Supreme Court Overrules Roe v. Wade
Alito Majority Opinion: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
You know the case, it’s Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (docket). Oral argument did not go well for the pro-abortion movement:
- Mississippi Abortion Case – Roe v. Wade’s Flight 93 Oral Argument For Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan
- SCOTUS Will Hear Challenge to Mississippi Abortion Law
You also might have thought you knew the outcome, at least based on the unprecedented leak:
- Leaked Draft Supreme Court Opinion Overturns Roe v. Wade, Politico Reports
- Clarence Thomas: “We can’t be an institution that can be bullied”
- Pro-Abortion Activists Hold Crazed Protests At Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts Homes
- Pro-Abortion Activists Target Justice Alito’s Home
- ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ Pro-Abortion Activists Protest Outside Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s House
- WaPo Begrudgingly Admits ‘Protests’ Outside Justices’ Homes ‘Appear To Be Illegal’
The Court just ruled in an Opinion by Justice Alito. Roe v. Wade is overruled:
We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The right to abortion does not fall within this category. Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown in American law. Indeed, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of the States made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy. The abortion right is also critically different from any other right that this Court has held to fall within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of “liberty.” Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called “fetal life” and what the law now before us describes as an “unborn human being.” ….
It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. “The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.” Casey, 505 U. S., at 979 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand.
MORE TO FOLLOW
Here’s how the court dealt with “stare decisis” – Roe was “egregiously wrong” (emphasis added):
Stare decisis, the doctrine on which Casey’s controlling opinion was based, does not compel unending adherence to Roe’s abuse of judicial authority. Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.
The Majority were Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, with Chief Justice Roberts concurring in the judgment separately.
Here’s the key part of Roberts’ concurring opinion, he didn’t think it was necessary to reach whether Roe v. Wade survived:
…. I would take a more measured course. I agree with the Court that the viability line established by Roe and Casey should be discarded under a straightforward stare decisis analysis. That line never made any sense. Our abortion precedents describe the right at issue as a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. That right should therefore extend far enough to ensure a reasonable opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further—certainly not all the way to viability. Mississippi’s law allows a woman three months to obtain an abortion, well beyond the point at which it is considered “late” to discover a pregnancy. See A. Ayoola, Late Recognition of Unintended Pregnancies, 32 Pub. Health Nursing 462 (2015) (pregnancy is discoverable and ordinarily discovered by six weeks of gestation). I see no sound basis for questioning the adequacy of that opportunity.
But that is all I would say, out of adherence to a simple yet fundamental principle of judicial restraint: If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more. Perhaps we are not always perfect in following that command, and certainly there are cases that warrant an exception. But this is not one of them. Surely we should adhere closely to principles of judicial restraint here, where the broader path the Court chooses entails repudiating a constitutional right we have not only previously recognized, but also expressly reaffirmed applying the doctrine of stare decisis. The Court’s opinion is thoughtful and thorough, but those virtues cannot compensate for the fact that its dramatic and consequential ruling is unnecessary to decide the case before us.
In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh says not to worry, we’re not coming for gay marriage:
First is the question of how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and marriage—in particular, the decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.
Second, as I see it, some of the other abortion-related legal questions raised by today’s decision are not especially difficult as a constitutional matter. For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel. May a State retroactively impose liability or punishment for an abortion that occurred before today’s decision takes effect? In my view, the answer is no based on the Due Process Clause or the Ex Post Facto Clause. Cf. Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 347 (1964).
(added) Justice Thomas says everything should be on the table in the future:
The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in other, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex marriage), are not at issue. The Court’s abortion cases are unique, see ante, at 31–32, 66, 71–72, and no party has asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Ante, at 66.
For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell….
In a show of unity, Breyer, Sotmayor and Kagan wrote a joint dissent:
… Roe held, and Casey reaffirmed, that in the first stages of pregnancy, the government could not make that choice for women. The government could not control a woman’s body or the course of a woman’s life: It could not determine what the woman’s future would be….
Roe and Casey well understood the difficulty and divisiveness of the abortion issue. The Court knew that Americans hold profoundly different views about the “moral[ity]” of “terminating a pregnancy, even in its earliest stage.” Casey, 505 U. S., at 850. And the Court recognized that “the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting” the “life of the fetus that may become a child.” Id., at 846. So the Court struck a balance, as it often does when values and goals compete….
Today, the Court discards that balance. It says that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of. A State can force her to bring a pregnancy to term, even at the steepest personal and familial costs….
Whatever the exact scope of the coming laws, one result of today’s decision is certain: the curtailment of women’s rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens….
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The 10th amendment is there for a reason
I’m an atheist, but amen.
Time to stop killing babies.
As a classical atheist, I have never understood the “Christofascist!!!” argument. It’s a live human being. It doesn’t matter whether God exists or not, killing other human beings is prima facie wrong.
If there is no G_d, why is it “wrong” to kill another human?
^^^ non sequtur question of the week.
Hmmmm….I don’t think it’s a non sequitur, just not completely spelled out.
If there is no God, there is no _qualitative_ difference between humans and “other” animals. If a male grizzly bear (NOT a reference to your username, just something I’ve read that they sometimes do) kills and eats his cubs, it may be gross and disgusting and sad, but no moral failing is attached to this action. Why is infanticide among humans a _moral_ failing (why is it wrong in a moral sense)?
KEYoder: animal mothers reject defective offspring with no moral failing attached.
I want to know why a mother, finding out her offspring to be is defective, is compelled to bear and raise that offspring?
I’m sure many hate me for that, but, I ask it anyway.
That is “God’s SPECIAL child to some. Will they take over it’s up-bringing?
“We do not live by the idea that some imaginary being up in the sky is going to send us to a place that’s very hot and nasty if we do these things.”
You have a juvenile understanding on what you’re commenting on. Being up in the sky? Good grief, Grizzly.
Karma. It will cause suffering, as vipaka, to the doer of the deed.
Then no karma either.
Religious systems do not have a monopoly of morality or human values.
You can be an atheist and have respect for human life.
I thought that was self evident.
It is not self-evident. I can’t recall which eminent thinker said it, but everyone in America (pre-9/11) is Christian, atheist or not.
We are not China.
“ I thought that was self evident.”
Not to those that see us as little more than Communists or devil worshiping heathen.
You can, but you have no reason to do so outside of being absorbing it from the remains of a religion in our culture.
According to that argument, If there is no God, why then would anything be “wrong”…steal, cheat, lie, etc. Why even have laws?
Laws themselves have a basis in morality, (do unto others, for example), whether you choose to believe that morality stems from God or not.
Remove that morality and you will reap the whirlwind. Preserving a defenseless baby’s life seems pretty Morality 101 to me.
Some of us live by the idea that some things are “just not DONE, old chap”.
We do not live by the idea that some imaginary being up in the sky is going to send us to a place that’s very hot and nasty if we do these things.
So you wouldn’t object to someone killing you then?
“If there is no G_d, why is it “wrong” to kill another human?”
Retaliation is an effective way to teach right from wrong; vis-à-vis the “Golden rule”.
It’s actually my preferred way. Hassle my wife and upset her, I bust your skull. Mistreat my children, I bust your skull. Invade the sanctity of my home, the coroner will be picking up your worthless carcass. It works pretty well, people don’t tend to cross the line once consequences are understood.
It’s a fair question, and you will not get a logical answer.
Grizzly the atheist replied when asked why one shouldn’t do X or Y questionable act was “just not DONE, old chap.” Wow, really compelling.
Yes! Wow!
Just wow!
My first reaction as well.
We will remember this day.
A time for living….
Thank God
Okay. That was a good comment right there. That motivates me! I am strengthened.
Definitely stay clear of city centers this weekend and away from crowds though.
Yep. Everyone keep your eyes open, and stay safe.
My guess is the Left won’t be crying about Guns this Afternoon.
Eh. You known they will if anyone defends themselves from them.
Their policy is to enforce laws against their enemies, never themselves. They are always exempt from their rules.
I’m sure there was thought to release the concealed carry decision ahead of this one.
Heh, +1000
The dichotomy the left faces at this moment is one that will expose their hypocrisy for all to see. There will be the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the liberal media about how the SCOTUS has ripped the “firmly established” Constitutional right of women to kill their babies away from them. This will be countered, often by the same person, by claims that the Second Amendment, which spells out in plain English the right to keep and bear arms since the origin of our republic, is a right that must be invalidated in the socialist race to “do something” after Uvalde, etc. Two rights, one plainly written in the text of the Constitution, the other invented by a tortured reasoning of the 14th Amendment. Let the wailing begin.
I never thought to see the day. Hallalujah!
Finally. The decision was always bad – badly reasoned and badly written.
Funny the Due Process clause is quoted, since the pro-life side has always held that the problem with elective abortion is the lack of due process for the little one preborn.
“Roe was also egregiously wrong and on a collision
course with the Constitution from the day it was decided. ”
The SCOTUS
No, it hasn’t. Due process would only be relevant if it were the government slaughtering the babies, as the Chinese government does. Here no government is doing that; they’re merely allowing the hitmen hired by the mothers to do it, and not arresting them for it. That’s arguably a denial of equal protection, but not of due process.
Guard the churches.
Finally, something fantastically good happens! Now on with the usual riots, the leftist kneejerk answer to everything.
Luckily, where I live, we expect no problems at all, or at least none that can’t be handled without even resorting to a “standard capacity” magazine
I’d go high capacity. Always pays to be certain.
Boom! Good to see this!
Back to the democratic function of government where the people decide. In 1973, a handful of black robed lawyers just broomed that responsibility and made law out of whole cloth.
The Court agrees with you:
“The Court short-circuited the democratic process by closing it to the
large number of Americans who disagreed with Roe. “
I think most of them in 1973 had mostly unwanted-demographics: white, male, straight, mostly-religious, without a gender identity disorder etc.
It’s unbelievable that the Court’s security service and the FBI can’t (or, won’t) ascertain the identity of the leaker — most likely, a fanatical and narcissist clerk-zealot for the similarly narcissistic, dim-witted Latina zealot-activist who masquerades as a putative “Justice.”
For all his supposed outrage over the leak, I suspect that John Roberts would be just as happy to have his/her identity never discovered, so that the entire incident can just be swept under the rug.
And as I’ve said before Roberts knows exactly who leaked the decision. Problem is that it isn’t some low-level intern clerking for an Associate Justice but one of the Associate Justices themselves. And Roberts doesn’t have the gonads to actually accuse that Associate Justice. So the name of the leaker will forever remain unknown to the public.
I would advise you not to rule out Roberts as the leaker
True that! His concurring opinion was, IMO, a self indulgent attempt to delay and defer the decision to overturn Roe and Casey. His country club milquetoast mindset of neutering the CT on controversial constitutional questions because one side will get their feelings hurt is asinine. No one bought his BS.
The other opinions take him to task and correctly so. Particularly Thomas who’s opinion calls for a much more rigid view of due process, arguing that the 14th amendment doesn’t, by itself, grant a broad swath of rights and reliance upon the 14 th amendment alone as the basis or even as a central pillar for a new Judicially created right is incorrect.
Instead he correctly points out that ‘due process’ applies to enumerated rights and those common law or natural rights which have a long-standing historical basis. Going further he sets out a goal for the CT, and the Judiciary, to apply this tenant to not only future issues but when reviewing older decisions which rest upon a shaky foundation.
Thomas is a treasure.
“Thomas is a treasure.”
Silver Lining on the Supreme Court.
“”Thomas is a treasure.””
May he live a thousand years.
Thank God for Clarence Thomas. And Scalia, who I am sure is quite pleased with the last couple of days.
s/tenant/tenet
Milhouse,
Never stop being you man! Seriously I needed that today. Every time you check someone’s spelling I hear Mac Davis sing
‘Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble’.
Never stop doing your thing, it’s good for all of us to be checked and corrected on occasion and it always brings a smile to my face. Be safe over the weekend in NYC brother.
Something we agree on, Chief. Well said.
Barry, we agree on a host of things but I’ll take what I can get. Appreciate the kind words.
It probably was a couple of clerks and yes, Roberts knows who did it.
Roberts possibly knows she had assent from another justice?
It’s not a matter of gonads in that case. Roberts has plenty of those. It took a lot of chutzpah to say Obamacare is a tax, but it’s not a tax, all in the same opinion. He’ll do whatever it takes, by any means necessary, to advance the left.
He doesn’t want to expose the leaker because it’s one of his allies, if not himself.
Sometimes the means to his end are sneaky and deceptive. In this case, it’s a sort of thing like the Senate rule (from Robert’s Rules of Order, I think) that someone can only raise a matter later for amendment if they voted for it. The circumstances may not be the same here, but the spirit is. He’s pretending to be an ally, to be a more effective adversary.
And if there weren’t 5 other votes for this decision, he would have joined the team to uphold Roe.
Second thing first, because it’s simpler and shorter:
2. No, he didn’t say it’s not a tax.
1. It did not take any chutzpah at all to look to the court’s precedents on how to distinguish a penalty from a tax, apply those criteria rationally to the payment before the court, and find that it fits all the criteria for a tax and none of those for a penalty. On the contrary, the only grounds for saying it wasn’t a tax was that the politicians promoting it had sworn up and down that it wasn’t a tax; Roberts correctly said that the supreme court has never been in the habit of paying attention to what politicians call things, but decides for itself based on what the thing is, not what it’s called.
Agreed. It was a tax.
You can call a toad a princess, but it’s still a toad.
Yes. Those aren’t Robert’s exact words, but it’s the essence of his 0bamacare decision.
The TLDR is:
1. Mandates are unconstitutional. If this were a mandate we would strike it down.
2. Congress lies. Never trust Congress. Just because Congress calls something a mandate doesn’t mean it is one.
3. What is this thing Congress has passed? It doesn’t quack, waddle, or swim like a mandate, but it does all those things exactly like a tax. So it’s a tax, no matter what Congress says, and therefore it’s legal.
Yeah, except Roberts also “found” that the tax was not a tax, for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867. Pure sophistry.
Not sophistry at all. Did you ever bother reading the decision? It is carefully reasoned and makes perfect sense. For the purpose of the Anti-injunction Act, what matters isn’t what the thing is, but what Congress called it. If Congress intended to shield the 0bamacare so-called “penalty” from judicial review it should have called it a “tax”. By refusing to call it that, it forfeited the protection of the Anti-Injunction Act.
But Congress can only control how things are treated for statutory purposes; statutes are its creation, so it gets to decide how they will be treated. But it can’t control how things are treated for constitutional purposes. For constitutional purposes the court must look at what a thing is, not what Congress chooses to call it. And when you look at this thing that Congress insists is not a tax, it is exactly a tax.
Bs lawyer word salad…geesh you guys are unreal
The leaker leaked in futility and in the end it did not change the outcome. In fact, by letting people know it was coming, it gave them a couple of months to get used to it. The leak was a pin in the abortion balloon and, as a result, a lot of anger has already been vented.
In spite of the heads up, however, a lot of people are in a state of shock.
Is it possible that the assholes threatening the Justices at home hardened some opinions on other cases, like the religious schools or concealed carry decisions? If so, good.
If so, very good.
Democrats will runs statehouses until the right to life Republicans are no longer a threat.
Thos days are over. No one is backing down.
It’s a question of how women vote, not of principals backing down.
Women don’t vote in lock step.
If they did they would trip over the silver lining.
Women are the backbone of the Right to Life movement, and the only reason we got to where we are today. Men decided Roe, and men have continued to support it.
Would you care to flesh that out? 2/3 of the votes against today’s ruling were women — lesbians are women too. And 5/6 in the votes in favor were men. And so on. I’m not going to accept that women are the heroes and men are the goats, men have let stuff like that slide too long.
Still, we can all be happy with the decision of SCOTUS, and all feel good about whatever part we played in moving the needle.
“2/3 of the votes against today’s ruling were women…”
I’m sure you can figure this out if you try. I’m not even going to bother.
That desperate to murder their kids?? They could just use contraceptives. It isn’t really that hard to protect yourself…especially with all the STDS out there.
Or go to another state, let’s see a state try to prosecute it. And if they try, let them try to get extradition from the sanctuary state the woman runs to.
They can just go to another state, in Kavanaugh’s view, and that’s pretty convincing here.
Surely it’s a matter of jurisdiction? If I do something in Nevada that’s illegal in California (visit a brothel or open carry a firearm in public without a license) I’m pretty sure California can’t prosecute me for it.
Sure.
I hope they mentioned that current abortion practices are far beyond what Roe v. Wade provided for. It was a limited right. Now it’s outright murder by mothers and it has spread to post-natal rights of murder. How hard is it to understand that Roe v. Wade wasn’t being followed anyway?
Virtually everything gets out of hand. The 1964 civil rights act as far as I know did not have any provision for affirmative action and contractual set aside. But that’s all with us now.
FINALLY.
It should have been released the day after the leak.
Guess they finally had enough of Roberts shit and forced him to release it.
OUTSTANDING
From the Constitutionality standpoint I heartily cheer this decision.
What was the count? 5-4 I am guessing, but the 2A case was a happy surprise.
Probably 5-4 on the overrule, but probably 6-3 on allowing the specific Mississippi law to stand.
I think you’re correct. Misread the article and posted too soon.
6-3 it appears. Shocked that Roberts found the stones.
6-3, but Roberts concurred with separate opinion.
Nick Sandman wins again!
Babies in the womb win. Right to live. Welcome to life.
No Roe to Ho’s.
Since when did an apostrophe become the way to indicate plural?
Oh, yeah, since teaching was subordinated to P.C.
Andy McCarthy on Fox is saying now what I concluded when I skimmed the Chief Justice’s concurrence.
“Here, there is a clear path to deciding this case correctly without overruling Roe all the way down to the studs: recognize that the viability line must be discarded, as the majority rightly does, and leave for another day whether to reject any right to an abortion at all.” At 7.
Talk about passing the buck? He would offer no clarity for the lower courts. The amount of litigation would explode.
Black Genocide is ending.
Over 63 million abortions have occurred in the US since Roe v. Wade decision in 1973
America saw more than 1,000,000 abortions each year between 1975 and 2012
Don’t worry, the vax with fill the void.
Without Roe v. Wade and all those Black abortions, Hillary would undoubtedly have been President instead of Trump and SCOTUS would now have a 6-3 liberal majority (if you count Roberts with the minority).
Not to mention the manifold increase in WIC and other benefits paid by the productive, and higher crime rates.
So where does this reality leave us? With all the more reason to part ways. Secession of red from blue states.
Conquest of blue states by the red.
But would the country have flat run out of money before Hillary’s election?
Without abortion there will be less room for millions more illegals.
That could be the biggest long term consequence. Black population has remained a static fraction of the USA for a long time – mainly because half of Black babies are killed by abortion – as the Democrats have clearly and openly intended for a very long time. [To the Democrats, it is just like spaying and neutering cats – Blacks are the Democratic Party’s Pets, but they don’t want too many of them.] Republican States with large Black populations (like GA, MS, AL, etc..) are the most likely to severely restrict or ban abortion. Some of these States are likely to become majority Black in coming decades as a result. If this happens while Blacks slowly abandon the Democrats, it could make for some interesting political dynamics. To hold onto power, Republicans in these States will have to actively court Black voters, and there will be too many Blacks for the Democrats to keep them as dependent pets on the Democrat Plantation.
half?
Citation needed.
I think in some of the big cities, it approaches that.
Blacks abandon the Democrats? All the vote fraud benefiting Biden (and the Democrats generally) in 2020 and later GA elections was in black districts. Suspicious voting in FL elections are the same. And except for AZ and NV it looks like vote fraud in the other 4 states that threw the election to Biden concentrated their fraud in black districts.
The black population (outside the black belt in the South) is in big, blue cities–where abortion will continue unabated. The black belt is pretty fundamentalist Christian and isn’t big on abortion, so won’t be much affected.
I wonder what impact this ruling will have with other ‘rights’ that Progressives claim are in the Constitution but aren’t?
How about LAWS that REVOKE rights found in the Constitution?
“Fair Housing” laws that revoke the right to freedom of contract or assembly? Same with “Equal Opportunity” employment quota laws?
The Democrats might want to be careful about unleashing their mobs and setting cities alight. The Republicans shot themselves in the foot with their support for the gun control bill; they will likely still win seats in November but it’s still a bad idea to spoil the enthusiasm of the base.
But if leftist mobs get too wild they will shoot themselves in their feet and undo the gift the Republicans handed them.
There’s a possibility that this decision combined with the fallout going on “could” affect the house passage of the gun bill.
Granted its a “Hail Mary” but its a real Hail Mary.
Yeah, I’m still trying to sort that out.
I don’t expect too much violence over this. I think most of that talk is just braggadocio. I don’t think it will affect the national election much either, since the decision was widely expected after the leak, and is already baked into the polls. There might be attempts at revenge attacks on certain Justices, but nothing their security can’t handle. Recent past turnout for protests and actions have been decidedly underwhelming. Most of the Leftist mobs are concentrated in States where abortion will remain legal anyway. Places to watch are purplish Republican States that have large cities, like Georgia.
Meow, meow meow meow!
I’m afraid there could be an actual effective attack, and soon. Not just mobs throwing Molotov cocktails. Biden would appoint a liberal to fill the seat, he has no shame about anything. And the Senate confirms SCOTUS justices now with 50 votes.
Immediately, the 6 or at least the 5 excluding Roberts (the left’s best ally) should have presidential level security.
Let’s wait until tomorrow at the very least to pass judgment on that.
Now the Leftist terrorists are about to start ransacked throughout the nation. Good thing we still have that 2nd Amendment.
Don’t ever disarm.
The people who write Biden’s cue cards must be working in overdrive.
His Alzheirs has reached the danger stage. His core has melted down and his time is limited. It will be time to evacuate soon.
They have a list of words at the fourth-grade level and they can’t use any word not on the list.
In real terms…
This decision happened because Trump and McConnell kept their campaign promises. Sometimes it can take a very long time for political promises to be realized in practice. Is this decision going to have long term consequences? Of course it will, and the biggest ones are probably unforeseen.
“Is this decision going to have long term consequences? Of course it will, and the biggest ones are probably unforeseen.”
Absolutely.
The one consequence I hope for is the movement of pro-abort women out of red states to pro-abort blue states. A demographic shift much to be desired.
I’m hoping that it will make women think about the reality of sex without love.
And men
Correct. The woman carries the pregnancy and gets custody, but the man pays the child support for 18 (or more?) years.
“The one consequence I hope for is the movement of pro-abort women out of red states to pro-abort blue states.”
Doubtful. Pretty much none of the slacktivists at an abortion rally would even consider having one.
The problem is that not very many of those pro-abort women have much of a chance of getting pregnant without significant amounts of alcohol .
It happened contrary to the wishes of millions of Never Trumpers who are now crying their eyes out right now.
Unlikely. I would suggest that, if you want to see Trump elected in 2024, that you start looking for ways to unite with other conservatives and potential Trump voters, rather than look for ways to offend them.
Said like a true neverTrumper.
Which of course is a stupid comment, given that I’ve voted for Trump three times – and which is why I called out Peabody for his comment.
“ Of course it will, and the biggest ones are probably unforeseen.0
Someone above asked what other “rights” not in the Constitution will be questioned. Unforeseen indeed.
Per Thomas’s comments, some will be. The main decision seems to dismiss that possibility, but of course nothing in the decision is going to restrain the court from acting as they see fit on other cases.
I agree.
And I generally agree with you, too, even if I do take issue with an occasional comment.
Thanks txvet2.
As I commented elsewhere, a lot of laws need to be challenged. The laws I have in mind we move right sitter found in the constitution. I refers specifically to freedom of contract and freedom of assembly.
I hope this aborts any future decisions that would have been based on the penumbra of the Constitution.
History was made today. The states will decided, as it should be in a republic. There have been threats.. I hope they were hollow, but something tells me we are in for another wave of riots.
THIS IS EPIC! Praise God! Now, targeted States should deploy their NG and police forces as a preemptive response against those projecting anarchy, the real insurrectionists.
On a quick compare, it looks like the leaked draft is identical to the final draft – some minor changes from “15” to “fifteen”, and other formatting, but otherwise, it looks like no changes I can see.
Need to give thanks where thanks is due. Ruth Ginsburg refused to retire while Obama was president and decided to stay on until she died in offfice.
Is this Ginsburg’s final gift to the nation?
Or was it her first and only??
First and only.
+10
Done & dusted! And in time for the weekend soooooo: if you live in a big, liberal city please do your best to stay safe! Don’t travel alone, stay in at night, and if you can do so legally keep a firearm handy because now we go into a period of high alert as the angry mobs descend. Yet another reason I’m glad I live in a small town in Oklahoma: not likely to see that kind of crazy here!
“if you live in a big, liberal city please do your best to stay safe… if you can do so legally keep a firearm handy”
If you live in a big liberal city where you can keep a firearm handy, you’re incredibly ahead of the game to begin with.
Norma McCorvey, RIP. (Also, thank you for your work.)
I love that Roe was overturned during Pride Month.
If not Pride it would be another leftist Month. Leftists own all of them now. Which month is liberty month, capitalism month, family month? We don’t even own Christmas Day anymore.
What have the two to do with each other?
The morality of this decision does seem to offset their efforts to undermine the family at least a little bit.
As a matter of housekeeping, what are the differences between the actual opinion and the leak?
nvm, looks like jhkrischel already looked and found them to be the same. mods, pls. remove.
…one result of today’s decision is certain: the curtailment of women’s rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens….
I’m confused. Does this dissent mean we can own women now? Those “liberal” justices just opened an interesting door.
Given our open southern border, we’ve been able to own women and even children for quite a while now. You just need not to get caught.
It would be a fine reversal. Women now own men. At least in family court.
There is something interesting in Clarence Thomas’s concurrence.
He explcity asks the Court to overtun Griswold (contraception), Obergafell (same sex marriage), and Lawrence (same sex intimacy) on the grounds that substantive due process cases are now all wrogly decided and invalid.
However, notably missing from that list is Loving v. Virgina decided on the exact same due process grounds.
Why is it missing? For wholly self serving reasons. Reversing Loving would have implications on his marriage to Ginni Thomas.
This underscores how vapid and legally unsound the Dobbs decision is.
Let’s throw out these other substantive due process cases, except the one that affects one of the Justices personally.
It could just mean that he doesn’t want to offend his wife or discount his own marriage, while “schizophrenically” probably also realizing that could come under review as a matter of principle. That his role on the Court isn’t to remake the USA just as he would like it.
You know, like a judge separating his personal feelings from his legal rulings. Such “schizophrenia” is not bad, but is the true professional standard.
Cry more, JD.
Overturning Loving fails because it is a simple 1st Amendment issue. Freedom of association, no bogus substantive due process needed.
I used to distinguish it because someone can be of mixed race but not mixed gay.
But now with 40 genders that can authentically change on a dime; there probably are people who identify that way.
I wonder how he would have decided, had he been on the court when Loving came along.
As far as his own status was concerned, he could simply have moved to Maryland.
I am your one uptick.
You are conveniently leaving out the reasoned argument Thomas provided. That these cases rest upon a misapplication of the 14th amendment which is IMO, correct.
You also left out the fact that he said to immediately support the result of these cases if not the original reasoning. Marriage is a voluntary association protected by 1st amendment; no other justification is needed. So both same sex and inter racial marriage are already covered without a reliance on a misinterpreted 14th amendment that seeks to expand due process.
As for contraception, the State does have a legitimate interest in safety. A State probably can’t ban plan b but could require an in person visit and dispensary under the care of a physician.
You are misreading and projecting into Thomas’ opinion motives and actions that are not present because you either pretend that you don’t know better or you haven’t read the opinion. The nervous breakdowns on Twitter ain’t an authoritative voice nor do most things there accurately reflect reality.
Peddle that hyperbolic crap elsewhere.
Marriage for homosexuals isn’t a “freedom of association” matter.
You don’t INCIDENTLY (SP?) give children’s birthrights to be heterosexual and unmolested away to homosexuals that “want marriage” and “want children.”
NO WAY.
Two consenting adults voluntarily entering into a relationship with each other seems like a free association to me. Two fifty year old heterosexuals who get married can no more marry for purposes of procreation than two 25 year old homosexuals. Or two sterile 25 year old heterosexuals.
Paedophilia is based on sexual attraction to children usually prepubescent children. Most child molestation occurs via a family member or trusted adult and usually by self proclaimed heterosexuals whose kink is kids not the same sex.
Loving vs Virginia? Marriages between different races existed before the Constitution. And a marriage between people of two different races by a man and a woman fits what had always been the definition or a marriage, one man to one woman. There was a woman shortage in early frontier America- when the frontier was literally miles from where the ships landed. Marriage between settlers and Indians was not uncommon. The old “women want to marry up” idea was in play. The settlers had gunpowder and steel. And riches. Well, riches compared to what the Indians had. Intermarriage between Blacks and Caucasians was less common. But happened. And likely most of them were common law marriages not sanctioned by the state or clergy. And then of course there was interbreeding that occurred due to immoral slaveowners, so there were quite a few mixed race people around. I have a few lines of black distant cousins from that.
And then there’s my 3rd cousin 4x removed. His first wife- white- died in 1854. A few months after his last child with her was born. He had a mulatto housekeeper who had been someone else’s slave. May have been purchased by him since he started having children with her in 1856 before the war was over. Had 2 before it ended. In the 1870 census she’s living next door and all the children bear her surname. In the 1880 census she and the now 6 children are openly living with him- and she’s listed as domestic servant, and the children still carry her name. Can’t find her in the 1890 census. She inherited the house they lived in. And by 1900 all the children were using his surname as was she- as Mrs hislastname. Though they couldn’t be married. Not the only example I’ve found of that in that particular area of Virginia. All important men in positions of power. If there was a KKK presence there- they left those families alone.
Interesting following his descendants. Includes a Tuskegee Airman. And a living descendant today is a surgeon. In the 1940s a few switched from black to white. I can see one as Black on the 1940 census, white on his WWII draft card- which got him a better slot in the Army.
Loving vs Virginia may have been based on the 14th amendment, but it recognized a right that had always existed- for a MAN and a WOMAN to get married. Unlike abortion where the right was made up out of nothing.
Dogpoo checks in to stink.
There is no mystery in sex and conception. A woman and man have four choices, and equal right to self-defense through reconciliation. The wicked solution is neither a good nor exclusive choice. This ruling affirms the dignity and agency of women and men, and mitigates the progress of human commoditization. Generally, society has a compelling cause to discourage homicide… elective abortion for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes from conception forward, in darkness, at The Twilight Fringe.
Ruth’s regrets. Roe’s remorse. Republicans’ resolution…
Just think of all the law school curriculum that just got eviscerated, as the law just got made a lot simpler and more consistent. Now they really can shorten it to 2 years.
Be careful what you wish for.
States can now pass legislation restricting abortion much more freely; they can also coerce abortion.
This decision is basically “a pox on all of your houses.” A more elegant way to say it is that abortion has become an intensely political decision, such that the US Supreme Court is incapable to making a decision that can settle the matter. They tried, it did not work, and we’ve been fighting amongst ourselves over it ever since.
I don’t think the issue will go away. I think California will be denying insurance benefits to parents whose children fail any of a list of prenatal tests, or have one of a list of birth defects that show up within the first 3 months. The could not have happened under Roe.
And THEN, California will start adding to the list, possibly by declaring Trump supporters to be genealogically defective.
Declaring a Trump supporters defective goes against natural law. Trump supporters are superior to Democrats.
Where did that wacky idea come from? No, states cannot coerce abortion. They’re free to ban it or permit it as they please, but they can’t require it.
Why can they not coerce abortion in the ways described? Valerie makes good points. California could become a capitol of eugenics.
Why? Because with the 2A decision, anyone trying to coerce it might get themselves shot.
I don’t think the 2A decision will result in such violent threats. It’s not about shooting people if the government doesn’t go your way. A rebellion wouldn’t gain traction because many of the CC permit holders would be appalled at it along with much of the rest of the public.
No State can compel someone to get an abortion. The language in the opinions today even takes a swing at ‘quality of life’ and rejected that as a basis for determining who lives or dies both pre and post birth.
If a person becomes ill and looses the ability to speak are they to be terminated because they are less than average? How about the blind and deaf? Paraplegic? Downs syndrome?
Where is the limiting principle for this line of reasoning? How about drug addicts? Alcoholics? People diagnosed with anxiety? Depression? Trans? Where does it stop?
“No State can compel someone to get an abortion.”
Got a basis for that opinion, or did it come from an assumption that “it will never happen here?” If States have the power to ban abortion, they also have the power to compel it. Roe v. Wade came as close as practicably possible to directing which way States can act. That restraint is now gone.
By which you seem to be ignoring the existence of an electorate. This isn’t China.
The govt has limited powers under our constitutional system which specifically reserves remaining non delegated authority to the people. In fact, the Constitution itself references this aspect in several places within the text the Constitution. One example is the 9th amendment.
The constitution then subdivided those powers among the Congress (Art 1), the Executive (Art 2) and the Judiciary (Art 3). The next limitation is our Federal system in which each State remains sovereign over most issues of daily life alongside the people of that State. See the 10th amendment.
Most State constitutions follow this framework. If you can produce a section of the CA constitution that supports your fear please provide it. Otherwise it’s unfounded.
CommoChief, states aren’t limited to enumerated powers, unless their individual constitutions say so. California’s constitution may limit its legislature, but not all states’ constitutions do so, and those that do can be changed.
“If States have the power to ban abortion, they also have the power to compel it.”
If States have the power to ban murder, they also have the power to compel it.
See how this works? In other words, it’s stupid.
We heard all those arguments as soon as Roe v. Wade was decided. Then we heard about China’s one child policy. We’ve already seen efforts in this country to allow infanticide.
https://nypost.com/2019/02/11/new-yorks-blessing-on-infanticide/
https://cnsnews.com/news/article/emily-ward/virginia-governor-describes-how-post-birth-abortion-would-proceed
And we have already seen the Democrats push insurance laws that would result in death panels at the national level. The UK already very determinedly denies health care to certain classes of patients, to the point of refusing to allow the family to pay for it. What, please tell me, is to stop California from refusing medical care to infants that flunk a genetic test?
Valerie,
This is an overblown concern with no basis in fact. The CT opinion even addressed this directly in discussing ‘quality of life’ as a basis for abortion. They rejected that argument because there isn’t any limiting principle on that argument.
If we are using a eugenics based philosophy to decide what a ‘quality’ life looks like; a set of characteristics that preclude a normal life, then there isn’t any difference between born and pre born.
If we then decide to use downs syndrome as the determining factor of what constitutes a life ‘not worth living’ then the argument isn’t about abortion but rather focused on eliminating from the population everyone with downs syndrome. Born or pre born is no longer the issue, the issue ie possession of characteristics which preclude a normal or quality life; a diagnosis of downs syndrome.
Yes, the ninth and fourteenth amendments. There is no ninth-amendment right to kill ones child, but there is definitely one not to. If you had asked anyone in 1788, or in 1865, whether there is a right to kill ones child, they would unanimously have said “Of course not”; if you had asked whether there is a right not to kill ones child, the unanimous answer would have been “of course”.
Maybe now Planned Parenthood will have to start actual planning. As it is, their purpose is to help people who fail to plan by providing an abortion.
Perhaps they could do what their name implies and start teaching women who do not want to have babies how to avoid pregnancies.
I bet you any amount of money that some state supreme courts will suddenly find some hidden clause in their state constitutions that makes abortion a right.
That would still come under the rubric of states rights, to be corrected by state action. It makes the case for election of judges, as we have in Texas. Texas also amends its state constitution regularly. If the electorate favors abortion, this SCOTUS ruling won’t prevent them from enacting it.
Justices Alioto. Kavanaugh and Thomas wrote great opinions. CJ Roberts deserves special kudos for concurring in the result The dissent was a combination of a retread of feminist rhetoric and that whatever was meant by the Constitution is irrelevant today
Roberts just concurred in the boring part of the ruling, he would have been OK with a time limit up to 3 months probably as a matter of federal law. He wanted to continue in the spirit of Roe with adjusted timelines. And if there had been one more in favor of keeping Roe, he would have joined to make that the majority.
Roberts is just being crafty, but he’s on the wrong side when it comes down to it, on this issue and most others.
Roberts reminds of the Mugwump bird who sits on the fence with his face on side and his wump on the other.
I would have waited until the Rs have 51+ Senators….
“He wanted to continue in the spirit of Roe with adjusted timelines. ”
That means Roberts wanted to uphold Roe? I think he should have called his opinion a dissent.
Roberts is not on the wrong side when it comes down to it. He simply argued for judicial restraint, which is supposed to be a conservative value. The court should not be deciding issues that are not properly before it. It should not be making sweeping decisions that are not needed in order to resolve the case that is before it.
He’s right, but in this case I’m glad the majority went further than they had to, because the original Roe decision did the same thing. Roe could have struck down the Texas law being challenged, without establishing a phony constitutional right. It chose to do that, so it deserved to get overturned by a similar exercise of judicial activism. If the other side engages in activism, and our side in restraint, then they win. That’s not a conservative argument, but it’s a practical one.
I wish Rush and Andrew were with us to share this day!
Nice to see all the Karen’s who are hysterical about vaccine passports and mandates suddenly discover body autonomy from The Cathedral
THANK YOU TRUMP!!!!!!!
Also this will get the rabid leftists OUT of the states that ban it.
TEXAS WIN!!!!!!
I personally don’t give a damn about the legalities involved nor the stupid technical arguments back and forth. Nor do I care to debate the political idiocies of decades past that none of us had any true involvement in or ability to participate to any significant degree. The facts are this: a) two extremely bad rulings by the court have finally been reversed and sent back to the states where they should have ALWAYS resided for decision; and b) the moral question of abortion has been returned to the state level where Alito’s so wonderfully crafted opinion pointed out it belonged. I don’t give a shit whether you want to agree with me or not. My family is four children, 25 grandchildren, six great grandchildren and growing. To God the Almighty I owe that providence and blessing, and I don’t give a shit who cares otherwise, got it?
Written on my late father’s behalf by his entire family. We keep his legacy alive. And don’t think for a damn second we care if you don’t like it! His loving son, Rafa