SCOTUS Appears to Seek Middle Ground on Abortion After Hearing Mississippi Abortion Oral Arguments
We will likely get a decision in the spring.
The Supreme Court of the United States of America has six conservative justices. I hate saying that because SCOTUS’s job is to interpret the Constitution, which is not conservative or leftist.
But America has a chance to witness the elimination of Roe v. Wade or at least weaken it enough to save more human beings in the womb.
Mississippi wants to ban abortion after 15 weeks.
Roe v. Wade in 1973 and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 said states could not ban abortion before a baby’s viability. Right now, that is 22 to 24 weeks.
Lawyer Jonathan Turley found it “striking” that the “pro-choice side did not offer alternatives if the Court were to drop the emphasis on viability.”
Judicial Crisis Network President Carrie Severino praised SCOTUS for “articulating its constitutional role: not to pick winners and losers on divide issues like abortion, but to remain ‘scrupulously neutral,’ as Justice Kavanaugh said.”
I agree with Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog. Justices Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito appear to want to overturn Roe. Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to lean toward upholding the Mississippi law and not overturning Roe.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayer think overturning Roe “would overturn the court’s legitimacy by creating the sense that the ‘Constitution and its reading are just political’ acts that hinge on the court’s memberships at any particular moment in time.”
It’s hard to argue with the three justices, but their leftist friends have politicized SCOTUS so much that it’s hard to shed that problem now.
Then again, people forget that SCOTUS ruled based on privacy in Roe v. Wade, not abortion. Abortion had nothing to do with the ruling. It was all about privacy, which also does not appear in the Constitution.
The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not like the structure of Roe v. Wade!
Let’s dive into the oral arguments. First off, there’s Kavanaugh’s critical question: Can SCOTUS prohibit abortion? From Fox News:
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked the lawyer defending a Mississippi law restricting abortion Wednesday whether the Supreme Court can ban abortion — and the lawyer said it can’t.
“To be clear, you’re not arguing that the court somehow has the authority to itself prohibit abortion or that this court has the authority to order the states to prohibit abortion, as I understand it? Correct?” Kavanaugh asked Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart.
Stewart said that is correct.
“As I understand it, you’re arguing that the Constitution’s silent and therefore neutral on the question of abortion. In other words, that the Constitution’s neither pro-life nor pro-choice?” Kavanaugh said.
Stewart also agreed with that statement.
Chief Justice John Roberts biggest concern appeared to be precedents:
“There are a lot of cases around the time of Roe, not of that magnitude, but the same type of analysis that that went through exactly the sorts of things we today would say were erroneous,” Roberts said. “If we look at it from today’s perspective, it’s going to be a long list of cases that we’re going to say were wrongly decided.”
Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart replied that “other controversial areas, or once controversial areas, are quite settled, clear rules, and don’t have those considerations against them.”
The court “won’t have to go down that road,” he added.
But that does not mean Roberts will vote against the Mississippi law because he brought up the timing of 15 weeks: “If you think that the issue is one of choice — that women should have a choice to terminate their pregnancy — that supposes that there is a point at which they’ve had the fair choice, opportunity to choice. And why would 15 weeks be an inappropriate line? Viability, it seems to me, doesn’t have anything to do with choice. But if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time?”
Roberts also reminded the country that our abortion laws align with China and North Korea, which allow late-term abortion. The majority of civil nations ban abortions after 15 weeks.
Sotomayer grossed me out when she compared babies in the womb who respond to poking or prodding to dead people:
Stewart said that advancing science since Roe v. Wade in the 1970s and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in the 1990s — including on fetal pain — bolsters his argument for overturning those cases. But Sotomayor tried to poke holes in his arguments, including on whether science about when an unborn baby can feel pain is as clear as Stewart says.
“Virtually every state defines a brain death as death. Yet the literature is filled with episodes of people who are completely and utterly plain shredded, responding to stimuli,” Sotomayor said. “So I don’t think that a response to buy a fetus necessary proves that there’s a sensation of pain or that there’s consciousness. So I go back to my question of, what has changed in science to show that the viability line is not a real line, that a fetus cannot survive?”
“What I’d say is this Justice Sotomayor, is that the fundamental problem with viability — it’s not really something that rests on science so much. It’s that viability is not tethered to anything in the Constitution. In history or tradition. It’s a quintessentially legislative line,” Stewart said.
Let’s bring Kavanaugh back in because he brought up that SCOTUS has overturned previous rulings. Justice Stephen Breyer somehow thinks those do not matter because of context, even though I’m sure Kavanaugh has read the cases:
“History tells a somewhat different story, I think, than is sometimes assumed,” Kavanaugh said about stare decisis — the principle that the court should stick to its past rulings.
“If you think about some of the most important cases in this court’s history… there’s a string of them where the cases overruled precedent,” he said.
Kavanaugh continued: “Brown v. Board outlawed separate but equal. Baker versus Carr, which set the stage for one person, one vote. West Coast Hotel, which recognized the state’s authority to regulate business. Miranda versus Arizona, which required police to give warnings… about the right to remain silent… Lawrence v. Texas said that the state may not prohibit same sex conduct. Mapp v. Ohio, which held that the exclusionary rule applies to state criminal prosecution.”
“In each of those cases… and I could go on. And those are some of the most consequential and important in the court’s history, the court overruled precedent,” Kavanaugh said.
A few minutes later Breyer slammed Kavanaugh for making allegedly false equivalencies between Roe and the other cases he cited.
“They do not include the list that Justice Kavanaugh had here… There are complex criteria that she’s talking about that link to the position in the rule of law of this court,” Breyer said. “All I would say is tou have to read them before beginning to say whether they are overruling or not overruling in the sense meant there calling for special concern.”
Breyer was referring to the opinion of former Justice Sandra Day O’Conner in Planned Parenthood v. Casey analyzing when to overturn major precedents.
We will likely get a decision in the spring. I believe SCOTUS will allow states to pass laws with the 15-week ban.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Slavery, diversity, and NOW reproductive rites. Ironically, political congruence (“=”), or selective inclusion of at least part of the transgender spectrum, was decided at the federal level.
The viability apology was a quasi-scientific, religious argument to excuse denial of women’s bodily sovereignty in the second and third trimesters. Keep women appointed, available, and taxable is approved by feminists and masculinists alike.
There is no mystery in sex and conception. A woman and man have four choices, self-defense, and still six weeks to elect the wicked solution (planned parent/hood) for light, social, redistributive, and fair weather causes.
The tell-tale hearts beat sooner and ever louder.
Roe, Roe, Roe your baby down the river Styx. #HateLovesAbortion
Can they abort the baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too?
There is no such thing as a half dead baby. the baby is alive or murdered.
But that is a conservative position. The left, including at least some of the three leftist justices, doesn’t believe that is SCOTUS’s job.
Or rather, the difference is in how the two sides understand the word “interpret”. The right understands it to mean like what an interpreter does: to do one’s level best to discover the meaning that is already in the original, while trying hard not to read meanings into it that one would like to see there but aren’t. But the left doesn’t accept that the meanings the court is looking for are really there to be discovered. Rather they see the court’s job as first deciding on a desired outcome and then trying to fit it into the text as best as one can.
You must not have listened to oral argument because nothing of the sort happened. The panel was crystal clear that the position of the State is devoid of any legal merit whatsoever.
Read the brief of the State on the merits. They argue abortion is subject to nothing more than rational basis review. This is an absurd position to take because the associated and necessarily implicated fundamental rights of privacy in procreation, contraception, marriage & intimate relationships, and familial relationships are all subject to strict scrutiny.
There is no such “fundamental right of privacy in procreation, contraception, marriage & intimate relationships, and familial relationships”. You cannot find it anywhere in the constitution, nor can you find any historical evidence that people in the 18th century thought they had such a right.
We don’t allow such a right to interfere with prosecutions for infanticide after a baby is born, so why should we raise it for infanticide before that moment? What’s so special about birth?
Nor do we allow such a supposed right to invalidate all kinds of laws regulating marriage and familial relationships, from adoption and custody down.
In any case, the idea that there is such a thing as privacy in a surgical procedure is absurd.
“What’s so special about birth?” Hard to hide a body… that’s why. When something isn’t in the Constitution, there are legislative remedies … but it’s harder to deal with hundreds of Congress critters than convince just 9. Maybe Roberts can claim abortion is a tax to solve the impass.
You beat me to it. Roberts will decide it is a tax.
Breyer was just saying that it’s okay to overrule precedent if he doesn’t happen to agree with the existing precedent, but it’s not okay, and in fact it’s outrageous, for the court to overrule precedent when Breyer (and the other lefties) agree with the existing precedent, as in the existing precedent of Roe v. Wade.
Roe v. Wade was a bad decision. It’s based on bad legal reasoning, and outdated science. It needs to go. Keeping it in place just because a bunch of subsequent abortion cases cited it as precedent just compounds the original error. Roe is bad law, and bad law should be discarded, and the sooner, the better.
It’s not though. Not at all. //Roe v. Wade was a bad decision. It’s based on bad legal reasoning, and outdated science.//
Table pounding and declarations without substance or legitimate argument.
That’s what you’re doing.
That’s what you do when you have no case and you know it.
I’m sorry your ideology is at odds with reality, but facts don’t care about your feelings.
Okay, show us how the original Roe decision was legit, not political, that it legimately finds a “right” in the Constitution that includes no such “right.” Waiting.
The pro life position is the one rooted in scientific illiteracy.
LOL, right because the pro-abortion camp, the people who insist that the fetus “isn’t human” or is “just a clump of cells or a “mass of tissue” like a tumor, are the scientific experts!
OK, then if life doesn’t begin a conception, when does it begin?
Feinstein said it was when the baby crossed the threshold at home for the first time.
Did she really say that? That would mean that you could legally kill the baby in the hospital, or in the car on the way home, since by her definition the baby isn’t “alive” yet.
“After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” is a controversial article published by Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini in Journal of Medical Ethics in 2013. As recently as last year Virginia Governor Northam said that a baby born alive could be “kept comfortable” and then “resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired” – the implication being that the baby could be left to die if the family decided they did not want to keep their child. He’s not alone in that disgusting opinion.
According to Orthodox Jewish Law, a fetus is not considered Viable until it graduates from Medical School.
I used to be pro-abortion. Then SCIENCE taught me the truth.
Pro life is rooted in Christianity
The Lord is especially harsh on those who would harm children…
Pro life is rooted in Christianity
No, it isn’t.
From fertilization onward, the “products of conception” are, scientifically speaking, a distinct human life.
Life, because it meets the criteria for life: order, responsiveness to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, regulation, homeostasis, and energy processing.
Human, because it has a complete human genome and is already in the beginning of a full human lifecycle, which will continue through to natural death unless (a) it is unhealthy, (b) it is deprived of a healthy environment, or (c) it is killed.
Distinct, because its genome is different from its mother’s and because its lifecycle has a different starting and ending point from its mother’s lifecycle.
Scientifically speaking, the pro-abortion position can only stand if we agree that this distinct human life is unworthy of protection from the other distinct human lives that would kill it.
I could be wrong, but in one of the two landmark 2A cases – McDonald & Heller – one of the justices wrote in their dissenting opinion that given the opportunity in the future (due to an ideological shift in the Court’s makeup), the decision he was dissenting against should be reversed. I believe (but am not certain), the person who wrote that dissent was Breyer.
Even in his dissent, he ceded no ground to stare decisis. Some Court opinions are apparently more equal than others, according to Justice Breyer.
Based on the current make up of SCOTUS I don’t see Roe being overruled but rather modified, despite the dubious basis for the Roe holding which was criticized as judicial legislation by Professors Bickel, Ely, Tribe and Judge Bork . Roe might be modified on the medical evidence today which shows fetal development at a far earlier stage than the proponents of abortion are willing to admit
I would agree – recent court decisions have attempted to reach a broad consensus rather than make huge changes in law.
However, if they do allow the Mississippi statute to stand at 15 weeks, the media will likely declare that the court has overturned RvW. Sadly, it’s to their advantage to create controversy – it’s good for ratings (and the (D) party.)
The more listen to Kavanaugh, the more he seems to be looking for a way to duck the decision. I expect Roberts to once again find a way to demonstrate that he is not partisan by crafting another dream solution and Kavanaugh will have his opportunity. We lose 5-4. Again.
Besides the idea of Roberts being an uncompromised hack, the real comedy in all this, are the gaggles of the most unsexy women getting hysterical about their abortion rights: who the hell would even want to !#$^ them????
Yeah, I doubt Roe will ever go away. I’m okay with chipping it away, though. I think they uphold the Mississippi law and the 15-week ban becomes the norm for now. I wish everyone could hear the heartbeat of a human being in the womb at 6 weeks.
Unfortunately “you can’t find a fever if you never take a temperature” (Dr. Roy G. Basch from “The House of God) is a truism that has application here.
I’m surprised at that. From his nomination I’d written Kavanaugh off as likely to uphold Casey (which is what props Roe up), because he said he regards it as “the precedent on how to deal with precedents”. Roberts I thought more in the middle, because he too is on record as being more attached to precedent than I would like. I thought Gorsuch and Barrett were more likely to be on our side on this.
On the contrary, it’s very easy to argue with them on this, because they have it backwards. Roe was what overturned the Court’s legitimacy and created the sense that they warn of. All the right has been doing since then is trying to restore that legitimacy. Roe is the Dred Scott of our times, a decision that effectively amended the constitution by reading into it something that had never been there and was completely foreign to it; overturning it is insufficient to repair the damage it did, but it’s necessary.
Milhouse, I could not agree more with your last paragraph.
You left out the rest of my sentence. I said their fellow leftists have already done that by politicizing the court in every case so yes overturning Roe or anything at this point would overturn the court’s legitimacy and have people think of SCOTUS as political acts. Please do not take out my thoughts and make it seem like I don’t want them to overturn Roe. I WANT ROE V. WADE GONE,
I left it out because it was irrelevant to the point I wanted to make. Your position was that yes, overturning Roe would politicize the court, but subsequent decisions — in some of which these three justices had a hand — had already done that, so it’s too late to complain. I am disagreeing with you. I am saying that Roe itself has done more than any subsequent decision to politicize and discredit the court, so overturning it must be the first step in any attempt to relegitimize it
I agree with you that Roe has done more to politicize it. But nothing will change that until people on both sides stop politicizing SCOTUS. It is too late to complain. It will always be politicized.
That’s not what you wrote in the post. You wrote in the post that the three left justices think overturning Roe would delegitimize the court by politicizing it, and that you agree with this, except that it’s too late for them to argue that now, after all their side of politics has done to politicize the court. In other words, they have a good argument, but they’re morally estopped from making it.
My point is that this is completely wrong. The idea that overturning Roe would politicize the court is not just wrong but perverse, because it was Roe that delegitimized and politicized it in the first place. Quite contrary to their view, any attempt to depoliticize and relegitimize the court must begin with overturning Roe. That may not be enough; it almost surely isn’t enough. But it’s a necessary first step.
It was refreshing to hear Kavanaugh’s somewhat disdain for precedents. It’s a cop-out to me to rely on precedents because things change. We expand our knowledge. Roberts shocked me when he showed support for the 15-week ban except he brought it up out of choice instead of viability, but still. Also, the China and North Korea comparison was great.
On the contrary, I think she is completely right to make that comparison. I have been arguing for at least the past 30 years that the line we draw at the beginning of life should be the same one we draw at its end. At a certain stage we define a person as a corpse, and allow them to be cut up for spare parts, whereas if someone were to do so a moment before that stage we would prosecute them for murder. So it seems to me that a baby who fits the criteria by which we define a corpse should have the same legal status.
And from what I’ve read it appears that the first detectable activity of the primitive embryonic brain is at about six weeks. It seems to me that it’s no coincidence that that is just about exactly 40 days, which is where millennia-old tradition draws the line. I think it’s an example of science validating what we’ve always known, or used to know before we got too “smart” for ourselves and started throwing over our traditions as superstition.
Milhouse, I give you credit for positing a real criteria: “first detectable activity of the primitive embryonic brain is at about six weeks.”
I also like the tie to 40 days. I am an atheist–hence have no ideological underpinnings. However, I am an atheist that holds the teachings of long standing religions (Judeo-Christianity, in particular) to represent millennia of accumulated wisdom and experience with human behavior. (I actually am considering joining a Bible study group, in my dotage)
I disagree on the grounds that your criteria is based on present knowledge. (sarc–having raised three children and been involved in the lives of a number of grandchildren, I am not sure when that brain activity really begins. I think it ceases during the teen years, for sure)
My life experience is that those that are most vehemently pro-abortion typically are almost as vehemently opposed to the death penalty. They are OK with killing the most innocent, fine with allowing the most evil to live.
Mary, you’re begging the question. Define “alive” for this purpose, and explain why the definition should be different at the beginning of life than it is at the end.
Oops. That was to the wrong comment. Trying again.
One is alive. The other is not alive.
Mary, you’re begging the question. Define “alive” for this purpose, and explain why the definition should be different at the beginning of life than it is at the end.
I meant to down vote
Big thumbs
Go to Hell.
You gotta remember: Sotomayer is a homely gasbag, about as intellectually banal as Kamala Harris.
The closest Sotomayer ever had to her womb ever catching a sperm is analogous to Wylie Coyote catching the Road Runner.
Homely, childless, and intellectually banal. Her hate of the unborn is the product of some very serious jealousy.
I will be very surprised if Roe v. Wade is overturned. I don’t care about any of the arguments or any of the questions asked by the Justices. I’m simply going by the overall trends.
The Left needs abortion. It’s the linchpin to every position they hold. Not to mention breaking Roe v. Wade would put Obergefell in jeopardy.
Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh have shown that while they will reliably lean Conservative on small cases when it comes to the big stuff they will make certain the Left get’s it’s way.
OK, then if life doesn’t begin a conception, when does it begin?
Sorry, reply to wrong post.
What I intended was:
“Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh have shown that while they will reliably lean Conservative on small cases when it comes to the big stuff they will make certain the Left gets its way.”
Exactly. They live in a 98 percent Left town. Barret and Kavanaugh were shown the future at their confirmation hearings.
Which is why I so respect Thomas. His treatment by Kennedy and Biden(*) was sickening. He has remained his own man.
It could be that Thomas knows he will never be invited to the better cocktail parties; K & B still have hope.
Another thing is that I’m certain Roberts will never allow his legacy to be that HIS court broke Roe v. Wade. He has a very high opinion of his reputation among the DC glitterati.
And he knows if he doesn’t come through, his name – and some incredible videos – will come up at Ghislane Maxewell’s trial.
The question is how to get rid of Locknerizing that you had in Rove v. Wade. Basing a major decision on emanations and penumbras is an open invitation to Calvinball in our legal system. If you wish to make sure that there is a no nonsense approach to abortion, a Constitutional Amendment is really what is needed. In 1789, abortion was at the medical level it is today. Thus, the Constitution did not need to talk to it. That has changed. I am not holding by breath over an amendment though. We are stuck with the outcome of this for while.
read “abortion was not at the medical” Sorry. Wish there was a limited time edit facility.
Much of what goes on these days really should require Amendments.
The Constitution says what five appointed for life politicians in black robes say it says.
We might see a SCOTUS decision on Mississippi before the Ohio Court of Appeals manages to rule on Gibson v. Oberlin
Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayer think overturning Roe “would overturn the court’s legitimacy by creating the sense that the ‘Constitution and its reading are just political’ acts that hinge on the court’s memberships at any particular moment in time.”
Well gosh, that’s exactly what Progressives have worked so hard to turn it into. If they actually believed the Constitution was a “founding document” and that the laws of the nation were to be constrained (as well as the government) by it, why would Roosevelt have worked so hard to pack the court with four more of his choosing. And then there’s that whole “living Constitution” thingy.
I was about to make exactly that point.
It is a salient characteristic of today’s lefties that they accuse the right of doing exactly what they themselves are ACTUALLY doing. Or in this case in issuing the Roe v. Wade opinion.
You can’t trust Barrett or Robert’s
We know Roberts is completely compromised, Epsteined, etc.
Barrett folded once with the election. She’s about as reliable as the likes of Mike Pence, though not as scummy (yet) as Roberts, McConnell, Graham, etc.
What does she mean “not conservative”? The constitution is the very foundation of our republic. Keeping or getting the country back into alignment with the constitution is a very conservative thing and should be expected, demanded, and applauded of our elected/appointed officials.
The Constitution has no political leanings.
“Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayer think overturning Roe “would overturn the court’s legitimacy by creating the sense that the ‘Constitution and its reading are just political’ acts that hinge on the court’s memberships at any particular moment in time.”
Is it not? Because that’s what it appears to be if you listen to the Dems who want to pack the court.
My predictions (remember, you get what you pay for):
1. The Texas case will not get decided before Dobbs v. Mississippi;
2. The votes are there for Mississippi to win (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh). The only question in my mind is whether Roberts will go along or try to come up with some compromise that waters down Roe and Casey in keeping with his preference for avoiding “shocks” to the legal system.
3. If Roberts comes up with some compromise, Mississippi wins but Texas loses (or gets sent back to the lower courts for reconsideration).
4. If Roberts does not come up with a compromise, he writes the majority opinion that junks Roe and Casey and kicks abortion back to the states.
First slavery; then diversity [dogma], inequity, and exclusion; and NOW reproductive rites (i.e. wicked solution) as a politically congruent (“=”) construct under the Pro-Choice religion.
That said, four choices and still six weeks to hold a reproductive rite for light, social, redistributive, and fair weather causes. Baby steps.
The tell-tale hearts beat sooner and ever louder.
I listened to some, not all, of the audio live. From the phrasing and language choices the Justice’s used in questioning I came away with the impression that Roberts was looking for a middle ground but that the Pro abortion lawyers wouldn’t bite and offer up one.
This looks like Roe gets overturned. The pro abortion side made clear it’s an all or nothing issue for them with no comprise allowed. IMO, they will regret this. They appear to have gotten way over their skies with a strategy that basically tells the CT ‘the world will end’ if Roe is overturned and the CT members didn’t seem at all sold on that idea. In fact at least 5 seemed to be looking to reinvigorating Federalism as the solution to Roe and perhaps other cases of vast overreach.
How about this …. It would be Raaacist to water down Roe v. Wade, because Blacks are disproportionately beneficiaries. Ironically, had there been far fewer abortions in the past decades, the Dems would have had proportionately more votes and Trump would never have been President.
Blacks are disproportionately the VICTIMS – which liberals used to be very open about, going back to Margaret Sanger.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg even mentioned this in an interview – that controlling certain populations was the goal.
The exact quote: Here’s what Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine: “Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe vs. Wade] was decided,” Ginsburg told her interviewer, Emily Bazelon, “there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
Liberals are Evil. Not stupid.
The low tech Sanger population control of blacks was abortion. Now it’s a high-tech Covid “vaccine”.
The actual questions that needs to be answered by the Supreme Court at SOME point are: at what point does the child’s right to life supersede the Mother’s right to choose what is best for her and her unborn child, AND if there is a medical issue, who gets to decide how to handle it (i.e. either mother or child -or both-are likely to die, or the child has a congenital issue that means survival past birth is unlikely, or will have little to no cognitive function, etc.), AND exactly what conditions must be met in order for a nonviable pregnancy to be terminated (i.e. ectopic, no fetal hearbeat, ect.). Until they address the basic nuts and bolts, this is going to keep coming up. It would be best just to settle it and be done.
The issue is her Choice (i.e. elective abortion for causes other than self-defense) in contrast to Her Choice where we have some influence but ultimately succumb to fate. And still six weeks to reconcile with a pregnancy that results from rape, perhaps incest, or hold a reproductive rite (i.e. planned parent/hood) for light, social, profitable, and fair weather causes.
That’s what I said.
SCOTUS will always rule whichever way will avoid mob unrest. It is the quintessential “tampered jury.” Yet you get all butthurt about juries bowing to BLM threats! The USSA is a chicken/egg paradox: which came first, the Banana Republic, or all you monkeys?
” ‘Constitution and its reading are just political’ acts that hinge on the court’s memberships at any particular moment in time.”
This is precisely what the liberal “justices” have always done. They seem worried about the Court’s reputation and the authority it holds. Yet they clearly state precisely why so many have nothing but contempt for the SCOTUS, and really, the overwhelming majority of Judges throughout the country.
They are simply politicians advancing their ideology.
Their decisions are pre-judged, literally, based on their politics. They determine the outcome in advance and find some legal sophistry to couch it in to maintain some pretense of legitimacy.
Roe is the perfect example of this.
There is not now, nor ever was, the slightest Constitutional basis for it. They invented the “viability” standard out of whole cloth. This is why you have never, and will never, hear a Constitutional argument from any abortion supporter (including, if you heard their idiotic statements, from the three liberal “justices” on the Supreme Court).
They simply made it up. And they’ve never been able to defend it.
“They simply made it up. And they’ve never been able to defend it….”
This is what most liberal ignoramuses don’t understand – they think this whole thing is about abortion itself. Considering what news and entertainment they consume, no wonder.
I don’t see that there is any “middle ground” in this. Roe and Casey need to be overturned, and the whole thing kicked back to the states to deal with. One size does not fit all, and I don’t see that the court has legitimate authority to impose any nationwide standard at all. If they can get five votes to overturn without Roberts, they need to kick him aside and do it.
As for Sotomayor whining about politics, the majority of justices and decisions have always been political. It’s been this way from the beginning, and it isn’t going to stop now. She’s just enraged that judges with her political preferences are not in the majority.