It appears Roe is toast

[Elok]

The court rules on all sort of things not explicitly mentioned do they not? All sorts of privacy rights will be in doubt after this.

Yes, which is why I mentioned Griswold. However, birth control is relatively uncontroversial so I suspect SCOTUS will be selective about which challenges they listen to. Obergefell is probably but not definitely safe, as it's not a matter of literal life and death and the court has been pretty sensible about allowing opt-outs on gay wedding cakes and such.

I get that you take an "originalist" position but it seems a flimsy approach for a centuries old document.

I'm not an originalist, I'm a "the court should not function as an unelected legislative body" ist. I'm fine with them stretching the original understanding of terms provided there's something there to stretch in the first place. In Roe, they saw a controversy and elected to sit on it by favoring one side in spite of having no clear grounds for doing so. It should not surprise anyone that this undermined the perceived legitimacy of the court and led to fifty years of acrimony. Roe looks to have about a month to live, and good riddance. Now we can address our disagreements in an ordinary democratic fashion.

[Wezil]

Yeah, this is sure to put the issue to rest. There won't be any "acrimony" now. Seriously?

[Elok]

No, it will remain controversial, but it seems unlikely that the court will in the foreseeable future go "nope, changed our minds again, you can't ban abortion," and I doubt court-packing will become a thing given the balance of voters' priorities and Biden's general incompetence; by and by the heat over this immediate decision will go down and abortion will enter the realm of things politicians are actually allowed to argue and negotiate over. Roe was the single biggest shadow over every single damn SC nomination hearing, and now it will hopefully be gone as activists' energy shifts to sparring at the state level.

[PLATO]

Do you honestly think the USSC decisions are actually based upon law? They are clearly just another branch of partisan politics.

Yes, actually I do. The fact that judicial approach seems to be biased toward one party or the other is just how it fits into politics. I view it more as a "Strict Constructionist" vs. "Implied Rights" debate than a Republican vs Democrat.

I am a strict constructionist. Very simply put...if the US wants abortion to be a constitutional right, then we should amend the Constitution. The problem is, for the folks who want it to be a right, is that the elected representatives of 3/4 of the States are unlikely to agree. For the Dems, it is a kick in the tail when Democracy actually works against them (For Repubs to I would imagine but N/A in this case).

[PLATO]

The court rules on all sort of things not explicitly mentioned do they not? All sorts of privacy rights will be in doubt after this.

I get that you take an "originalist" position but it seems a flimsy approach for a centuries old document.

Once again. The document is fully amendable upon desire of the Congress and the States. People should realize that changing that document through judicial action is probably the least democratic approach that could be taken. People turn to the courts for expediency and just don't want to do the hard work of convincing people of their position and having a democratic debate on the merits.

[Wezil]

edit - xpost

Elok -

I think you are sadly mistaken. This issue will continue to loom over every future SC nomination until they can one day overturn this "bad" decision and set things "right" again. The USSC is another branch of partisan politics. It may take longer to move the center one way or another but it is a political realm where battles will be fought. the pro-choice people will fight this at the federal and state levels as well as in the corporate world. They have the numbers on their side.

[PLATO]

I'm not an originalist, I'm a "the court should not function as an unelected legislative body" ist. I'm fine with them stretching the original understanding of terms provided there's something there to stretch in the first place. In Roe, they saw a controversy and elected to sit on it by favoring one side in spite of having no clear grounds for doing so. It should not surprise anyone that this undermined the perceived legitimacy of the court and led to fifty years of acrimony. Roe looks to have about a month to live, and good riddance. Now we can address our disagreements in an ordinary democratic fashion.

This actually is pretty close to an originalist point of view. The courts purpose is to rule on the both the letter and intent of the law. The "stretch" part goes toward intent.

[PLATO]

edit - xpost

Elok -

I think you are sadly mistaken. This issue will continue to loom over every future SC nomination until they can one day overturn this "bad" decision and set things "right" again. The USSC is another branch of partisan politics. It may take longer to move the center one way or another but it is a political realm where battles will be fought. the pro-choice people will fight this at the federal and state levels as well as in the corporate world. They have the numbers on their side.

If they have numbers on their side, then a Constitutional Amendment should be easy to do. The problem is, that the numbers are not as great as the media likes to make it seem. I imagine it is a fairly close split...but what do I know?

[Elok]

To create a progressive majority on the SC in the near future would require a fair number of justices to die or retire abruptly, or else for court-packing to become a thing, which I don't think we're quite insane enough to do unless the Dems soon acquire a huge majority in the Senate--which seems unlikely. By the time swinging the court meaningfully to the left becomes practical, a decade or more will have passed and we'll know what the fallout is. In practice, abortion is all but illegal in many red states already, and sadly (for me) it seems probable that pill-smuggling and transport networks will undermine red states' decisions on the matter. I don't think Team Blue will be able to rustle up sufficient anger to do anything.

[Wezil]

Yes, actually I do. The fact that judicial approach seems to be biased toward one party or the other is just how it fits into politics. I view it more as a "Strict Constructionist" vs. "Implied Rights" debate than a Republican vs Democrat.

The reason for the divide isn't as important as the fact the political divide exists. It's not a coincidence that the Justices tend to vote with the political positions of the party that appointed them. Whether intended ort not it has become another branch of partisan politics.

I am a strict constructionist. Very simply put...if the US wants abortion to be a constitutional right, then we should amend the Constitution. The problem is, for the folks who want it to be a right, is that the elected representatives of 3/4 of the States are unlikely to agree. For the Dems, it is a kick in the tail when Democracy actually works against them (For Repubs to I would imagine but N/A in this case).

It's not democracy that's kicking them in the tail (they have the numbers on this issue), but as my American friends are fond of saying "we are a republic not a democracy".

[giblets]

No, it will remain controversial, but it seems unlikely that the court will in the foreseeable future go "nope, changed our minds again, you can't ban abortion," and I doubt court-packing will become a thing given the balance of voters' priorities and Biden's general incompetence; by and by the heat over this immediate decision will go down and abortion will enter the realm of things politicians are actually allowed to argue and negotiate over. Roe was the single biggest shadow over every single damn SC nomination hearing, and now it will hopefully be gone as activists' energy shifts to sparring at the state level.

Can't just put the lid back on Pandora's box and expect everything to go back to how it was before.

[Lorizael]

The impression that the court is largely about partisan politics springs largely from the Roe era AFAICT. Roe itself, whatever one thinks about abortion, was quite poorly argued and amounted to asserting a right out of whole cloth, then sitting on the argument for fifty years (as I recall even RBG, though obviously an abortion rights proponent, had a poor opinion of Roe's reasoning). If it comes to that, Griswold wasn't all that stellar either, but contraception is far, far less controversial now than abortion, so we all let that one slide.

Roe was decided 7-2. Whatever your opinion on how well it was reasoned, it wasn't partisan.

[Wezil]

If they have numbers on their side, then a Constitutional Amendment should be easy to do. The problem is, that the numbers are not as great as the media likes to make it seem. I imagine it is a fairly close split...but what do I know?

A constitutional amendment is not just about having the numbers but having them in the right place (see previous). No, the pro-choice side will not convince 3/4 of the States to amend.

Gallup from about a year ago. 58-32. It's not even close.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/350804/americans-opposed-overturning-roe-wade.aspx

[giblets]

The anti-choicers who want to enslave women aren't going to be satisfied with leaving it to the states. They want to ban abortion everywhere.

[Wezil]

The anti-choicers who want to enslave women aren't going to be satisfied with leaving it to the states. They want to ban abortion everywhere.

I'm not convinced abortion is the only goal. Despite the counter-arguments earlier I'm not convinced that just because something is considered "settled law" that is safe. Roe was considered such up to and including the latest confirmation hearings.