Biden says right to choose 'fundamental' after leaked document suggests US could allow abortion ban.

[NecronLord]

Sure enough one of them also wants to go after every plank of gay and women's rights down to contraception no less.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in his opinion concurring with the overturning of Roe v Wade and effectively ending constitutional protections for abortion in the US, called on his colleagues in the US Supreme Court to overturn the rulings that currently protect the right to contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.

On Friday, in his concurrent opinion to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Thomas emphasized that SCOTUS should “reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. “

“Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous’... we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents... After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated,” wrote Thomas.

The cases mentioned include Griswold v. Connecticut, which ruled that states had no right to ban contraception, Lawrence v. Texas, which ruled on same-sex sex, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which ruled that same-sex couples could legally marry.

In response to Thomas’ opinion, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan pushed back on his suggestion in their emphatic dissent. The Justices argued that all three cases mentioned by Thomas “are all part of the same constitutional fabric, protecting autonomous decisionmaking over the most personal of life decisions. “

“The majority (or to be more accurate, most of it) is eager to tell us today that nothing it does ‘cast(s) doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion’... But how could that be? The lone rationale for what the majority does today is that the right to elect an abortion is not ‘deeply rooted in history’: Not until Roe, the majority argues, did people think abortion fell within the Constitution’s guarantee of liberty”, they write.

“The same could be said, though, of most of the rights the majority claims it is not tampering with. The majority could write just as long an opinion showing, for example, that until the mid-20th century, ‘there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain (contraceptive).’ So one of two things must be true. Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid19th century are insecure. Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other. “

Many had speculated that the overturning of Roe would open up the door for the Supreme Court to review these landmark cases. Jim Obergefell, whose Ohio lawsuit was the case that led to SCOTUS legalizing same-sex marriage, told The Independent earlier this month that he was “terrified and people should be terrified.”

Good grief.

[madd0c0t0r2]

Jesus fucking Christ.

Commiserations y'all. this is gut wrenchingly dissapointing

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Roe vs Wade overturned as US allows states to ban abortion.
I'd say it's just begun. Fucking red states.

The US Supreme Court has ended constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years in a decision by its conservative majority to overturn Roe vs Wade.

It is now believed 26 states are either certain or likely to make moves to ban abortion outright.

The decision, unthinkable just a few years ago, was the culmination of decades of efforts by abortion opponents, made possible by an emboldened right side of the court that has seen three members appointed by former President Donald Trump.

The ruling came more than a month after the leak of a draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito indicating the court was prepared to take this momentous step.

Justice Alito, in the final opinion issued on Friday, wrote that Roe and Planned Parenthood vs Casey, the 1992 decision that reaffirmed the right to abortion, was wrong the day they were decided and must be overturned.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision,” he wrote.

The authority to regulate abortion rests with the political branches, not the courts, he added.

'Goodbye Roe,' anti-abortion protesters chant outside the Supreme Court

What is Roe vs Wade?

The Roe vs Wade ruling established a nationwide right to safe and legal abortion at any point before a foetus can survive outside the womb, generally around 24 weeks.

It was based on the decision that a woman's right to end her pregnancy came under the freedom of personal choice in family matters.

At the centre of the case was Norma McCorvey, whose legal challenge under the pseudonym “Jane Roe” led to the US Supreme Court’s landmark ruling.

She was 22, unmarried, unemployed and pregnant for the third time in 1969 when she sought to have an abortion in Texas, where the procedure was illegal except to save a woman’s life.

The subsequent lawsuit led to the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling that established abortion rights, though states could still restrict abortion to varying degrees.

Ms McCorvey later became an opponent to abortion.

What happens now Roe vs Wade has been overturned?

With the 1973 decision overruled, the power to decide on the legality of abortions and all the relevant details will be transferred in full back to each individual state.

In effect, this makes safe and legal abortions out of reach for millions of women across the country as Republican-dominated states move to ban the procedure.

It will likely not, however, end people getting abortions - critics say it would just end safe and legal routes of doing so and give rise to dangerous practices instead.

Some states still have unenforced laws predating 1973 that could come back to life immediately once the ruling is reversed. Others have so-called trigger laws that could be quickly enforced.

Polls show that most Americans want to preserve access to abortion - at least in the earlier stages of pregnancy - but the Supreme Court has now allowed individual states to have the final say.

Roughly half of states, mostly in the South and Midwest, are expected to quickly ban abortion.

What has the reaction been to the ruling?

Former US President Barack Obama tweeted that the Supreme Court's decision, "not only reversed nearly 50 years of precedent, it relegated the most intensely personal decision someone can make to the whims of politicians and ideologues—attacking the essential freedoms of millions of Americans."

"For more than a month, we’ve known this day was coming—but that doesn’t make it any less devastating," the former President added.

House speaker Nancy Pelosi, a vocal supporter of abortion rights, responded angrily to the decision on Friday, describing it as "extremism to the nth degree."

Ms Pelosi went on to say that overturning Roe was "an evisceration of Americans' rights" and a "slap in the face of women."

Speaking at the US Capitol, she warned: "Republicans are plotting a nationwide abortion ban. They cannot be allowed to have a majority in the Congress to do that."

Republicans are plotting a nationwide abortion ban,' says Nancy Pelosi

Rights group the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) tweeted: "We won't deny what a horrible moment this is."

"No matter what the courts say, no one should be forced to carry a pregnancy against their will," the group said, adding, "abortion is our right. We'll never stop fighting for it."

Boris Johnson said the US court's decision to overturn constitutional protections for abortion was a “big step backwards."

“I’ve always believed in a woman’s right to choose," the prime minister added.

Former first lady Michelle Obama said she was "heartbroken" by the decision in a statement shared on social media.

"I am heartbroken that we may now be destined to learn the painful lessons of a time before Roe was made law of the land - a time when women risked losing their lives getting illegal abortions," she said.

Mrs Obama urged the young people who would 'bear the burden' of the decision not to give up on fighting for their values.

"I know this is not the future you chose for your generation - but if you give up now, you will inherit a country that does not resemble you or any of the values you believe in," she continued.

Will it end with abortion?

Justice Clarence Thomas, who joined Justice Alito and who first voted to overrule Roe 30 years ago, also wrote a separate opinion in which he explicitly called on his colleagues to put the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage, gay sex and even contraception cases on the table.

This means Americans' rights to access contraception, marry a member of their own sex, and even engage in sex with a member of the same sex could also be under threat.

[The Infidel]

Yeah, the US is turning into a fascist oligarchy. These people doesn't give a shit about children, or else there would be sensible gun laws and laws that regulated that a parent could take several months of paid maternity leave without repercussions.

This old cartoon is more on the spot than ever:

[EnterpriseSovereign]

This is Donald's Trump's legacy thanks to his appointing Republican supreme court judges. Fitting, given his disgusting attitude towards women.

[Gandalf]

This is Donald's Trump's legacy thanks to his appointing Republican supreme court judges. Fitting, given his disgusting attitude towards women.

Indeed. It's quite the boost to any Trump 2024 campaign, as he can now say he was definitive in overturning Roe.

Also, shoutout to the voters who made this possible voting in the relevant presidents and senators, thinking they would never get someone in who would overturn Roe.

[Elfdart]

Amanda Marcotte sums it up well here:

Donald Trump may be out of office, but his stubby misogynist fingers are still grabbing Americans by the pussy.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

This is Donald's Trump's legacy thanks to his appointing Republican supreme court judges. Fitting, given his disgusting attitude towards women.

Indeed. It's quite the boost to any Trump 2024 campaign, as he can now say he was definitive in overturning Roe.

Also, shoutout to the voters who made this possible voting in the relevant presidents and senators, thinking they would never get someone in who would overturn Roe.

Midterms are in November, you can bet abortions are going to be front and centre of each candidate's campaign.

[Highlord Laan]

This is Donald's Trump's legacy thanks to his appointing Republican supreme court judges. Fitting, given his disgusting attitude towards women.

Indeed. It's quite the boost to any Trump 2024 campaign, as he can now say he was definitive in overturning Roe.

Also, shoutout to the voters who made this possible voting in the relevant presidents and senators, thinking they would never get someone in who would overturn Roe.

Midterms are in November, you can bet abortions are going to be front and centre of each candidate's campaign.

Too bad the fascist fucks have most of their seats on lockdown through gerrymandering and other typical forms undermining actual voting. It's the only way the worthless bastards can keep their screaming religious fanatics and derelict rich old men in power.

[Solauren]

I'm glad Roe vs Wade was struct down, and it looks like other similar rulings are about to be struck down in the United States.

Hold the Flame Throwers, and I'll explain why.

Because I'm hoping this outrages enough people, to see the Republican Party, under it's current leadership and configuration, swept out of as many offices are possible.

According to 2018 data, approximately 68 percent of all women in the United States were against overturning Roe vs Wade.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/892 ... filiation/

Roughly 68 percent of women overall, 83% of Democrats, 48 percent of Republicans.

According to https://www.infoplease.com/us/census/de ... statistics
That would be about 70 MILLION women in favor of Roe vs Wade. (Out of a little over 209 million citzens over the age of 18)

And the Republican party, and the government of every red state, basically just told them to 'shut up and go back to birthing babies'.

So, they've pissed off a very large chunk of the voter base, across all groups, before the elections have even begun.


I hope that, the loses to the Republicans will be so wide spread and devastating, the Democrats will rally, and deal with things like Civil Rights, Gun Control, and the like, shit the Republicans fight against tooth and nail.


Really, I'm hoping this is the match that lights the fire that burns out the corruption the Republicans have put into the United States, and then out of the Republican party themselves, turning them back into a decent political party.

I can hope anyway.

[Zaune]

You might be right.

Shame about all the collateral damage, though.

[Solauren]

You might be right.

Shame about all the collateral damage, though.

Really, serves people right for letting it get this far.

[Ralin]

Yeah that's not going to happen and even if it does they'll fall back on their tried and true strategy of obstructing the government from functioning until they're back in charge again. If anything it benefits them that any backlash land this year instead of in 2024.

Saying that some horrible Republican thing will be the last straw that buries them a wave of popular outrage has never worked before and it won't work now.

Especially since the Democrats weren't inclined to do anything to stop it from happening and likely won't make any serious effort to undo it.

[Crazedwraith]

I can't vouch for it's accuracy but I did see this post pointing out all the democrat effort to formalise Roe Vs Wade as law repeatedly since 2013. The idea they've not been trying seems to be wrong. Though the idea they're ineffective, less so.

[Solauren]

Yeah that's not going to happen and even if it does they'll fall back on their tried and true strategy of obstructing the government from functioning until they're back in charge again. If anything it benefits them that any backlash land this year instead of in 2024.

Depends on how elections go in November. If the Republicans lose enough seats due to backlash, that might not be able to get away with that. They'll try, but maybe not succeed.

Saying that some horrible Republican thing will be the last straw that buries them a wave of popular outrage has never worked before and it won't work now.

All I'm going is hoping this will start a process.

Especially since the Democrats weren't inclined to do anything to stop it from happening and likely won't make any serious effort to undo it.

The Democracts are always trying. It's just not advertised because the major news channels lien or are controlled by Republicans.
Simply put, the Republicans scream to loud for the Democrats to be heard clearly.

[Jub]

Yeah that's not going to happen and even if it does they'll fall back on their tried and true strategy of obstructing the government from functioning until they're back in charge again. If anything it benefits them that any backlash land this year instead of in 2024.

Depends on how elections go in November. If the Republicans lose enough seats due to backlash, that might not be able to get away with that. They'll try, but maybe not succeed.

Saying that some horrible Republican thing will be the last straw that buries them a wave of popular outrage has never worked before and it won't work now.

All I'm going is hoping this will start a process.

Especially since the Democrats weren't inclined to do anything to stop it from happening and likely won't make any serious effort to undo it.

The Democracts are always trying. It's just not advertised because the major news channels lien or are controlled by Republicans.
Simply put, the Republicans scream to loud for the Democrats to be heard clearly.

If the Dems played the game half as hard as the Republicans do they wouldn't get stonewalled at every turn and the Republicans would get just as little done whenever they hold office. Seeing as this isn't the case, I think it's fair to ask if the Democrats are actually playing the game to win or if they like winning a ton while getting sweet fuck all accomplished.

[Ralin]

Given that their president had been a prolifer for most of his (very long) career and is personally a devout Catholic...

[Straha]

I'm glad Roe vs Wade was struct down, and it looks like other similar rulings are about to be struck down in the United States.

Hold the Flame Throwers, and I'll explain why.

Because I'm hoping this outrages enough people, to see the Republican Party, under it's current leadership and configuration, swept out of as many offices are possible.

According to 2018 data, approximately 68 percent of all women in the United States were against overturning Roe vs Wade.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/892 ... filiation/

Roughly 68 percent of women overall, 83% of Democrats, 48 percent of Republicans.

According to https://www.infoplease.com/us/census/de ... statistics
That would be about 70 MILLION women in favor of Roe vs Wade. (Out of a little over 209 million citzens over the age of 18)

And the Republican party, and the government of every red state, basically just told them to 'shut up and go back to birthing babies'.

So, they've pissed off a very large chunk of the voter base, across all groups, before the elections have even begun.

Two core problems with this theory:

1. This assumes people will vote because of abortion. People care about it, but other things will get prioritized over it (economy, other social issues, the court). A quick gut-check on this: none of this is new, people have known about the GOP hating abortion since the '70s. If this motivated people to vote they wouldn't have elected Trump with an empty SCOTUS seat looming.

2.
A. Democrats have no plan to fix the problem. Judicial paths are a dead end, they can't undo the composition of the court, they're not going to engage in systemic court reform, and they're not packing. They could go a legislative path to codify Roe into law, but they've never done it when they had the chance nor can they do it now without getting rid of the filibuster which they've indicated they have no inclination of doing. Which dovetails with...
B. Anything they could promise to do after the mid-terms they could do now. That they don't leads to a massive credibility gap when it comes to selling this coming election as meaningful. And as long as that's the case it's basically impossible to turn this from "People are mad" into Dem victories, because Dem victories are meaningless in this fight, and Dem leadership has made it clear that whatever lip service they may offer they don't really care (see: them pulling out all the stops to defend anti-abortion Cuellar in Texas.) Meanwhile the Federal GOP (reps and Senators) can hide behind the fig lead of calling it a state issue now and even handwring about how they were misled if they so choose (See: Murkowski).

Basically, unless Biden is willing to get off his ass and force some changes, and unless the Democrats in the Senate are actually willing to move, the end result is a lot of angry folks and not a lot of mobilization.

[MKSheppard]

Chevron might get overturned tomorrow (30 June) -- the case involving it hasn't been released yet.

[Crazedwraith]

And Chevron is? For those of us not up on American legal precedence.

[Straha]

The concept that the executive can interpret vague statutory language in ways it so chooses as a matter of administrative principle.

It stems from the act which authorized the EPA (NEPA) banning "pollutants" without defining them. The EPA (a branch of the executive) can interpret what is and isn't a pollutant as a result of what is called the Chevron doctrine.

Chevron is highly contentious, significant amounts of Republicans hate it because it enables executive overreach, including Neil Gorsuch who despises it (ironically, his mother was the former head of the EPA.) Significant amounts of Republicans love it too though, and Chevron was largely Scalia's baby back in the day.

Getting rid of it will wreck the power of the executive in real and meaningful ways.

[LadyTevar]

Side note:

State of West Virginia vs EPA is next up on the docket.

I'll be honest, I LIVE HERE, and I had no idea WV was involved in suing the EPA.
: Whether, in 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d), an ancillary provision of the Clean Air Act, Congress constitutionally authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to issue significant rules — including those capable of reshaping the nation’s electricity grids and unilaterally decarbonizing virtually any sector of the economy — without any limits on what the agency can require so long as it considers cost, nonair impacts and energy requirements.

Unsurprisingly, we were joined by the State of North Dakota, and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the National Mining Association, Basin Electric Power, American Electric Power, and North American Coal Company.

BTW: American Electric Power and North American Coal Company have been Fined *REPEATEDLY* by the EPA for violating the Clean Air Act.

[Tsyroc]

The attorney general of Arizona tweeted that a 120 year old law from when Arizona was a territory will go into effect banning abortion when the courts lift the injunction that was put in place because of Roe v. Wade.

There's already a new law going into effect that allows abortion within 15 weeks for for the pregnant person's safety but supposedly this law passed by the Arizona legislature and signed by the governor does not supersede a law that did not go through the legislative process and was from before the state was a state.

Based on some of what the attorney general tweeted I don't know if he was suggesting that the courts not remove the injunction, or maybe declare the old law invalid, or suggest the legislature quickly make it so that law has been repealed. Either that or he's a dick and plans to be a dick about it.

Either way he should probably not expect to win his bid to be Arizona's next senator. He hasn't made it through the primaries yet but from what I understand all of the candidates are anti-abortion all the way. Which probably means Mark Kelly might not have as hard a time being reelected as people might have thought. Given how the Biden administration has been going I was thinking he'd get curb stomped. It still might not be easy but he might have a shot. His anti-gun leaning can't hurt him that much after the recent 2A SCOTUS rulings.

[MKSheppard]

SCOTUS ruled in favor of WV; it appears to be a partial overturning of Chevron; it's not completely gutted, but it's been cut down.



and

Agencies have only those powers given to them by Congress, and “enabling legislation” is generally not an “open book to which the agency [may] add pages and change the plot line.”

[MKSheppard]

This may have significant impacts immediately on teh ATF; since so much of gun stuff is actually ATF making it up as they go, not written down in statute.

Pistol Brace Rule(s)
80% Receiver Rule(s)
Suppressor Part Rules(s)

are DOA now, it all depends on how lower courts react to this ruling.