YOU never thought the leopards would eat YOUR face like this. Those deaths that are about to happen are the price of YOUR smug self-righteous condescending to the rest of us who’ve been warning about this outcome for literally decades if the Dems continued down the path of enlightened centrism rather than embracing progressivism.

  38. consciousness razor says

    I specifically said Republicans make them up as they go along.

    That’s also what Democrats do, each and every time they treat that shit as law and thus “follow” it.

  39. consciousness razor says

    The citizens of those states repeatedly vote for fascists, why would I want to share a country with them?

    You have fascists in California too (or wherever you are), and your fellows citizens there vote for them quite frequently. It’s apparently just the additional 10-20% of fascist voters in some other places, which you really can’t handle.

  40. says

    I’ll try to keep my rhetoric to the “serial sexual harasser vs. boundary breaking abomination” type. I do admit the Ds are better in more politically mixed areas but it’s a shrugging shoulders kind and I’m very specific about why while leaving the Rs farther in the shadows of awfulness.

  41. says

    Akira @15: That’s not what Virginia Democrats are doing. Our Governor has asked for an abortion ban, and the Dems in the VA Senate health committee have promised to fight any such proposal.

  42. says

    I am outraged by today’s Supreme Court ruling on abortion.

    As Chairman of the Virginia Senate Health Committee I will never allow any bill that restricts a woman’s right to choose to emerge from our committee.

    Virginia will remain open for choice.

    — L. Louise Lucas (@SenLouiseLucas) June 24, 2022

    I am 78 years old. Women in my generation had no right to choose. Many were injured or died trying to give themselves a choice through grizzly back alley options.

    So when Glenn Youngkin wants to take us back to those days I will be there to stop him. NEVER AGAIN.

    — L. Louise Lucas (@SenLouiseLucas) June 24, 2022

  43. Rich Woods says

    @Beatrice #20:

    Selfishly, I fear what this means for some of us accross the pond, who religiously (heh) follow America’s worst examples.

    I wouldn’t worry about that. Even the idiot Johnson wouldn’t be able to turn abortion into a dead cat, and he’s only interested in issues which let him survive one more day, one day at a time. We don’t have a tenth as many religious nutters per capita as the US, possibly not even a hundredth, so there’s just no support for it. Just like with capital punishment, every four or five years some MP gets up on his hind legs in Parliament and proposes some change to the abortion limit, only to see it knocked down by a large majority. It’s both good that they get the opportunity to speak and good that they get nowhere with it, so that everyone can be reminded of the reasons why they are proposing fundamentally bad ideas.

  44. Captain Kendrick says

    Well GOSH! I sure am glad that this nation spent over $5 trillion to defeat religious terrorism!
    That was money well spent!

  45. says

    Voting Democrat has done fuck all to fix this known eventual problem for the last five decades.

    Has voting any other way done more? Voting for Putin’s bestie Jill Stein didn’t do a lot of good.

  46. Susan Montgomery says

    @41 “you” put moral self-indugence ahead of everthing else.

    The US isn’t nearly ss radical as you think it is. Deal with it.

  47. says

    There is a whole category of problems which cannot be fixed, only avoided.
    People are extremely bad at identifying these problems, until long after the point at which something needed to be done. The Republican party have been explicitly attempting to stack the court for a long ass time, and every opportunity their ‘opposition’ had to do anything about it has been ignored or squandered in political ineffectiveness.

    The world will make a lot more sense once you realise that the Democrats do not give a shit about any of this. They will not do and were never going to do anything about it. They do not care and voting for them will not help. I won’t pretend to know what should be done when democracy fails, but someone’s going to have to figure it out, and fast.

  48. consciousness razor says

    Raging Bee:

    Has voting any other way done more?

    Technically, that does sometimes remind the ones doing fuck all that there is something for them to lose, not just things for all of us to lose. I can’t honestly tell you that this is nothing, so….

    Voting for Putin’s bestie Jill Stein didn’t do a lot of good.

    “Not a lot” still sounds like more than “fuck all” to me. It could still be pretty sizable, even if not a lot. But I’m pretty sure that’s not what you’re suggesting here.

    Let’s try to keep it simple, eh? No infinitesimals or whatever…. You’re suggesting that we should go with zero rather than zero, because for whatever reason you have a strong preference for the first type of zero.

  49. Susan Montgomery says

    @51 Which would you prefer? A Democrat who does nothing or a Republican who does something?

  50. Ada Christine says

    Five weeks ago Joe Manchin broke ranks to vote against a bill that would have passed, 51-50 presumably with VP Harris tiebreaking, to codify Roe into law. Perhaps not a sure thing, but that’s the recent history of the Democrats’ action on reproductive rights, for context.

  51. passngrin says

    The complaints about berniebros and third-party voters is almost meaningless considering how the electoral system works.

    The reason centrist Dems get blamed is because they are the ones in party leadership, they are understandably perceived as dishonest, and they act like they hate leftists more than the Republican party.

    I have seen a bunch of examples of centrists attacking leftists, I have almost never seen an example of centrists arguing over the nuances of any specific state election.

  52. angoratrilobite says

    I am so terrified for all of you south of the border. I truly am. They genuinely want to make the Handmaid’s Tale a reality.
    I honestly hope that those of you who need to can escape.

    The US is nightmarish right now. I used to joke that Canada and Europe should list the USA as a place that people can claim refugee status for. Now it doesn’t feel so funny anymore.

  53. angoratrilobite says

    Does Clarence Thomas honestly he hasn’t just kicked a big hole in the wall? I’m not the most observant trilobite on the block but I know an opening when I see it. It remains to be seen if the racists get to walk through unimpeded.

  54. consciousness razor says

    A Democrat who does nothing or a Republican who does something?

    You’ve got it wrong. Pelosi certainly does things, such as supporting Henry Cuellar instead of Jessica Cisneros.

    I’m sure it must be that Cisneros is too “radical” for that district, because she lost by a whole 289 votes out of tens of thousands. It couldn’t be all the establishment support or the millions in donations for that corrupt goon. Isn’t that how it works?

    Pelosi also trades stocks and reads poems. Can’t forget that.

  55. passngrin says

    @53 If the Democrat actually “does nothing”, that also means they’re not putting enough effort into campaigning and will lose to the republican anyway. Internet commenters like us will decide to vote blue, but since everyone experiences both the internet and politics in different ways, there are lots of other factors that lead to Democrat losses that aren’t just leftists mad at moderates.

    Leftists are not remotely blameless, but the moderates are the ones in party leadership. The moderates or party leaders deserve more of the blame.

  56. Susan Montgomery says

    @59. We’re all to blame.

    I think this has to be a soul-searching moment for all of us.

    But the fact remains that November will be here soon and we need to take a realistic view of where we are, not where we think we ought to be.

  57. Tethys says

    So all the people who voted for non-viable third party candidates in an electoral vote, which is how tfg managed to gain the ability to pack the court with these fascists, are not to blame?

    Hillary won the popular vote and should have been #45, but Blame the Dems for losing because of centrists?
    That’s nonsensical.

  58. Tethys says

    I accept zero blame. Manchin and McConnell and every senate skeeveball who confirmed tfgs appointment of a rapist and an unqualified Bible beater to SCOTUS are the responsible parties.

    I’m down for massive civil disobedience at this point. Drakarys!!

  59. wzrd1 says

    Wow, it’s just getting better and better with this one! It’s actually a gift, as the SCOTUS has, by their own admission, destroyed the doctrine of stare decisis and now, every previous precedent ever made can be brought before the court to be re-decided.
    That’ll block their docket for at least a century!I’

    I’ve also been hearing, “If it isn’t in the Constitution, it’s not a right”, which is unique and grounds for impeachment of the justices penning that, as they just repealed from the bench the ninth amendment.

    As for voting, between gerrymandering games, the DNC being an impotent force for getting absolutely nothing done and the GOP gone flat out theocratic fascist, it’s useless. I’ll either now be voting communist or just not wasting my time.
    But, today, for the first time in nearly two decades, I actually counted my ammunition. I got a chuckle, I literally have an augmented full combat load, with 50 special purpose light barrier defeating rounds. That comes in handy when discussing things with the far right “I have gunz” morons, especially given that I am a competition shooter and veteran of two wars.
    Laughably, that ammunition is about as useful as Biden, as I have nothing to launch them out of. I still have my bows and hunting rifle, but alas, deer are out of season and mother in law season is permanently closed.
    Oh, for the record, at the peak of my competitive shooting, the only time I had as many as 1000 rounds was when there was a kick ass price of national match ammunition. Otherwise, it’s as it is now, augmented combat load of around 200 rounds, which is enough for one competition and practice.

    Well, on to things I can do something about. I’m thinking mahi-mahi (last fillet), some leftovers and asparagus.
    That’ll leave one serving of barley, garlic, onion and stewed prunes for breakfast or lunch tomorrow. Then, I’ll have to prep a few more meals with what little remains.

  60. says

    The Supreme Court is what must be overturned

    Y’know, that headline may be the right course to take. I know it sets a dangerous precedent to simply condemn and call on others to disregard a Supreme Court decision; but it may be even more dangerous to accept as law a decision when it’s so clearly dishonest, inconsistent, corrupt, and based on such an obvious pile of phony history and phony interpretation. This won’t make the bad ruling go away, of course, but it’s still necessary to speak up and discredit this ruling, and all the bogus jurisprudence underlying it, at all levels, in its entirety. That may also pave a way for future appeals courts to start picking away at it later.

  61. says

    Oh, and here’s a timely little story our of Malta, where abortion is illegal, full stop:

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/american-woman-denied-life-saving-abortion-after-suffering-miscarriage-in-malta-asked-husband-to-punch-her/ar-AAYPRaT?rc=1&ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=3b4aa08ad1774bba8bcd93b87e19f323

    Andrea Prudente, 38, and Jay Weeldreyer, 45, who are both from near Seattle, Washington, arrived in Malta on 5 June for a “babymoon” vacation.

    A week into the trip, Ms Prudente started bleeding after suffering a premature rupture of the amniotic sac and the separation of the placenta at 16 weeks…

    Mr Weeldreyer said upon seeking medical help they encountered the “worst of all possible worlds” as they realised that the pregnancy was unviable, and that his wife would be denied an abortion due to a complete ban on the procedure in Malta.

    Ms Prudente was flown to Mallorca, Spain, late on Thursday on a medical evacuation flight where doctors were preparing her for a procedure to remove the remaining fetal tissue because she was at risk of a life-threatening infection.

    In an interview with the Today show, Mr Weeldreyer recalled the “moment when Andrea told me she was seriously considering asking me to punch her as hard as I can in the stomach, to start labour or stop the heart.” He described his anguish at the prospect of being asked to strike his wife in order to save her life.

    Oh well, at least the Maltese had the decency to let her be flown elsewhere to get what the needed. Would Texas allow that, if her miscarriage had happened there?

  62. raven says

    I know it sets a dangerous precedent to simply condemn and call on others to disregard a Supreme Court decision; but it may be even more dangerous to accept as law a decision when it’s so clearly dishonest, inconsistent, corrupt, and based on such an obvious pile of phony history and phony interpretation.

    Prohibition doesn’t work!!!
    This Supreme Court decision will be ignored and gotten around any way humans can figure out how to do it. Everyone knows this already. It’s not the least bit questionable.

    .1. That is what happens anywhere abortion is illegal. I already gave the example of Romania.
    Usually, people just travel to the nearest legal jurisdiction and get an abortion. In Poland it is Germany.
    In Texas, any nearby Blue state.
    .2. In Red states where abortion is First Degree murder punishable by up to state performed death by execution, you can bet the vast majority of women killed will be nonwhite, young, and above all, poor.

    Blaming the Democrats for the current disaster is pointless.
    There are vastly different degrees of blame here.
    The Democrats might not have done as much as they could but they still did a lot to keep abortion safe and legal.
    The GOP/christofascists actively spent 50 years trying to overturn Roe versus Wade any way they could.
    They get most of the blame and they are going to own this disaster.
    They can’t wait to trial and convict some hapless woman and send her to prison or execute her.
    Because nothing says jesus loves you like publicly hanging or shooting a few women.

  63. raven says

    Wikipedia Abortion in Poland

    Abortions abroad
    Some women seek abortions abroad with Germany, the Czech Republic and Slovakia being among the more popular destinations for abortions. (It is tens of thousands a year.)

    Illegal abortions
    Estimates vary as to how many illegal abortions are carried out each year. The Federation for Women and Family Planning [pl], a feminist NGO, gives a range between 80,000 and 200,000 abortions,[68] …

    The BBC reported estimates of illegal abortions per year ranging between 10,000 and 150,000, compared to only 1,000–2,000 legal abortions.[69]

    Poland recently outlawed abortion.
    The number of abortions isn’t too well known, but it is probably around 80,000 a year, with most being domestic abortions done illegally. I’m guessing here that most of these are early abortions that are done using the standard drugs, RU-486 and misoprostol.

    Pennyroyal Wikipedia

    The pennyroyal plant has also been used as an emmenagogue or perhaps most famously as an abortifacient.[28] Chemicals in the pennyroyal plant cause the uterine lining to contract, causing a woman’s uterine lining to shed. Women who struggle with regulating their menstrual cycle or suffer from a cystic ovary syndrome may choose to drink pennyroyal tea. Pennyroyal tea is subtle enough to induce menstrual flow with minimal risk of negative health effects. More concentrated versions of the plant, such as the oil, are much more toxic and will likely force a miscarriage if ingested by a pregnant woman.[29]

    Pennyroyal has been used since the time of the ancient Greeks and Romans as an emmenagogue and abortion drug.

    I have some growing in my garden.
    It is easy to grow. Just saying.
    This is FYI only. I wouldn’t recommend it as a first choice.

  64. kome says

    @Susan Montgomery

    Which would you prefer? A Democrat who does nothing or a Republican who does something?

    The Republicans do something because the Democrats do nothing, so… if the end result is the same thing either way, then there’s no materially relevant difference.

    We’re all to blame.

    No, we’re not. Some of us actually tried to prevent this. People like you scolded us for being alarmist, for being too impolite, for causing trouble, for making things hard for centrists. We failed because of people like far more than because of the Republicans. You are Dr. King’s white moderate, and you should stop trying to spread the blame around. Own up to it and then work to atone for it. You owe it to all the people who are going to die.

  65. raven says

    Ms Prudente was flown to Mallorca, Spain, late on Thursday on a medical evacuation flight where doctors were preparing her…

    Must be nice to be that wealthy.

    Costs from Europe to New York, as an example can range from $15,000 to $35,000 for international airline medical escorts, $35,000 to $75,000 for international airline medical stretcher transports, and $50,000 to over $100,000 for international air ambulance.

    International Air Ambulance | Safe, Expedient Travel For Critically Ill …https://airambulance.com › services › international-air-am…

    Depending on the level of care she needed, Ms. Prudente spent $15,000 to $100,000 on that trip.
    Worth it to save her life.
    And what would a low income woman do in this situation? You don’t even need to guess and it doesn’t involve medical air travel.

  66. silvrhalide says

    Well, on the plus side, the Supreme Court struck down the requirement for a permit to carry concealed guns first. So the problem might be self-correcting. And if “all of Manhattan cannot be a protected area” neither can all judges, Supremes or not, be a protected area. As ye sow, so shall ye reap…

    @6 Saw this coming. This is the reason I held my nose & voted for Hillary. Not because I was happy about it but because all the other options were even worse. WAY worse.
    I would have been happy to have been wrong.

    @10 The icing on the cake is that the people, the generational cohort who actually started the insurrection/rebellion against the Ceausescus were… all the kids who were raised in state orphanages.
    Ooooops.

    @71 Depends on the healthcare insurance policy you have. I am not wealthy, either on a national scale or a state scale, but my insurance (through my job) specifically has an emergency clause, where if I have to go to an emergency room or have other emergent healthcare needs, all medical costs are 100% covered. Including medevac. That said, jobs that typically hire employees for minimum wage or close to it generally don’t offer those kinds of insurance policies to their rank and file employees. (Their CEOs, sure. And they’re certainly happy to take out dead peasant insurance on their employees. They’re just not willing to create work conditions or healthcare policies that would prevent them from becoming dead peasants in the first place.)

    @17 Yeah, that’s the one. It could happen yet. Real trials take time.

    @21 Well, if Joe Biden had actually listened to what Anita Hill said–or any of the rest of Congress had listened, we wouldn’t be in this position now. And there’s nothing that says Congress (not Biden) can’t add Supremes. The original Supreme court was 6 justices. It’s just that Congress won’t.

    @60 it’s an ACTION moment for all of us. Sitting around contemplating our navels is what got us into this mess. On the plus side, if I have to go door to door again, at least it’s warm weather out.

  67. peter yale says

    Praise the Lord.
    Haven’t been in here for a while but wanted to see what the wrong side of the aisle were saying.
    I will pray for you all to understand the error of your opinion.
    God Bless.

  68. StevoR says

    Today the Supreme Court of the United States of America (SCOTUS) confirmed the reality that it has lost all legitimacy and credibility & been broken and corrupted by the regressive, extremist, Christianist misogynist, far Reich wing. Trump’s illegitimate SCOTUS today confirmed the leaked ruling overturning People’s right to bodily autonomy and the fact that at least three of its so-called Justices lied to Congress (an impeachable even imprisonable crime so I gather) in order to be appointed to overturn settled law & precedent.

    One of these Justices is Kavanaugh who drunkenly raped & nearly killed Christine Blasey Ford. Another, Thomas sexually harassed at least one woman (Anita Hill) prior to his controversial appointment to SCOTUS & is married to Trump cultist Ginni who – possibly instigated by him – was outspoken in calling for and supporting the seditionist Jan 6th Attempted Coup. Another, handmaiden Amy Comey OfBarrett, was rammed through in contradiction of ethics, convention & their previous declarations by the hypocritical, treasonous Trump Republican Congress. I ‘spose I should technically use the word “allegedly” in places here but the reality of guilt is blatantly clear & I do believe the women here.

    I think this SCOTUS has forfeited it’s right to make any rulings and needs to end and have all it’s rulings declared null & void. The regressive & esp Trump Justices must be removed either through impeachment or resignation or other legitimate means. If they had a skerrick of decency at least the last two Trump Justices would resign but, of course, if they had even a skerrick of ethics they would NOT be on the bench now & ditto “uncle” (Clarence) Thomas. The current court is effectively, in my view, a form of legal coup against the wishes of the majority of the American People.

    The Democratic party should stop playing nice & insist on changing the nature of SCOTUS to render all the current courts rulings null & void by reason of illegitimacy & transform the Supreme Court so that this abortion of a court can never happen again. The Federalist Society partly responsible for this Illegitimate Court should be ruled a domestic enemy of the USA & its members charged with Conspiracy to Pervert the course of Justice – because what else I do you call fixing the Judges to suit your wishes – and sedition.

    As for abortion, I have my own views but neither can nor wish to impose them except to say that every human being should have the right to control what happens to their bodies including inside them and whether they get and stay pregnant or not.

  69. John Morales says

    StevoR:

    Kavanaugh who drunkenly raped & nearly killed Christine Blasey Ford

    Um. Nearly killed her, eh?

    I think this SCOTUS has forfeited it’s right

    Its. Not ‘it is’.

    As for abortion, I have my own views but neither can nor wish to impose them

    So, if you could stop anti-abortion rules, you wouldn’t, not wishing to impose.
    Gotcha.

    The Democratic party should stop playing nice & insist on changing the nature of SCOTUS to render all the current courts rulings null & void by reason of illegitimacy & transform the Supreme Court so that this abortion of a court can never happen again.

    Sheesh.

    Just skip to it.

    We should all be nice to each other always, and all the world’s problems would just be gone!

    (Also, abortion of a court? Really?
    I suspect you imagined you were clever with that stupid metaphor)

  70. Silentbob says

    @ 73 StevoR

    every human being should have the right to control what happens to their bodies including inside them and whether they get and stay pregnant or not.

    Hear, hear.

    (See I can be nice. Don’t let Morales bully you Stevo.)

    ;-)

  71. John Morales says

    Silentbob, bullying? Heh.

    Care to elucidate just in what regard I’m “bullying”?

    Point being, that’s just StevoR wanking on.

    If he could, he would not, since he has no desire to impose. Or so he claims.

    Me, were I in a position to mandate that every human being should have the right to control what happens to their bodies, I would not hesitate.
    Not for a microsecond.

    See, difference between he and I (ostensibly) is that neither of us can, but I would.

    In a hearbeat.

  72. John Morales says

    Silentbob:

    Never knew you were against wordplay Juan.

    Heh. I’m not; here: that was an abortion of a metaphor. See?

    So.

    “an action or attempt that fails completely in a ridiculous or disorganized way”

    Right. So the US Supreme Court has failed in a ridiculous or disorganized way.

    (It has not has failed to overturn Roe vs Wade, has it?)

  73. KuraZed says

    What acronym do you USAians use for Supreme Court Republican Of The United States? Are they SCROTUS?

  74. StevoR says

    @77. & #74. John Morales :

    Point being, that’s just StevoR wanking on. If he could, he would not, since he has no desire to impose. Or so he claims. … (&) So, if you could stop anti-abortion rules, you wouldn’t, not wishing to impose. Gotcha.

    No. You’ve misinterpeted my meaning there. If I could stop all anti-abortion rules so that everyone could choose for themselves what to do with their own bodies I would.

    What I wouldn’t impose are my personal views about what anyone else does to their own body. IOW, if someone wants an abortion fine by me, if they don’t also fine by me – it is their choice to make not mine to impose on them.

    I really had to clarify that?Thought that was clear but I guess you’d rather wank on with grammar pedantry (?) over meaning.

    Um. Nearly killed her, (Christine Balsey-Ford) eh?

    Yes. In Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony which I believe and accept :

    I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from yelling. This is what terrified me the most and has had the most lasting impact on my life. It was hard for me to breathe, and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me. Both Brett and Mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. They seemed to be having a very good time. Mark seemed ambivalent, at times urging Brett on. At times telling him to stop. A couple of times, I made eye contact with Mark and thought he might try to help me. But he did not. During this assault, Mark came over and jumped on the bed twice while Brett was on top of me. And the last time he did this, we toppled over and Brett was no longer on top of me. I was able to get up and run out of the room,

    Emphasis added. Source : https://abcnews.go.com/US/read-christine-blasey-fords-opening-statement-believed-rape/story?id=58107190

    Now that drunken rapist is a SCOTUS Justice but if Christine Blasey Ford had been accidentally suffocated and died during his sexual assualt as she feared…? Kavanuagh could have accidentally murdered her and is lucky he didn’t.

    Just skip to it.

    We should all be nice to each other always, and all the world’s problems would just be gone!

    Nope but a lot of them would disappear if people just decided to be nice and respect others esp their right to control & live their own lives as long as they aren’t hurting others. There’d still be natural disasters from asteroid impacts, volcanoes and earthquakes to storms, heatwaves, bushfires, etc..

    Also, the weird thing is that I was advocating the exact opposite of what you seem to think there. Notably that the Democratic party STOPS playing nice and takes serious action and I hope this happens and they don’t pull any punches and do absolutely everything in their power to remove the Trump imposed traitors from SCOTUS.

    Personally I want Biden to demand the resignations of Kavanaugh, handmaiden ACB, Thomas & Gorsuch immediately with the direct threat of impeachment and arrest for perjury, contempt of Congress and Conspiracry to Pervert the course of Justice if they fail to do immediately. Then for the present SCOTUS to be ruled null and void and illegitimate so NONE of its decisions count and replace the now removed “Justices” with progressive ones.

  75. John Morales says

    StevoR:

    No. You’ve misinterpeted my meaning there. If I could stop all anti-abortion rules so that everyone could choose for themselves what to do with their own bodies I would.

    Huh. And here I thought I’d merely taken you at your word.

    No imposition of your will upon others.

    How you rationalise that your stopping “all anti-abortion rules” would not be imposing your will that “all anti-abortion rules” be forbidden is still left to the imagination.

    What I wouldn’t impose are my personal views about what anyone else does to their own body.

    Then perhaps that’s what you should have written, no?

    But thanks for clarifying: you’d only impose the view that others could not impose their views upon others. Which is an imposition, but not the imposition.

    (So cogent!)

    I really had to clarify that?

    No, you didn’t have to. But still you did.

    It was hard for me to breathe, and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me.

    Therefore, it is an indisputable fact that he nearly killed her.

    (By your standard)

    Nope but a lot of them would disappear if people just decided to be nice and respect others esp their right to control & live their own lives as long as they aren’t hurting others.

    Heh. That’s exactly what I attributed to you, nice that you demonstrate its validity.

    (If countries just got along, there’d be no war, either. Deep thoughts!)

    Now that drunken rapist is a SCOTUS Justice but if Christine Blasey Ford had been accidentally suffocated and died during his sexual assualt as she feared…?

    It it had happened accidentally, as your hypothetical speculation supposes, then it would have been an accident.

    (You really should choose your words more carefully)

    Also, the weird thing is that I was advocating the exact opposite of what you seem to think there.

    Weird to you, perhaps. I read what you write, which so often is not what you intend to express.

    Personally I want [stuff]

    Good on ya.

    (Quite relevant and important for us Aussies to want political change in the USA, no?)

  76. KG says

    The Republicans do something because the Democrats do nothing, so… if the end result is the same thing either way, then there’s no materially relevant difference. – kome@70

    Absurd, dishonest nonsense. If Clinton had been elected instead of Trump in 2016, the packing of the Supreme court with theocrats would not have happened. You know that. If Trump had been elected instead of Biden in 2020, Russia would already have conquered Ukraine; and if the Republicans had also won control of both houses, a nationwide ban on abortion would have been an immediate prospect.

  77. wzrd1 says

    I’ve finally read the decision, it’s an abomination and massive overreach of the authority of the SCOTUS, as it does indeed, via the verbiage of the decision repeal the 9th amendment. The previous day, it overruling the 2nd amendment’s well regulated clause and now prohibiting states from well regulating their militias.
    Then, Miranda got eroded in civil cases, where redress is now denied for violations of one’s rights under the Constitution.
    This is nothing less than a full onslaught against the entirety of the Bill of Rights!
    The offending majority need to be impeached, convicted and barred from any position of public trust for life immediately, lest they next declare themselves kings!

    Interim solution, which follows historic precedent, Biden adopt a Jacksonian approach. Enforce the NY ruling and Roe, ignoring the court. Jackson did so when forcing the Cherokee from their lands, stating, “If they feel that strongly about it, let them come down here and try to enforce it”.

    The alternative is one of two choices. Accept that the Constitution is now null and void, rights are privileges to be administratively revoked, rather than by a court of law under established codified law or nothing less than civil war.
    A civil war in a nuclear armed nation can never end well, as adversaries and allies would feel alarmed enough that a burp would be sufficient for them to utilize their deterrent forces.

  78. kome says

    @85

    If Clinton had been elected instead of Trump in 2016, the packing of the Supreme court with theocrats would not have happened. You know that.

    McConnell reduced the size of the Supreme Court from 9 to 8 for nearly a year, simply because the Democratic party chose to let him get away with doing so. Do you really think he wouldn’t have kept that up following a Clinton win? Do you really think there’s any will or effort on the side of the mainstream Democrats to fight him? You don’t think we wouldn’t have been hearing more about how Joe Manchin or the Parlimentarian or the whoever-the-fuck-else takes the roll of the rotating villain stopping the Democrats from bringing sunshine and rainbows to the empire until the next election?

    Because if any of the fantasies you just spewed about the beneficence of the Democratic party were true, we would have seen the Democratic party end the filibuster, increase the size of the court to 13 (which has historical precedent), and have passed any legislation whatsoever during any of the periods of time the Democrats have both the White House and Congressional majorities or supermajorities since 1977.

    How little do the Democrats have to do before you wake the hell up and realize that their inaction shares the responsibility for the mess we are forced to endure? People like you refusing to hold the Democratic party’s feet to the fire are why the Republicans walk all over this country.

  79. wzrd1 says

    They’re continuing the denial of the 9th amendment online, “If it isn’t in the Constitution, it isn’t a right”. OK, life isn’t in the Constitution, so it isn’t guaranteed for anyone!

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    The ninth amendment to the US Constitution

  80. Tethys says

    The Senate was majority R when SCOTUS was packed with the excreable traitors. Of course, the same Dem that has been key to preventing elimination of the filibuster, codifying abortion as a basic human right, and just generally being a PoS was among those who voted to place a rapist on the highest court.

    The Senate confirmed Neil Gorsuch to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court on April 7, 2017, by a vote of 54–45. All Republicans present, along with Democrats Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Donnelly, voted to confirm him.

    Kome @88

    People like you are the reason….

    I’m sure that KG is not at fault. What a ridiculous accusation. The Dem that votes along with the party of traitors, McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and all the other enablers of white male supremacy are the people who should be held responsible. Blame every gerrymandered county across the country, which is how despicable assholes like R. Johnson of WI get elected in the first place. Blame tfg, and all the best people he inflicted on the country, since that’s who is actually to blame for this malignant situation.

  81. Tethys says

    My Senator is both Dem, and female. She voted no to those tfg justice picks, but was outnumbered. From her Twitter,

    Senator Tina Smith
    @SenTinaSmith
    We don’t need to pretend that Supreme Court decisions are anything but the will of 6 Republican activists in black robes.

    Quite so. I think it’s time to demand an end to the charade of pretending that the current SCOTUS is legitimate.

  82. Rob Grigjanis says

    kome @88:

    McConnell reduced the size of the Supreme Court from 9 to 8 for nearly a year, simply because the Democratic party chose to let him get away with doing so

    Since the Democrats were a minority in the Senate at the time, pray tell what they could have “chosen” to do. Hold their breaths? Throw tantrums?

    Do you really think he wouldn’t have kept that up following a Clinton win?

    If Clinton had won, but the Democrats still had a minority in the Senate, of course he would have kept it up.

  83. kome says

    @92

    I mean, the time period between 1977 (first time Dems had the White House and a Congressional majority) and 2013 (the most recent time for both) was a pretty long one. They’ve had plenty of opportunity to do something, they’ve just lacked the motivation despite several of the more prominent members (e.g. Obama) campaigning on explicitly that. The DNC leadership hasn’t cared enough to do anything to protect anyone’s rights or liberties. It’s not something that just happened in whenever specific time period you are pretending exists in a vacuum. Overturning Roe (and Casey) was not the result of a single discrete event, but 50 years of conservatives (in both parties) working to overturn it and centrists (in the Democratic party) working to destroy most possibilities for progressives to get elected at both the state and federal levels who could have worked to prevent overturning Roe.

    The myopia here is staggering.

    @90

    No, people like KG are absolutely at fault. They are Dr. King’s white moderate. It is people like that who are responsible for the rise and persistence of people like McConnell, Trump, Pence, Cruz, and so on, because they’re the ones who fight to put people like Lieberman or Manchin in power to be the ones to side with the traitors in the first place. Does it not bother any of you centrists that there’s ALWAYS a convenient excuse for why the Democrats couldn’t have done X or Y, an excuse that never seems to stop Republicans from doing whatever the hell they want to do?

  84. Tethys says

    Is KG even American? I don’t think they are the white moderate you are inexplicably imagining to be at fault for not preventing tfg and the Trumplicans from packing the court with religious nut bags.

    This decision won’t stand. It might be the first time America impeaches some Justices though.

  85. Howard Brazee says

    The Republicans got one justice by cheating and not doing their Constitutional duty, and more by lying through their teeth.
    That is the Republican way, they believe power is important enough to do anything to get it.

    And democracy and the nation and the people pay the price.

  86. Rob Grigjanis says

    kome @93:

    I mean, the time period between 1977 (first time Dems had the White House and a Congressional majority) and 2013 (the most recent time for both) was a pretty long one.

    You were specifically talking about the year in which there were 8 justices, and blocking by McConnell. Do you always just change the subject when called on your bullshit?

    BTW, I’m well to the left of centrist, even by European or Canadian standards. But I do have a fair idea of how getting people on the Supreme Court works, and how it can be stymied. Funny how many Americans (I’m not one) don’t seem to understand that.

  87. Rob Grigjanis says

    Tethys @94: KG is a British (I suspect he prefers ‘Scottish’ now) Green.

  88. consciousness razor says

    Some interesting context…. The most recent period when Republicans had a 60% majority (or more) in the Senate was the 67th Congress in 1921-1923, during the Harding administration, when they had 59 out of 96 seats. However, this wouldn’t satisfy the cloture rule at the time which was still at 2/3, since that wasn’t changed to 3/5 (or 60%) until 1975, meaning this doesn’t really count. So, going back even more, it was close at times, but it hasn’t actually happened for Republicans since the 42nd Congress in 1871-1873, during the Grant administration.

    Beyond that, the closest Republicans have ever been is 55 seats. That happened in 1983-1985 (Reagan), 1997-2001 (Clinton), and 2005-2007 (G.W. Bush). Did they still pass laws they wanted, at those times and most other times for that matter? They sure did, with help from Democrats.

    To Rob’s point:

    Since the Democrats were a minority in the Senate at the time, pray tell what they could have “chosen” to do. Hold their breaths? Throw tantrums?

    Nominations were changed to require only a simple majority (rather than 60%) for other judges by Reid in 2013, then expanded to include Supreme Court nominations by McConnell in 2017, immediately before the Gorsuch vote.

    Dems had the opportunity to do that in 2013 too, or at any point when they had the majority in the Senate (for most of Obama’s two terms):
    2009-2011: 59 to 41
    2011-2013: 53 to 47
    2013-2015: 55 to 45

    In 2016 when Scalia died, the count was 46-54. That’s the critical period when they were rendered “helpless” and suffering from largely self-inflicted wounds. They still could have leveraged their votes on all sorts of other stuff, however. So, it was still more like unwilling than helpless.

    Before that, though, they could’ve gotten a replacement for Ginsburg whenever they wanted. Of course, they were also gambling with Breyer…. That they happened to get lucky with him should hardly be satisfying to anyone here. Could there have been pressure on Kennedy to retire as well? Who the fuck knows? (But why even try, right? Let’s just be laissez faire about this stuff too, if we’re going to act that way about everything else.)

    Anyway, as I said, that’s how the Republicans in 2017, despite having a mere 51 to 49 majority, still got what they wanted. There was “no way” to avoid that.

    Obviously, Democrats also had lots more opportunities to simply pass a bill they wanted (a pro-choice bill), just as Republicans have been doing, no matter what the court looks like.

    Tethys:

    Is KG even American?

    Rob Grigjanis isn’t either…. A foreign influence operation!

  89. Rob Grigjanis says

    cr @98:

    They still could have leveraged their votes on all sorts of other stuff, however. So, it was still more like unwilling than helpless.

    Well, if you discount the clear, oft-stated position of the Republicans that their main goal was to block anything and everything that Obama wanted.

  90. KG says

    if any of the fantasies you just spewed about the beneficence of the Democratic party were true – kome@88

    I have “spewed” no fantasies about the Democrats’ “beneficence” – you are simply lying. Packing the Supreme Court with theocrats required a President willing to do that, and that could only have been a Republican, at any time since your selected starting date of 1977, so your claim that it makes no difference whether Democrats or Republicans are elected is, as I said, absurd and dishonest nonsense. Of course the Democrats are to blame for their inactions (and many of their actions) over that period (and before), but contrary to your absurd and dishonest cliam, that does not eliminate the difference between the parties or justify the claim that there is none of any significance. That claim is, indeed, an insult to all those who will be harmed by this monstrous decision of the court which Trump packed with theocrats.

    No, people like KG are absolutely at fault. They are Dr. King’s white moderate. – kome@93

    Jesus wept, you’re a complete numpty. Do you think King didn’t care whether Johnson or Goldwater won in 1964? Or that it made no difference to the passage of the Civil Rights Act? And incidentally, I’m not an American. Nor am I a moderate; I’m just not stupid enough to pretend to myself that all those I disagree with are indistinguishable, as you are.

  91. consciousness razor says

    Rob Grigjanis:

    Well, if you discount the clear, oft-stated position of the Republicans that their main goal was to block anything and everything that Obama wanted.

    I guess then we’re getting to the point where we have to ask whether Obama himself wanted a giant military, to name just one example. Republicans certainly wanted that, and they got it. The fact is, Democrats did not need to just play along, with anything.

    Once Republicans decided that they would not allow a new appointment until after the election, then why were the Democrats still willing to give them any gifts whatsoever?

    Or is it not so much a gift to Republicans, because they liked that shit too? In that case, we’re all just supposed to be okay with the fact that they want all sorts of shitty things that Republicans also want?

    How do we get to the part where I can feel better about it, or is that not coming?

  92. Tethys says

    Roe vs Wade was established in 1973. Why would the Dems have felt it necessary in 1977 to codify a law that had just been established?

    I remember they were actively trying to get the ERA amendment ratified, and have been the only party that has attempted to extend equal protections under the law to all people, regardless of gender or sexuality or race.

    On a somewhat related theme, Faux News has lost in its attempts to quash Dominion Voting Machines defamation suit. In that story, the fact that the Murdochs were well aware that tfg lost the election big time, but allowed their various media outlets to spout lies and propaganda in service of the big lie.

    The Putin wing has got to be quashed worldwide because of rich white men like Murdoch. Funny how we don’t hear much from their American buddies the Kochs lately. They were such big fans of Herr cofefe. I don’t think oligarchs qualify as white moderates, but they can have the blame.

  93. Susan Montgomery says

    @102. Because Roe isn’t a law. It was a statement that other laws exceeded the authority of the constitution.

  94. consciousness razor says

    Tethys:

    Roe vs Wade was established in 1973. Why would the Dems have felt it necessary in 1977 to codify a law that had just been established?

    Because that’s a court case. Because Congress makes laws. That’s their job.

    Rob Grigjanis:

    I beg your pardon.

    As long as we’re on the same page. They’re much less honest than you are about it though.

    Bottom line: They could have, but they did not. Their choice.

  95. Tethys says

    I’m aware of the difference between codification of a law, and the legal precedent set by Roe vs Wade.

    If you are going to blame Dems back to 1977, some context has to include the ERA amendment and the incredible amount of open misogyny that was considered normal….way back in the ancient times of 43 years ago. There was this dude named Nixon too, (R), who until tfg, was the most criminal POTUS.

    In foreign policy, we were enduring something called the energy crisis.

    I will continue to find any whining about do nothing Dems to be utter bullshit. Your time would be better spent getting involved in your local elections so you can effect change by swinging left. Please join Minnesota in not electing any Tepublicans to the Senate. More women would be a very good start to actually codifying the right to modern reproductive healthcare.

  96. says

    I will continue to find any whining about do nothing Dems to be utter bullshit.

    That’s a really convenient opinion, if you support the do-nothing Democrats.

    But the 1970s weren’t the only opportunity. There was complete Democratic control in Clinton’s first term, where they had just seen Clarence Thomas lie his way onto the Court. Or a couple months in Obama’s first term, when certainly no one could have failed to see the writing on the wall.

    Every time, some higher priority.

    In April, 2009, the recently inaugurated Obama said that legislation to codify abortion rights into federal law “is not the highest legislative priority.”

    That legislation was the Freedom of Choice Act, which would have effectively enshrined Roe v. Wade into law. In 2007, then Senator Obama told Planned Parenthood signing that law would be “the first thing I’d do as president.”

    https://www.newsweek.com/barack-obama-blasted-not-codifying-roe-v-wade-democrat-failure-1719156

  97. Tethys says

    The belief that the Dems do nothing is still bullshit, since it is not the Dems who fielded tfg in the first place.

    If you don’t think your elected representatives are progressive enough, I suggest (again) becoming active in your local primaries.

    The fake Dem from W.V has repeatedly been the one vote that gucks it up. Whinge about his bullshit all you like, he has earned it.

    The technique of pulling skeletons out of the closet is a classic abuse method. Just FYI. (Obama, 1977, etc…)
    Focus on the corrupt SCOTUS problem, instead of blaming the people who aren’t trying to subvert our entire democracy and did not commit multiple crimes in service to a corrupt rich tyrant.

  98. kome says

    @96
    You were specifically talking about the year in which there were 8 justices, and blocking by McConnell. Do you always just change the subject when called on your bullshit?

    The larger conversation has been about the Democrats complete and total abdication of responsibility to protect anyone’s rights over the past several decades. Just because in one instance we ended up zeroing in on specific time frame doesn’t mean the rest of the context of the conversation disappears and can never reenter the conversation. The subject didn’t change, you just started ignoring the parts you didn’t like. Which is something that centrists loves to do when dealing with progressives, yet strangely enough not with conservatives (contrary to your own assertions, you are spewing US-centrist bullshit talking points that have zero basis in reality).

    The Democrats should never have allowed this situation – and allow is the correct verb because they have had countless opportunities over a span of decades to prevent it, including just in the past 18 months (end the filibuster, expand the court, pass legislation; like every progressive was yelling for them to do). The Republicans did this, absolutely, but the Democrats let it happen. Because somehow, someway, magically and coincidentally there’s always that one fly in the ointment that grinds any potential action by the Democrats to a screeching fucking halt. Flies in the ointment that somehow both affect the Republicans when they’re in charge and yet never seem to stop them from doing anything. The Parlimentarian never stopped the Republicans. The Republicans who picked this-or-that bill to not vote with the rest of the party on never stopped them. Being challenged by a more conservative primary challenger never stopped the Republicans. The filibuster never stopped the Republicans.

    And the reason the Democrats let this shit happen is because people in the United States with the same mentality you have, and KG has, and Susan has, and Paul has just fucking let them get away with it AND applaud them for preventing progressives from being on the ballot in general elections. This is why the United States is now the failed state that it is: too many complacent idiots more concerned about people on the left who stand by their values than by people on the right who stand by theirs.

  99. StevoR says

    @ ^ kome :

    And the reason the Democrats let this shit happen is because people in the United States with the same mentality you have, and KG has, and Susan has, and Paul has just fucking let them get away with it AND applaud them for preventing progressives from being on the ballot in general elections.

    Pretty sure almost NOBODY here (a few posible trolls aside) is “applaudingt preventing progressive policies or politicians being on the ballots here. I’m certainly not and doubt very much that those you named are either. Strawperson much?

    What alternative are suggesting to the Democeratic party and how will it happen? What is your proposed solution here and how will you get it to happen?

    @84. John Morales : I’m pretty sure I wrote in comprehensible english – ok with a few typographical and grammar errors probly and maybe a bit of slang but didn’t think it was that unclear.

    How you rationalise that your stopping “all anti-abortion rules” would not be imposing your will that “all anti-abortion rules” be forbidden is still left to the imagination.

    No rules banning abortion = let everyone decide for themselves (don’t like abortion, don’t have one!) That’s imposing my personal will how exactly?

    But thanks for clarifying: you’d only impose the view that others could not impose their views upon others. Which is an imposition, but not the imposition.

    Que? An imposition by definintion is when there is compulsion to do a certain thing. When something or some situation is imposed on someone against their will.e.g. when the law imposes anti choice Forced Birther rules on women imposing on their bodily autonomy here. Saying there should be any imposition is kinda the opposite of that. So I guess you are playing pedantry over some preciser technical definition of the word imposition?

    “It was hard for me to breathe, and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me.” – Christine Blasey Ford.

    Therefore, it is an indisputable fact that he nearly killed her.
    (By your standard)

    You saying you don’t believe her here? If so, why not? I take her at her word. She was the person who would best know and if she said she thought Kavanaugh was likely to accidentally kill her which she did and then why shouldn’t people take that as true? What standard is preferable here that isn’t being met exactly? You prefer to take Kavanaugh’s word instead?

    It it had happened accidentally, as your hypothetical speculation supposes, then it would have been an accident.
    (You really should choose your words more carefully)

    Possibly if if Chrstine Blasey Ford died by accidental suffocation during Kavanaigh’s attempted rape that would at leats be manslaughter I think. It would also likely have ended his career assuming the turth came out which, well, hiopefully he’d have been caught had that happened. When you say “accident”” I’m not so sure – unintentional yeah, but still a crime committed in the process of committing a crime. What word(s) do you need added here – “alledgedly” when that’s pretty clear from her testimony which I believe and think we should – as a basic default – believe? I think “accidental” is inappropriate here given Kavanughs actions at the time. You disagree why? Not sure why you seem to be defending him here.

    Weird to you, perhaps. I read what you write, which so often is not what you intend to express.

    You do seem to interpret and read my words very strangely and against the actual meaning of what I actually write. I don’t think I’m all that unclear!

    (Quite relevant and important for us Aussies to want political change in the USA, no?)

    Given the influence the USA and its culture and politics has on our nation along withy many other nations – yes. Not saying we’re in the best position to influence things but why not express our views and say what we think will help here? You do know the Australian Christian Lobby is celebrating this verdict and pushing for similar Forced Birther and culture wars shit here right? As are other ideologically motivated Trumpist groups here including our own branch of the Quanon cult right?

    @ 98. consciousness razor : FWIW I’m an Aussie in case that wasn’t already well known enough here. This is a global blog and there are global implications from what the SCOTUS does.See previous paragraph among more.

  100. StevoR says

    Could President Biden and / or the Democratic party / Congress issue an executive order or pass legislation that rules the present SCOTUS invalid and illegitimate and all its rulings null and void? Theoretically? In practice?

    Could Biden use his power as Commander in Cheif to order the military to forcibly remove and jail (eg for sedition, treason, mutiny?) SCOTUS Justices?

    What is the most extreme thing Biden and Congress can do to stop and end the current unAmerican betrayal of a SCOTUS and reverse the recent appalling misrulings it has already made? When the USA has a rogue SCOTUS acting like this what measures short of illegal violence are possible? Can SCOTUS be legally deemed to be improperly and illegitimately installed? Could the regressive Trump Justices incl Thomas be ruled domestic enemies or terrorists and, if so, then what?

    PS. Not actually advocating any of the above BTW. Just wondering what the theoretical and practical limits are here,

    How do you reverse what amounts to a Judicial coup against the wishes of the majority of the American people?

  101. consciousness razor says

    StevoR:

    FWIW I’m an Aussie in case that wasn’t already well known enough here.

    I know. That was just a bit of humor anyway. The only situation I can think of where it might matter to me is if someone is ignorant of what this country’s like because they live elsewhere, and that distorts their thinking or derails the conversation in some way. It does happen, but we shall overcome…. (Actually, you may not get that reference, so here you go.)

    Of course, the US is a big place, and there is a lot of ignorance and misunderstanding within it too. The urban/rural and coastal/interior divides are very real. Money and power have always been concentrated in the cities. We’ll have done a lot about that, when the rest of the country has the same schools, hospitals, social services, public transportation, etc., when huge companies headquartered in their cities stop sending our jobs overseas to exploit other people there, when people stop acting like they’re better than others because of where they live or where they came from, and so forth.

    Generations of that will do some nasty shit to people…. It’s not because one group is better or smarter or more moral. But for many decades now, it’s been easy to see how the rural population has remained stagnant and struggling (or declining in many places) and practically all of the growth has been in the urban population. The picture doesn’t get a whole lot clearer than that.

    Have we gotten any better as a result, if that’s what we’re supposed to believe? Most will tell you no, but they really wish that they could tell you yes. Yet most still don’t understand the problem, because ultimately, they believe it’s in their interests to keep power for themselves and not share it. They may say they’re afraid of retaliation, but it’s really just a fear of equality and everything that entails.

    Could President Biden and / or the Democratic party / Congress issue an executive order or pass legislation that rules the present SCOTUS invalid and illegitimate and all its rulings null and void? Theoretically? In practice?

    In theory, they could do all sorts of things. On federal land, they can build free clinics (for any sort of healthcare), scattered throughout every state, and fund them completely with their money printing machine. States can’t do shit about that. Problem solved. It affects the budget (like anyone really fucking cares), therefore, bizarrely, fewer senators are needed to support it than would otherwise be the case. Then, hooray, we’ve also moved toward Medicare for All: two birds (actually a whole bunch of them) with one stone.

    In practice, they will do nothing of the sort. Biden has been anti-abortion his whole life. The best we can reasonably hope for is that he merely doesn’t give a shit and doesn’t try to cause even more pain. Worst case, he’ll pass federal bans on it himself and make it a capital offense.

    What is the most extreme thing Biden and Congress can do to stop and end the current unAmerican betrayal of a SCOTUS and reverse the recent appalling misrulings it has already made?

    I guess most would say ending judicial review is “extreme.” I think the alternative is extreme. It is a made up power grab, so just ignore whatever the court claims to do with regard to making or overturning laws. They can still take cases, but basically, what happens in SCOTUS stays in SCOTUS.

    Can SCOTUS be legally deemed to be improperly and illegitimately installed?

    Not “extreme” enough, dude. It’s not about these particular justices. The whole thing has been rotten and farcical for a very long time. That’s why we always get all of these shit rulings. Very rarely does anything good come out of it. When it does, it points to something Congress should have been doing and still needs to do. It is not to be treated as a legislative body at all, because it’s part of the judiciary.

  102. John Morales says

    StevoR:

    @84. John Morales : I’m pretty sure I wrote in comprehensible english – ok with a few typographical and grammar errors probly and maybe a bit of slang but didn’t think it was that unclear.

    “I read what you write, which so often is not what you intend to express.”

    An imposition by definintion is when there is compulsion to do a certain thing.
    [&]
    No rules banning abortion = let everyone decide for themselves (don’t like abortion, don’t have one!) That’s imposing my personal will how exactly?

    By banning rules banning abortion.

    Other people desire such rules, and the whole hypothetical situation is that you would be stopping them from their desire. That’s how.

    Que?

    Same thing as I just wrote above, different phrasing.

    I don’t think I’m all that unclear!

    I know.

    I think “accidental” is inappropriate here given Kavanughs actions at the time. You disagree why?

    Already told you. I can only nurse you along so much.
    Note that you were the one to write “accidentally”, and I took you at your word.
    Here: “Kavanuagh could have accidentally murdered her and is lucky he didn’t.”

  103. Silentbob says

    @ 113 Morales

    No rules banning abortion = let everyone decide for themselves (don’t like abortion, don’t have one!) That’s imposing my personal will how exactly?

    By banning rules banning abortion.

    Other people desire such rules, and the whole hypothetical situation is that you would be stopping them from their desire. That’s how.

    Lol. How you have survived on Pharyngula so long with such blatant trolling I do not know. I suppose it’s something of an achievement.

  104. Rob Grigjanis says

    cr @112:

    On federal land, they can build free clinics (for any sort of healthcare), scattered throughout every state, and fund them completely with their money printing machine.

    Who is “they”? Doesn’t Congress decide what can be done on federal land?

  105. kome says

    @110

    Pretty sure almost NOBODY here (a few posible trolls aside) is “applaudingt preventing progressive policies or politicians being on the ballots here. I’m certainly not and doubt very much that those you named are either. Strawperson much?

    You must be new here. ;)

    That’s okay, you’ll get familiar with some people over time if you pay attention. To take just one example, Susan Montgomery has said in the past that she voted for Gary Johnson instead of Hillary Clinton because Hillary didn’t support a policy that would’ve saved trans peoples’ lives on the dumbest fucking grounds one can imagine (which, let’s face it, is par for the course for Hillary Clinton). Now, I agree with the sentiment that Hillary is a piece of shit when it comes to trans people (and black people, and women, and poor people, and immigrants, and everyone else not named Hillary Clinton) but in this thread she’s blaming BernieBros for bringing out the situation that led to the Dobbs decision. Susan gets to have moral purity tests, but Sanders’ supporters can’t. I wonder why? Whether she’s aware of it or not, by refusing to support actual progressives and blaming them despite them being kept out of power, she is exactly the type of person who, in her own words, “validate[s]the passive appeasement of the Democrats.”

    And all of this despite Sanders supporters in the primaries ending up voting for Hillary at a higher rate than Hillary-2008 primary supporters ended up voting for Obama (87% versus 84%; and over tens of millions of ballots cast, that translates into hundreds of thousands of votes). Whatever moral purity she’s projecting onto Sanders supporters, it’s one that somehow doesn’t allow her to see that progressives showed the fuck up to vote against Trump, and by extension, the clusterfuck we’ve just found ourselves in.

  106. consciousness razor says

    Rob: #115:
    (1) “They” are Congress, and the president would sign it into law.
    (2) Yes.

  107. consciousness razor says

    No, I already mentioned that it affects the budget, so due to the Byrd rule, only 51 votes in the Senate are required. Also, don’t forget that the vice president can break ties if necessary (indeed, that’s they only time they can vote).

  108. Susan Montgomery says

    @116. Given the fact that Hillary just recently floated the idea of dumping trans advocacy in exchange for votes, I think my concerns at the time weren’t unreasonable.

    And I would like to think I’ve learned the error of my ways and sought redemption. Can any BernieBro say that?

  109. kome says

    @121

    Given that more Sanders supporters voted for Clinton than Clinton supporters have supported progressives, I don’t think they – as a group that you have decided must be treated monolithically – have an error under their belt that they need to seek redemption for. Seems it’s t’other way ’round; all the anti-progressives in the Democratic party who need own their mistake and start backing progressives. For once.

    And I did say that I agreed that Hillary is (and apparently always has been) a real piece of shit when it comes to trans people, so… yea. But I guess the threat of Trump wasn’t enough for you to hold your nose and vote for her, while you have spent the last view years demanding that people who largely did hold their nose and vote for her somehow take accountability. Typical, really.

    Btw, in that thread I linked to, you said you weren’t ashamed for voting for Johnson. Given recent events, are you now ashamed? Or does that not matter because you can still do the mental gymnastics necessary to browbeat your caricature of what progressives are like?

Leave a Reply