Red Mosquito

They shouldn't have even kept the name after Diana Ross left.

tragabigzanda wrote:

lowlight79 wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:Seriously though, I've talked to some who can barely contain their excitement over the possibility Roe gets overturned.

Roe Vs. Wade will never been overturned. It's nothing more than a fear tactic than anything. Both sides love to use it.

"overturned," maybe not.

Dissected and dismantled at the state level until it's dead by a thousand blows, fairly likely.

Looks almost assured to me based on June Medical if they get a 6th seat.

lol at taking them at their words

tragabigzanda wrote:

4/5 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

lowlight79 wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:Seriously though, I've talked to some who can barely contain their excitement over the possibility Roe gets overturned.

Roe Vs. Wade will never been overturned. It's nothing more than a fear tactic than anything. Both sides love to use it.

"overturned," maybe not.

Dissected and dismantled at the state level until it's dead by a thousand blows, fairly likely.

Looks almost assured to me based on June Medical if they get a 6th seat.

What do we think the left's response will be to these sorts of geographically-positioned challenges to Roe v Wade? Will they simply have Alyssa Milano raise money to bus people to abortions in neighboring counties/states?

I'm not being snarky; I genuinely think that's a fairly likely scenario.

I would think this likely, and I'd wonder if this already happens to some extent.

I feel like there's probably people who are way more knowledgeable about Supreme Court history than I am, but I'm curious about previous periods when the Court has not only been in an ideologically different position than the country at large, but ideologically divergent. In other words, the court that decided Brown v. Board of Ed and the like was likely more liberal than the country as a whole, but I think it's fair to say the country was liberalizing in the direction of decisions like that, for lack of a better word.

I'm curious as to what happens now when the Court drifts not just at a different acceleration, but in a different direction, than the majority of the country? The most high-profile cases that this new makeup on the Court could lead to, like overturning Roe or outlawing the ACA, are broadly not popular. I feel like the Court can more easily maintain its popularity in its esotericism; it's hard for the general person to understand or care how the majority of Court decisions could impact him directly. Millions of people losing their health care seems like a different deal altogether.

according to Mitt the country is itself right of center so....

Fuck everything.

Wikipedia readers seems rather curious over who many are assuming are going to be the nominee.

verb_to_trust wrote:"supreme" is such an obnoxious name for a court

Better than calling it the "high court", as I see too much in articles.

Green Habit wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:"supreme" is such an obnoxious name for a court

Better than calling it the "high court", as I see too much in articles.

We have a high court and a supreme court here

Strat wrote:according to Mitt the country is itself right of center so....

Fuck everything.

Mitt is just rabid at the thought of saving babies.

tragabigzanda wrote:One thing I've heard repeatedly from conservative candidates is that they accept that Roe is settled law. What that tells me is they have no appetite to try to overturn the law, but are still ravenous for an abortion-free world acquired by other means.

I think you have the right idea here. Roberts is really good at reaching right wing results while superficially keeping contrary precedents as "good law" even if they've been gutted. I think any SCOTUS action regarding Roe v. Wade will try to gut it instead of outright overturn it.

Nobody is coming to take away your abortions.

digster wrote:I feel like there's probably people who are way more knowledgeable about Supreme Court history than I am, but I'm curious about previous periods when the Court has not only been in an ideologically different position than the country at large, but ideologically divergent. In other words, the court that decided Brown v. Board of Ed and the like was likely more liberal than the country as a whole, but I think it's fair to say the country was liberalizing in the direction of decisions like that, for lack of a better word.

I'm curious as to what happens now when the Court drifts not just at a different acceleration, but in a different direction, than the majority of the country? The most high-profile cases that this new makeup on the Court could lead to, like overturning Roe or outlawing the ACA, are broadly not popular. I feel like the Court can more easily maintain its popularity in its esotericism; it's hard for the general person to understand or care how the majority of Court decisions could impact him directly. Millions of people losing their health care seems like a different deal altogether.

You've really nailed the narrow path SCOTUS has to navigate. It has neither the power of the sword (White House) nor the purse (Congress), and it can quickly be run over if it loses legitimacy as viewed by those other two branches. John Roberts, at least, seems to understand that, even it's at a very basic level of wanting to retain being the median vote on SCOTUS. If/when that median vote shifts to...Gorsuch(?) we'll see if the Court's majority can retain that sort of forbearance.

The Court in the early thirties was more conservative than the President or the Congress and was blocking a lot of New Deal legislation. That's why FDR tried his court-packing scheme. It didn't work, but it did put the fear of God in the Justices and they got in line a bit

macphisto wrote:Nobody is coming to take away your abortions.

You'd have to be a truly ignorant motherfucker to actually believe this.

If you like your baby murder, you can keep your baby murder.

For the record, I hope and pray you abort all your babies, Michael.