You are here: Home | Forum | U.S Supreme Court overturns (Roe v Wade) legalised abortion
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most of the discussions, articles and other free features. By joining our Virgin Media community you will have full access to all discussions, be able to view and post threads, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own images/photos, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please join our community today.
The individual states ARE imposing their own restrictions because they have the legal competence to do so.
As your quote stated :- "part of strategy to push back against rush of state laws". Of course, if the makeup of Congress etc changes, then they could return full control to the individual states.
States can do whatever they are competent to do. By definition they cannot do what they are not competent to do. Even if they try, their actions will be struck down by the Supreme Court. States can make laws around access to abortion but they can’t ban it. They are not competent to do so because it is unconstitutional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomad
your quote stated :- "part of strategy to push back against rush of state laws".
I didn’t say that, nor have I linked to anyone who did.
They are not competent to do so because it is unconstitutional.
I don't think that's true. From the Politico story:
Quote:
The immediate impact of the ruling as drafted in February would be to end a half-century guarantee of federal constitutional protection of abortion rights and allow each state to decide whether to restrict or ban abortion.
---------- Post added at 12:10 ---------- Previous post was at 12:08 ----------
There has been no law banning it to date because of Roe vs Wade. Once that's gone I don't think there is any constitutional bar to a ban.
__________________
I work for Virgin Media but all views are my own.
There is also the way a lot of the evangelical right look at this. They don't want women to have access to safe and legal abortion, but as soon as the resulting child is born they don't seem to want any support for them and the family at either the state or federal level.
I also don't understand why a lot of the same people that are supportive for the 'right to life' when it comes to abortion are also big supporters of the death penalty.
__________________ Hell is empty and all the devils are here. Shakespeare..
I don't think that's true. From the Politico story:
---------- Post added at 12:10 ---------- Previous post was at 12:08 ----------
There has been no law banning it to date because of Roe vs Wade. Once that's gone I don't think there is any constitutional bar to a ban.
Somewhat confusingly, I’m talking about the constitutional ban as it now stands, not as it might change… Don’t forget, what we’re talking about this morning is a draft, unpublished ruling that may yet never come to pass. As of right now, the states are not competent to ban abortion, because the supreme court opinion as it presently stands is that abortion is unconstitutional.
It's going to be interesting to see what happens now. As the original stated it was been known for votes to change between drafts and the Justices debate and seek to change each other's minds.
But it's hard to imagine that they hadn't known where they are on this issue for years now. It's one the main issues they get appointed with in mind.
And who leaked it? Why? Seems like someone inside the court released it in order to try and exert pressure on the justices or politicians ahead of the mid-terms.
And who leaked it? Why? Seems like someone inside the court released it in order to try and exert pressure on the justices or politicians ahead of the mid-terms.
If this had been on another subject it would have been called a violation of procedural justice and a threat to democracy. But it was this, so it's fine.
__________________
"Knowledge is Power. Power Corrupts. Study Hard. Be Evil."
Here we go again, media scaremongering that will probably lead to another 100+ page thread on something that may not turn out to be fact.
It's a draft of what one of the SCOTUS considers to be the final decision which has gone to the others for input.
Everything or parts could change before the final decision as has happened before. It is not yet a done deal.
The final ruling will not be until June/July.
Quote:
In 1992, then-Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative, had indicated that he was going to vote with the majority of the court to overturn Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Then he changed his mind, and the court voted to uphold the ruling.
A person familiar with the court’s deliberations said that four of the other Republican-appointed justices – Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – had voted with Alito in the conference held among the justices after hearing oral arguments in December, and that line-up remains unchanged as of this week.
Quote:
The document, labeled as a first draft of the majority opinion, includes a notation that it was circulated among the justices on Feb. 10.
---------- Post added at 18:33 ---------- Previous post was at 17:07 ----------
Interesting point (imho) at the end of an article in today’s Washington Post.
There is one possible sliver of a silver lining in this calamity of a ruling. Alito went out of his way to distinguish abortion from other rights, similarly unstated in the Constitution, such as access to contraception, homosexual sex and same-sex marriage. Abortion, he argued, is “a unique act” because it, unlike the others, implicates potential human life.
“We emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” Alito wrote. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”
You can, perhaps, take some solace in this. Or you could remember that Alito dissented vigorously in the same-sex marriage ruling, arguing that “the Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each State.” If that sounds alarmingly familiar, it should.
__________________ There is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it. If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
What are you trying to say Hugh? Yes it is is the first draft of apparently the majority opiniion written by ONE person. Has he got the opinions of those others correct? This is why it is a draft.
Why does it matter when it was circulated when the final decision isn't expected until June/July?
Has it been corrected/changed/ammended since then?
Kavenaugh has to be very careful as he stated under oath in front of congress that Roe v Wade was a settled question. Even a Supreme Court Justice can be impeached.
What are you trying to say Hugh? Yes it is is the first draft of apparently the majority opinion written by ONE person. Has he got the opinions of those others correct? This is why it is a draft.
The Majority and Minority opinions are usually written by one person to speak as the voice of the court.
What are you trying to say Hugh? Yes it is is the first draft of apparently the majority opiniion written by ONE person. Has he got the opinions of those others correct? This is why it is a draft.
Why does it matter when it was circulated when the final decision isn't expected until June/July?
Has it been corrected/changed/ammended since then?
Kavenaugh has to be very careful as he stated under oath in front of congress that Roe v Wade was a settled question. Even a Supreme Court Justice can be impeached.
Yes, they can but like presidential impeachments, requires super majority in the Senate, Republicans won’t side with the Democrats and the pathetic Democrats can’t keep using the impeachment tool to get their own way, it wasn’t designed for that.
If the document is genuine, then it has already been decided. The document is in order to set out the reasons for that decision, and for the other majority Judges to agree with it.
If the document is genuine, then it has already been decided. The document is in order to set out the reasons for that decision, and for the other majority Judges to agree with it.
There's always a chance that the draft opinion doesn't end up looking similar to the final opinion, NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg told Morning Edition, noting that this has happened numerous times.
A majority of justices must "sign onto" the court's opinion before it can be delivered publicly, according to the U.S. Courts website.
"No opinion is considered the official opinion of the Court until it is delivered in open Court (or at least made available to the public)," it says.
__________________ There is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it. If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
The reasons for a decision are one thing, the actual decision is another.
If the decision changes, who then writes the reasons? There must've been a broad agreement on the reasons for the document to exist.
It would be silly if each Judge had to write two personal opinions of the reasons. One agreeing with an outcome, the other disagreeing.
Not necessarily, however multiple people apparently in the know have said today that in this case, the basic decision has been made and it is only likely to be the reasons that are finessed before publication. The leak is likely to have occurred in order to get maximum change to the reasons, potentially limiting the impact of the decision.