The really big issue is the activist judge’s ruling would end the use of the fourteenth amendment as the basis for the Roe vs Wade decision. Since this amendment has been used as the predicate for many other unenumerated rights, these rights can no longer be assured to be protected in the future. This includes some aspects of the right to privacy, even the use of contraceptives, inter-racial and gay marriage, LBGTQ rights and I would suspect, even more unenumerated rights, particularly those protecting racial and some religious rights of non-‘puritans’.
The argument states that unenumerated rights not historically and culturally accepted cannot be protected by the forteenth amendment and outrageously cites that there was no provision for abortion rights in the origins of common law. Of course this ignores the abortion rights protection which has been accepted by the majority of our people for the last half century, the precedents established over that time and several generations of Americans who grew up only knowing a culture where these rights were protected, and which were validated time and time again in prior court rulings. Further, the draft opinion totally ignores the provisions of the ninth amendment which says that rights not enumerated in the constitutional but retained by the populace shall not be denied nor disparaged.
The draft ruling predicated on the determination that the fourteenth amendment is not valid for any unenumerated rights if these rights were not historically and culturally accepted puts a huge blockade for Congressional legislation to protect any of these rights, since the Supreme Court would rule the legislation unconstitutional unless the Congress could find another aspect of the constitution for legislation to protect any of these rights. The alternatives left include: re-balancing the court that currently chooses to only accept human-rights as those defined from the era of the framers; impeachment of Justices for violating their oath and requirement that they not violate the public trust, for example by lying or misrepresenting their intent under oath during congressional confirmation hearings; an egregious violation of the integrity which the public demands and expects from a Supreme Court Justice nominated for a life-time appointment; and then possibly the uphill battle of a constitutional amendment.
The other factor, of course, is the role of the Federalist Society and their unethical, but apparently not illegal, shaping the judiciary through coordinated activities of multiple ‘shell’ organizations; their role in grooming highly conservative judges, paying Republican State AG’s to write amicus briefs to support issues that their very wealthy donors want supported, steering legislative issues to those specific judges likely to rule in their favor, and funding the legal expenses of pushing selected plaintiff cases which are most likely to get a favorable Supreme Court decision, up the very costly judicial ladders required to reach the Supreme Court.
The trump never vetted any of his nominated federal judges, even Supreme Court Justices. Nominations of Federal judiciary was handed off to the Federalist Society through most of the trump’s term and the only vetting that they had was a review of their legal rulings to assure support of Federalist Society perspectives. Many were rated either unqualified or too inexperienced for the positions they were nominated to fill by the ABA. Yet, all were rubber-stamp confirmed by McConnell in a filibuster-proofed process in record time, including their last Supreme Court appointment of Amy Coney Barrett.
I seriously doubt that there is any Constitutional basis or that the framer’s would have ever supported this institutionalized complicit collusion of an independent donor-funded society, an entire political party and much of the judiciary, all dedicated to ensure that the wealthiest of our country can shape the courts to help ensure the interests of our wealthiest are not put at risk by a wholly independent judiciary with independent political leanings that would most reflect the varied needs of the population.
And just where is the ‘right’ for this unethical collusion of the wealthy, a society funded by them and an entire political party dedicated to protecting their interests, just where is the unenumerated right to do this in the constitution? After all, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that corporations and institutions have same rights as the people, shouldn’t they also be bound by the same constitutional restrictions of unenumerated rights that is being applied to federally deny supporting any right to abort (the Roe decision only permits abortions before the term of pregnancy where medical science and some religions agreed that a developing fetus could likely and reasonably survive outside the womb, unless the mother’s life was put at risk).
The fact that most, if not all of the conservative Supreme Court Justices are card carrying members of the very same wealthy donor supported organization that quietly and covertly helped most of them get appointed, and that they know this, certainly makes it difficult for the public to trust the Supreme Court as being the apolitical and ultimate arbiter of our nations laws.
Thanks to the hubris of the trump and McConnell this quiet plague to our democracy has been made clearly visible. If the activist conservative Supreme Court Justices at all truly believe in the Supreme Court and the paramount need for the judgements of the Supreme Court to be trusted as unbiased apolitical legal interpretations, they will all need to resign immediately - because their actions are a direct threat to the requisite perceived sanctity of this Branch of our government.
IT: 🛢️ New Vermont measure could charge Big Oil for climate damages, and... Do you think Trump is guilty?Welcome to Friday, May 10th, friends... Vermont could be one of the first states to hold Big Oil accountable for the damages read more...
Stormy Daniels Takes the Stand in Trump Hush Money TrialUpdated May 9, 2024, 5:00 p.m. EST Adult film star Stormy Daniels, also known as Stephanie Clifford, spent two days on the stand read more... Law Enforcement
Vermont Measure to Charge Big Oil for Climate DamagesWhat’s the story? Vermont is expected to become one of the first states to hold Big Oil accountable for the damages caused by read more... Environment
IT: Trump's 2016 'deny, deny, deny' campaign strategy, and... How can you help the civilians of Ukraine?Welcome to Wednesday, May 8th, weekenders... As Trump's hush money trial enters it's third week, the 2016 campaign strategy of read more...
Climate & Consumption
Health & Hunger
Politics & Policy
Safety & Security
I agree.
If this is how the media frames authoritarian regime's, Democrats' gerontocracy is in for an ongoing major defeat.
https://apple.news/AOQwJ_0UFR6ewqYrWMnSIdA
This is exactly the sort of opportunity Millennials have waited their entire lifetime for. From Gen X to Millennials those with the means to do so are defensively questioning, as they should be, this nation's willing to do more for up coming generations than to clean up boomers mess and pay the tab for boomers excess.
As a parent of 3 living Millennials adults children, I am ashamed to admit that if this doesn't s an option my own son's (who is extremely gifted in math and science) wants to pursue ... I would be hard pressed to discourage him.
Like he said, "there is no where I can even afford to live making $15 an hour, let alone a wife and kid, or hobby? Maybe in Budapest I would have a shot. Here you're just a cog in someone else money maker. They don't care about if your dreams, hope, health or anything else.
Over there I can work, have my own place, maybe meet a girl, travel and write.
And he is right. As were his friends who left a few month back. Unless you want to be in a mundane job until you are 40, it is time to move to a nation who see potential in younger generations and allows them to become more than wage slaves.
Well it is going to be a world where we loss many young people between the ages of 25 and 55. They are done with the bullshit, done with being lied to. Aren't eager to pay off deficit that not one put their need as a top priority.
https://apple.news/AOQwJ_0UFR6ewqYrWMnSIdA
For years we have heard about a so called liberal court that has shaped America. For a brief period of time there was a push for equality in America but that window closed years ago.
It is far easier to take away rights in America than it is to give us rights other than to protect the already rich and powerful.
The only truly activist court has been one that has taken away voting rights, stripped union protections, allowed extreme Gerrymandering, allowed unlimited money to be injected into our politics, allowed corporations to claim they are people, stripped voting rights to Blacks who barely got them even when they were enshrined in the Constitution and now removing healthcare rights to women nationwide.
They will be coming after same sex marriage, contraception, abortion pills and many other things we take for granted. They have just declared women as not being equal to men. We are going backwards in this country.
So disheartening.
Needs to be updated since some states have changed their laws.
Alito, You Idiot! It was only supposed to be a political rallying cry!
Boy, somebody opened my eyes last night, and yet here on Causes and in whatever I've been watching and reading no one ever brought up an aspect of the abortion fight:
It was never really about stopping abortion!
First, it was doctors protecting their income; then, Christians wanting Segregated Schools. It morphed into a power grab that's out of control.
MUST READ
The religious right was formed to oppose segregation, not abortion.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/the-truth-about-the-religious-right-now-celebrating-the-end-of-roe.html
The Real Origins of the Religious Right - POLITICO Magazine
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133
The history of the anti-abortion movement in the U.S. : NPR
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/04/1096154028/the-movement-against-abortion-rights-is-nearing-its-apex-but-it-began-way-before
The really big issue is the activist judge’s ruling would end the use of the fourteenth amendment as the basis for the Roe vs Wade decision. Since this amendment has been used as the predicate for many other unenumerated rights, these rights can no longer be assured to be protected in the future. This includes some aspects of the right to privacy, even the use of contraceptives, inter-racial and gay marriage, LBGTQ rights and I would suspect, even more unenumerated rights, particularly those protecting racial and some religious rights of non-‘puritans’.
The argument states that unenumerated rights not historically and culturally accepted cannot be protected by the forteenth amendment and outrageously cites that there was no provision for abortion rights in the origins of common law. Of course this ignores the abortion rights protection which has been accepted by the majority of our people for the last half century, the precedents established over that time and several generations of Americans who grew up only knowing a culture where these rights were protected, and which were validated time and time again in prior court rulings. Further, the draft opinion totally ignores the provisions of the ninth amendment which says that rights not enumerated in the constitutional but retained by the populace shall not be denied nor disparaged.
The draft ruling predicated on the determination that the fourteenth amendment is not valid for any unenumerated rights if these rights were not historically and culturally accepted puts a huge blockade for Congressional legislation to protect any of these rights, since the Supreme Court would rule the legislation unconstitutional unless the Congress could find another aspect of the constitution for legislation to protect any of these rights. The alternatives left include: re-balancing the court that currently chooses to only accept human-rights as those defined from the era of the framers; impeachment of Justices for violating their oath and requirement that they not violate the public trust, for example by lying or misrepresenting their intent under oath during congressional confirmation hearings; an egregious violation of the integrity which the public demands and expects from a Supreme Court Justice nominated for a life-time appointment; and then possibly the uphill battle of a constitutional amendment.
The other factor, of course, is the role of the Federalist Society and their unethical, but apparently not illegal, shaping the judiciary through coordinated activities of multiple ‘shell’ organizations; their role in grooming highly conservative judges, paying Republican State AG’s to write amicus briefs to support issues that their very wealthy donors want supported, steering legislative issues to those specific judges likely to rule in their favor, and funding the legal expenses of pushing selected plaintiff cases which are most likely to get a favorable Supreme Court decision, up the very costly judicial ladders required to reach the Supreme Court.
The trump never vetted any of his nominated federal judges, even Supreme Court Justices. Nominations of Federal judiciary was handed off to the Federalist Society through most of the trump’s term and the only vetting that they had was a review of their legal rulings to assure support of Federalist Society perspectives. Many were rated either unqualified or too inexperienced for the positions they were nominated to fill by the ABA. Yet, all were rubber-stamp confirmed by McConnell in a filibuster-proofed process in record time, including their last Supreme Court appointment of Amy Coney Barrett.
I seriously doubt that there is any Constitutional basis or that the framer’s would have ever supported this institutionalized complicit collusion of an independent donor-funded society, an entire political party and much of the judiciary, all dedicated to ensure that the wealthiest of our country can shape the courts to help ensure the interests of our wealthiest are not put at risk by a wholly independent judiciary with independent political leanings that would most reflect the varied needs of the population.
And just where is the ‘right’ for this unethical collusion of the wealthy, a society funded by them and an entire political party dedicated to protecting their interests, just where is the unenumerated right to do this in the constitution? After all, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that corporations and institutions have same rights as the people, shouldn’t they also be bound by the same constitutional restrictions of unenumerated rights that is being applied to federally deny supporting any right to abort (the Roe decision only permits abortions before the term of pregnancy where medical science and some religions agreed that a developing fetus could likely and reasonably survive outside the womb, unless the mother’s life was put at risk).
The fact that most, if not all of the conservative Supreme Court Justices are card carrying members of the very same wealthy donor supported organization that quietly and covertly helped most of them get appointed, and that they know this, certainly makes it difficult for the public to trust the Supreme Court as being the apolitical and ultimate arbiter of our nations laws.
Thanks to the hubris of the trump and McConnell this quiet plague to our democracy has been made clearly visible. If the activist conservative Supreme Court Justices at all truly believe in the Supreme Court and the paramount need for the judgements of the Supreme Court to be trusted as unbiased apolitical legal interpretations, they will all need to resign immediately - because their actions are a direct threat to the requisite perceived sanctity of this Branch of our government.
A bunch of Religious Fanatics fought and got PROHIBITION. Prohibition led to a huge wave of crimes and created the MOBS. What some people don't know is that the Republicans who passed prohibition made a deal with the Rich and politicians. They gave them time to STOCK up on their booze and promised to leave them alone. Bootleggers also delivered booze to Congress and the White House during prohibition. over 10,000 Americans were poisoned on purpose by our government. These are the same people who would see back-alley abortions come back and kill women.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/30/fact-check-u-s-government-poisoned-some-alcohol-during-prohibition/3283701001/
“Fact check: It's true, U.S. government poisoned some alcohol during Prohibition”
Our ruling: True
“It is true that the federal government during the Prohibition Era mandated that industrial alcohols receive toxic additives, effectively poisoning future supplies of bootleg liquor. Enforcement of Prohibition was multipronged; alongside stringent law enforcement raids, tax auditing, and surveillance of the illicit trade, regulators also actively participated. One result was the death of Americans from poisoned spirits. This claim is rated TRUE because it is supported by our research.”
The blatantly political opinion was not just about abortion. Under Roe, a right to privacy for individual persons was assumed to be intended in the Bill of Rights. (Under the 9th Amendment additional rights that were not enumerated in the Constitution were accepted.) Roe therefore provided to each women (NOT to the governent) the choice of whether or not to risk her health in carrying a pregnancy to term. In the final 3 months of pregnancy or when a fetus is capable of living on its own separated from its mother's womb (i.e., viability) the government does have an interest in protecting that future person and can place restrictions on abortions to narrow purposes. So under Alito's opinion, no privacy right is assumed and the GOVERNMENT in the form of state legislatures can take the right to choose from all women. If the right to privacy can be denied to women, other rights we assume to be private matters can also be denied. Who you can marry? What your sexual preferences or determinations are? What medical treatments you can have? What you can wear? Remember, if the government can dictate that a woman be forced to carry to term a pregnancy against the woman's desires, they can on another day dictate that a woman undergo an abortion for a child she very much wants (See China for details). Alito's opinion is about authoritarian (and evangelical religious) government rule over the individual privacy rights of women.
An Abortion History Primer
If you aren’t familiar with the historical and cultural views on abortion since ancient times, give this Wikipedia a look at.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion
The practice of abortion —the termination of a pregnancy—has been known since ancient times. Various methods have been used to perform or attempt an abortion, including the administration of abortifacient herbs, the use of sharpened implements, the application of abdominal pressure, and other techniques.
I am thinking that any and all attempts by some to downplay the implication of this pending ruling completely misx the point:
"Asserting that fetuses have rights, draft opinion could lead to abortion ban even in states like Mass., experts warn"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/05/04/metro/overturning-roe-could-open-door-federal-abortion-ban-legal-analysts-say/
So sad. For even in biblical times, a baby was not a baby until born. A fetus was considered nothing. It could be allowed to grow or discharged. It was considered nothing until born. In the late 1800's our Army physicians studied Native Americans. They found that they used natural herbs that caused the uterus to abort an unwanted fetus. The Army physicians named the herb, PPM. It stood for Preventative Pappose Maker. Now we have Supreme Court Justices initiating laws with personal convictions rather than our Constitution. Fine timing for Justice Ginsburg and Scalia when you really need them. I was under the impression Church and State were to be separated.
There will be millions of women forced to either drive hundreds of miles to have a safe abortion or find one that's not legal and not safe. Women have been having abortions for millennia; they're not going to stop now. It's irresponsible to think this decision will make a difference. Pass legislation now.
The stakes are much higher than many think:
Contraception could come under fire next if Roe v Wade is overturned
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/03/roe-v-wade-birth-control?
This is Religious Fanatacism at Work Plain and Simple!
These Zealots must be stopped.
Or, Congress can just codify Roe v. Wade by making it law.
First, I take umbrage at @causes using abortions rights vs right of choice. Abortion, the word is inflammatory.
What would it look like? Really?
Get ready to walk into restrooms with a female covered in blood and hemorrhaging. Often dying in a pool of blood. Is that enough of a visual? Because it was not uncommon. Especially in schools, so yeah, that will be inflicted upon your children. Still concerned about teen mental health?
Question for someone: As I understand Roe vs Wade, it allowed for abortions with no restrictions, but did stipulate that states could decide whether abortions were allowed during the 2nd & 3rd trimesters. If this be true, then why did the Mississippi case go to the SC? Were they not within the guidance?