Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[AndreusMaximus]

Well. If we want to be technical about it, Mitch McConnell brought this about by one, making sure that Trump would pick from the list of justices who would overturn RvW, and two, extending the nuclear option to include SCOTUS nominees, and marshalling them through confirmation. I really don't think Trump has any moral leanings against abortion. It's just the position he has to take up as a Republican. All Trump had to do was pick the people Republican leaders put in front of him. But he did it, so that's not nothing.



Overturning RvW is the correct decision constitutionally. I wish that Reagan and Bush would have gotten it done in their terms. I don't think they could have gotten a justice willing to actually do it confirmed. The only reason it was successful this time was McConnell going nuclear. A couple of times really. He blocked the vote on Merrick Garland at the end of Obama's term, which prevented a sure vote against. And of course eliminating the rule on filibuster for SCOTUS nominees.

We could probably thank Harry Reid for that. He opened the door and gave Republicans the political capital to extend it to SCOTUS. I don't think McConnell would ever have gone full nuclear. So I guess in a way Dems should blame Reid for this decision.

I don't know man. I think TB had a point; the president has first say on who gets nominated, not the senate, and if a more "mainstream" republican had been president during the 2016-2020 term, I somehow still very much doubt that we'd have gotten 3 supreme court picks that had a chance of voting to overturn RvW. Maybe, maybe not. But either way I think the underlying point still stands, which is that RvW being overturned right now (assuming it does happen) isn't, by itself, a sure indicator of cultural shift on the abortion debate, and is more so a product of the political timing happening to work out just right.

 

[jamil]

You bring up a point I don’t see often on right-leaning forums: In the US the majority of women seeking abortion are already mothers.

These women have better insight into the issues they face both with their personal health and the risks they face during pregnancy and delivery, and the consequences of bringing another life into their world.

The situation these women face can be heartbreaking. Taking time away from work to deal with pregnancy and childbirth takes food out of the mouths of their other children. There are only so many hours to go around, and doing the best for the children they have may require making a decision many others may find unpalatable.

I think it’s also important to note that a majority of women seeking abortion in the US identify as Christian, further muddying the moral clarity of these waters.

Like I said in an earlier post, people ARE hypocrites. Okay so, say you're a Christian young lady, you believe in not ****ing before marriage. You go out on a date and things get a little steamy, maybe the dude kinda, let's say, asserts himself, you do the deed, and then a few weeks later you find out you're pregnant. WTF are you gonna do?

You have this whole social apparatus around you that says what you did was wrong, and that you will be judged for it. Does it make her a whore? No. It makes her as human as anyone. She gave into urges, or maybe didn't give in. Date rape happens. It happened to my Sister. I don't see the people calling a young lady that's in this predicament "a whore", saying the dude did anything wrong. It takes two people, a man with a penis and a woman with a vagina, to make an unwanted pregnancy.

Point is, the pressure to be seen as "pure" in a conservative Christian society is huge. Have the child and be cast out by your community or secretly go get an abortion and make it all go away, while living with that guilt all your life. It's a tough choice. But some people, who lack the maturity to empathize, will look down their own judgemental noses at her and either call her a whore or a hypocrite, depending on which worldview they have.

This issue is fraught with sinkholes, and I think one big issue is the conflation of moral issues with legal ones.

Yeah, it looks like that's kinda happening in this discussion now but in a different way than you mean it. Legal isn't necessarily moral.

I think there is a strong argument for keeping legal standards rather more flexible than, perhaps, personal moral standards might allow. In certain circumstances that which is morally intolerable must be tolerated legally to avoid unintended consequences. I think this is a perfect example of one of those issues.

On a personal aside: you have the patience of a saint. I have been following this thread closely, and I’m impressed with your ability to stay cool and on-topic under fire.

thanks. I get as pissy as anyone. When I have a deadline at work, pressure is high, and then I find someone is wrong on the internet, THAT's when I get pissy.

It's a sensitive topic and people get emotional about it. We have to try to stay objective and not let our emotions take over rational thinking. I understand that the two sides are all emotional about the topic. I am not emotional about one side or other. I can empathize with the difficulty of the choice. The social standards people erect are a huge factor.

Like I said, my sister went through that when she was 17. She had the baby. People judged her. The very people who are against abortion punished her socially for doing what they claim they want done with unexpected pregnancies. It is what it is.

 

[KLB]

The only reason it was successful this time was McConnell going nuclear. A couple of times really. He blocked the vote on Merrick Garland at the end of Obama's term, which prevented a sure vote against.

That is probably the key moment in all of this. Does anyone think Roberts would have voted to overturn it with four other votes against?

Heck, he still may not vote to overturn it.

 

[KG1]

Does chip know you guys are having this conversation without him? Other than my comment about Pelosi and the death penalty I'm trying to stay out of it.

 

[KLB]

I don't know man. I think TB had a point; the president has first say on who gets nominated, not the senate, and if a more "mainstream" republican had been president during the 2016-2020 term, I somehow still very much doubt that we'd have gotten 3 supreme court picks that had a chance of voting to overturn RvW. Maybe, maybe not. But either way I think the underlying point still stands, which is that RvW being overturned right now (assuming it does happen) isn't, by itself, a sure indicator of cultural shift on the abortion debate, and is more so a product of the political timing happening to work out just right.

The only one of the three that a mainstream R may not have picked would be Gorsuch. They were all Federalist Society choices.

 

[jamil]

I don't know man. I think TB had a point; the president has first say on who gets nominated, not the senate, and if a more "mainstream" republican had been president during the 2016-2020 term, I somehow still very much doubt that we'd have gotten 3 supreme court picks that had a chance of voting to overturn RvW. Maybe, maybe not. But either way I think the underlying point still stands, which is that RvW being overturned right now (assuming it does happen) isn't, by itself, a sure indicator of cultural shift on the abortion debate, and is more so a product of the political timing happening to work out just right.

Edit: TL;DR Trump gets credit for following the script, but without McConnell's shenanigans, they'd have never gotten confirmed. Gorsuch fell short of 60 (54-54). Kavanaugh fell short of 60 (50-48). ACB fell short of 60 (52-48). What got RvW overturned was the nuclear option that allowed those justices to be confirmed.

Reagan appointed 3 justices. He nominated a lot of justices, but only got Sandra Day O'Connor, Anton Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy.

Sandra Day O'Connor was a diversity hire. Reagan said he'd appoint the first female justice, and that's what he did. SCOTUS did have a case where SDO voted to uphold RvW, even though, personally, she opposed abortion. I don't know if Reagan was trying to find a justice with the right plumbing who he thought would vote against RvW, or if he was just looking for a justice with the right plumbing. So I really can't say if that was a missed opportunity or not.

Scalia's confirmation was 98-0, and I suspect Scalia would have voted to overturn RvW. So that was a political success in trying to get RvW overturned. I think the only reason more of a fight wasn't put up against Scalia was because he was young and didn't have much established history. Also the balance of the court was still in favor of RvW.

The next appointment would have shifted the court to the right. The Democrats wanted to oppose any conservative justice.
Reagan nominated Bork. A conservative justice, a lot like Scalia, but with a history. Democrats complained that Bork would reverse affirmative action, and overturn RvW. Bork was defeated 58-42, falling two short of the 60 vote threshold. So that was a fail.

Okay, so then Reagan nominated Douglas Ginsburg. He had to withdraw after a report came out that he'd smoked pot as a student. OMG, he smoked pot once! He's disqualified for being a human! Cancel him! My how things have changed. Republicans got played. Dems knew Republicans would drop Ginsburg like a used rubber. And they did. So that's a political fail on RvW.

Reagan punted with the nomination of Kennedy. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0.

We could argue that perhaps Reagan could have made a better choice with SDO. But then would Scalia have been scrutinized more, because the court would have been closer to shifting to the right on RvW?

We could argue that Reagan didn't need to punt. Republicans did not have the numbers to overcome cloture. I think it's obvious that Democrats would have blocked any conservative justice that even smelled like he might overturn RvW.

I don't think it was politically possible with the 60 vote rule for Reagan to have stacked the court with anti-abortion justices. I think he tried. Might have been able to pull it off if he'd have picked a more solid choice than SDO, but I also have to suspect that there was a reasonable expectation that she'd vote to overturn.

As far as Bush senior, he nominated Thomas, who was confirmed and went on to vote to overturn RvW...apparently, it's not official yet. Souter was the other nominee. Bush's advisors promised Souter would be a home run for conservatives. He wasn't.

So as far as missed opportunities, circumstances were to blame, and not some feeble attempts. Between the two presidents, they had 5 nominations. They could have had RvW overturned 20 years ago, maybe. But only if circumstances would have lined up. They eventually lined up by crook more than hook.

It took some unsavory tricks by the Senate Majority leader to do it. First, he had to deny a vote on Obama's nomination to replace Scalia, with Merrick Garland, who has turned out to be a progressive wet dream as AG. We might like the outcome of that trick by McConnell, but if we were on the other end of it we'd have been crying bloody murder and we all know it. And then it took going nuclear to get Trump's three nominees in.

Give Trump credit for following the nudge. But the dirty work to get it done was all McConnell, who slithers in the mud masterfully. And now that it's done, 0biden and every other democrat POTUS has that same power. With the presidency and a simple majority in the Senate, the most bat **** crazy nominee can be confirmed. As attested to by the most recent appointment of a justice who doesn't know how to define woman.

 

[jamil]

That is probably the key moment in all of this. Does anyone think Roberts would have voted to overturn it with four other votes against?

Heck, he still may not vote to overturn it.

According to the leaked information the vote was 5-4, with Roberts voting against. The Trump nominees all voted to overturn, along with Thomas and Alito.

 

[jamil]

Heck, he still may not vote to overturn it.

yeah.

 

[Ingomike]

What you're replying to isn't even about a woman's right to choose, it's about PP selling parts of aborted babies and covering it up. Maybe you don't believe they're doing that, and that's fine.

I posted an article about their admission in court that they sell baby parts but he lacks the balls to even acknowledge it.

 

[Ingomike]

Being caught on tape explaining how you do the thing is evidence. Not gonna get a conviction on that alone. The cooler of aborted organs and something proving the transaction is also needed. The video of the discussion should at least cause an investigation into it. But that's not likely to happen because the people who would need to prosecute the thing aren't really all that interested in prosecuting it.

They admitted in court they sell baby body parts…

 

[Ingomike]

thanks. I get as pissy as anyone. When I have a deadline at work, pressure is high, and then I find someone is wrong on the internet, THAT's when I get pissy.

LOL. Love it.

 

[Ingomike]

The very people who are against abortion punished her socially for doing what they claim they want done with unexpected pregnancies.

This is despicable. Let he without sin, cast the first stone…

 

[ditcherman]

Holy crap. I'm just marking for posterity that I liked one of JK's posts, so I will be able to prove it.

But I do agree with the Brass Ring comment. Divine Providence is not going to smile on America just because we overrule a SC decision.

Likewise, I know a lot of folks in the "Christian Coccoon" who really believe that ultrasound photos has somehow swayed the opinion of America on this issue. Nobody has been persuaded. The country has not changed.

Standing out there with pictures on poles did not bring this moment about. Donald Trump brought this about. Hillary was a stupid campaigner who sneered and cackled one time too many, and it allowed The Donald to luck into one Presidential term, at a time when a decent number of SC Justices were of a mind to die.

Without that, none of this happens. I do hope "Conservatives" are going to remember that. Especially the Never Trumpers. RvW is biting the dust because the Feckless GOP simply lost control of their primary process one time, and accidentally lucked into getting a Republican President with more of a governing interest in America than just getting his daughter on a Cable Talk Show.

Reagan and Bush could have ended RvW 20 years ago. They didn't even try.

Remember, we are all more alike than we are different.

Sometimes hard to see, but if you drill down deep enough, it’s there.

 

[ditcherman]

…snip
The situation these women face can be heartbreaking. Taking time away from work to deal with pregnancy and childbirth takes food out of the mouths of their other children. There are only so many hours to go around, and doing the best for the children they have may require making a decision many others may find unpalatable.

The decisions that lead up to the fact that having another child is taking food out of the mouths of existing children is what’s heartbreaking, in the long term view of what is a healthy society.
A mom taking time off work and then she can hardly afford to pay for a third mostly disinterested party to ‘care’ for her other children (aka daycare), our priorities are messed up.

 

[jamil]

Remember, we are all more alike than we are different.

Sometimes hard to see, but if you drill down deep enough, it’s there.

It’s the stark differences on deeply held beliefs that matter to people. You can agree on 98% of everything but that 2% can deeply divide a nation.

I think because of social media, once there’s a wedge between us/them, it erodes at that 98% as people think more irrationally at sense-making.

People actually believed Jessee Smollett’s “maga country” narrative. They believed a 17 year old kid wearing a maga hat had disrespected a Native American to the extent that he desrved the scorn of the nation. They thought (many still think) that saintly Michael Brown was executed by police after having surrendered with his hands up.

It doesn’t matter that we’re actually more alike than different. It’s the degree of difference on those few things that divide people.

 

[ditcherman]

It’s the stark differences on deeply held beliefs that matter to people. You can agree on 98% of everything but that 2% can deeply divide a nation.

I think because of social media, once there’s a wedge between us/them, it erodes at that 98% as people think more irrationally at sense-making.

People actually believed Jessee Smollett’s “maga country” narrative. They believed a 17 year old kid wearing a maga hat had disrespected a Native American to the extent that he desrved the scorn of the nation. They thought (many still think) that saintly Michael Brown was executed by police after having surrendered with his hands up.

It doesn’t matter that we’re actually more alike than different. It’s the degree of difference on those few things that divide people.

Well said, but if we take time to reflect and realize it, that’s it’s 98% or 70% or 51%, we can find a path forward to meet our goals. Sure there might be compromise, just like in a post you talked about the peer pressure to remain pure and the scorn that follows, we’re a lot better at that now, realizing that all have made mistakes, but pregnancy is just more visible than gossip or slander or embezzlement. Some people think this is the church softening, allowing sin in, to accept and love these, but I just wanted to mention it’s not quite the black and white you painted, hopefully, and we’re getting better.

We have to not let the 2% divide us beyond recognition, or “they” win.

 

[KLB]

The decisions that lead up to the fact that having another child is taking food out of the mouths of existing children is what’s heartbreaking,

Sadly, this has been a reality for people as long as there have been people. People used to sell their children or leave infants to die. Life on this planet is often cruel.

 

[jamil]

Well said, but if we take time to reflect and realize it, that’s it’s 98% or 70% or 51%, we can find a path forward to meet our goals. Sure there might be compromise, just like in a post you talked about the peer pressure to remain pure and the scorn that follows, we’re a lot better at that now, realizing that all have made mistakes, but pregnancy is just more visible than gossip or slander or embezzlement. Some people think this is the church softening, allowing sin in, to accept and love these, but I just wanted to mention it’s not quite the black and white you painted, hopefully, and we’re getting better.

We have to not let the 2% divide us beyond recognition, or “they” win.

It's people on both sides. They have to find a common language to talk to each other. A problem now is that no one is willing to admit that the other side might have some legitimate points.

I had a discussion with someone recently about climate change. She told me her position. We went back and forth on a few points and then I asked her if it's possible for anyone to have a legitimate criticism of her position. She flatly said no. There are no legitimate criticisms. Well. There's not even a discussion at that point.

I kinda wanted to tell her to get over herself, because she's not that smart. Every side on a wide topic like that has at least some legitimate counterpoints. For her flatly to reject them all is, I think, arrogant. I also wanted to ask her how she thinks her life might change if she could live without being offended by so much. But she was already so pissed at me that she was trying not to cry. I mean. I'm not out to collect "liberal tears". I'm not trying to offend her, so I didn't push it. If we all can't have a discussion about controversial topics without being offended, we're probably doomed to fight and/or separate eventually.

 

[ditcherman]

how she thinks her life might change if she could live without being offended by so much.

This is the way.
But it’s too late for so many who are already indoctrinated into this culture. I have no idea what’s going to happen.
All we can do is try, not to even change their minds, but to just let them be open.

 

[jamil]

Sadly, this has been a reality for people as long as there have been people. People used to sell their children or leave infants to die. Life on this planet is often cruel.

I think this is a good point. We have our worldviews that we rarely step out of. LIke women who get pregnant out of wedlock are whores. Or married women who can't deal with a pregnancy are selfish. Quick to judge according to our worldview, but stubbornly reluctant to step into their worldview, just for a moment, to see that maybe our judgement isn't really that accurate.

And some people are just wired to judge others. It's just their personality. They can't not do it.

I remember when I was a deacon in church, the crotchety old couple who liked to sit in the back looking down their noses at all the churchgoers who didn't meet their expectations, disapproved that I didn't wear a suit coat. I just wore dress pants, a button up shirt, and usually a tie, but not always, because I hate those too. I didn't even own a suit. No reason to waste my money on one. Don't like them.

But then I had to participate in a relative's wedding and I had to buy a damn suit for that. It wasn't the kind of role that warranted a tux so no rental. And because I don't like wasting money for something I'll wear just once, I thought, well I could wear it to church I guess and get my money's worth out of it. Oh, when I walked into the sanctuary before church service with that suit on that old couple just beemed and gave me a thumbs up.