Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

[audiophile]

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, are overruled; the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 2_6j37.pdf

[audiophile]

Well stated MW.

I have read some of the decision. I'd say it is solid.

[audiophile]

The Roe Court took sides on a consequential moral and policy issue that this Court had no constitutional authority to decide. By taking sides, the Roe Court distorted the Nation’s understanding of this Court’s proper role in the American constitutional system and thereby damaged the Court as an institution.

As Justice Scalia explained, Roe “destroyed the compromises of the past, rendered compromise impossible for the future, and required the entire issue to be resolved uniformly, at the national level.” Casey, 505 U. S., at 995 (opinion concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part).

The Court’s decision today properly returns the Court to a position of judicial neutrality on the issue of abortion, and properly restores the people’s authority to resolve the issue of abortion through the processes of democratic self-government established by the Constitution.

To be sure, many Americans will disagree with the Court’s decision today. That would be true no matter how the Court decided this case. Both sides on the abortion issue believe sincerely and passionately in the rightness of their cause. Especially in those difficult and fraught circumstances, the Court must scrupulously adhere to the Constitution’s neutral position on the issue of abortion.

Whether agree or disagree with abortion, overall, it's good day for America when the constitution wins, and the power is returned to the people.

[audiophile]

Roberts concurred but only wanted to change the line of viability to include 15 weeks. I'm not sure it really would make a difference in outcome, other than it seemed like a more moderate approach.

[km1125]

Haven't had time to dig into it, but I'm curious about the wording in the dissenting opinions.

[Bryce]

And man if you think the Lefty meltdown over the New York concealed Carry decision was big, wait till you see this one.

[zzand]

I believe we are about to see how fast Congress can move. I think there will be legislation passed and signed into law well before the midterms. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the work on it started shortly after the leak.

[audiophile]

Haven't had time to dig into it, but I'm curious about the wording in the dissenting opinions.

A bunch a tripe. Not constitutional legal arguments.

They claim Roe/Casey is fair because it protected the unborn after viability. That has not been enforceable, if it was the Mississippi case would not even been take up by Supreme Court.

[Bryce]

Reading some of the outrage coming from the Lefty pundits, it's interesting to note that all of a sudden they can define what a woman is.

[Matt]

Reading some of the outrage coming from the Lefty pundits, it's interesting to note that all of a sudden they can define what a woman is.

Not our dipshit governor: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michig ... ls-respond

[Bryce]

Haven't had time to dig into it, but I'm curious about the wording in the dissenting opinions.

A bunch a tripe. Not legal arguments.

Which was point by point completely taken apart, in great detail, by the majority.

[audiophile]

I disagree, zzand. Pro-abortion legislation would never be able to get past a filibuster in the Senate.

That raises another question: will Dems try to pass legislation to eradicate the filibuster? I think Manchin would vote no.

I concur MW.

[Chrocket87]

There is no legislation that will clear the Senate regarding this, as Sinema and Manchin have indicated they will not get rid of the filibuster. The question here is how far will/can Biden go without the legislative branch? He’s already stated he will issue executive orders if Senate does not act on his wishes. Or, will he try to act with one of his departments to bypass Congress, like he did with the vaccine mandate?