Anyone listening to SCOTUS oral arguments this morning....
- Thread starter Jimmy McGill
- Start date
How do you see it shaking out? Something tells me Roberts will vote sanely, but who knows.
Kavanaugh and Alito will side with Mississippi.
Soto, Hagen, Roberts, Breyer will over turn Mississippi law.
Gorsuch has not asked much. Thomas is wild card. He has asked more questions than usual. I just don't know enough about Barrett.
Soto, Hagen, Roberts, Breyer will over turn Mississippi law.
Gorsuch has not asked much. Thomas is wild card. He has asked more questions than usual. I just don't know enough about Barrett.
How many women with unplanned pregnancies dont realize that they are pregnant 15 weeks in? I'm guessing quite a few.
Not being sexist at all. There have been instances when women didn't realize they were pregnant until they had a child.
To be fair, it cuts both ways depending on the dominant "party" on the court. However, I agree with the sentiment.
So we should allow abortion shortly after birth just to cover for them. *sigh*
Regardless Roe won't be overturned.
They couldn't overturn it through congress because you literally can't overturn a supreme court decision through congress.
Remember the original Roe v. Wade decision overturned the laws of all but 4 states!!!
So yeah of course they focused on the court. That's the only way you could advance the issue.
Everyone knew Soto was a disaster when nominated. She just proved it today. You see such a mess on the supreme court and you start to see why society is slowly deteriorating.
And it should be upheld by the court based on endless precedence but per that Senators takes it won't be because the Court is an illegitimate partisan trash heap.
I would be astounded, absolutely astounded if the court sides with Roe. At this point the best chance for Roe is Gorsuch who wasn't particularly friendly to the arguments against Mississippi.
Basically, the Cons were saying, leave it to the states. I guess that opens the door to poll taxes, lynchings, etc. in the South
Why Amy Conehead must recuse herself.
thehill.com
Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s own words require her to recuse herself in abortion cases
To follow her own words in a 1998 law review article, Barrett should have recused herself.
thehill.com
I have a friend who only has a few periods a year. She would certainly fall under this category.
My wife period would be anywhere 12-16 weeks apart. Wouldn't know she was pregnant until the morning sickness started.
Not every precedent is a good one. Should the court have upheld Plessy v. Ferguson??
In fact Wikipedia has a long list of Supreme court rulings that were later reversed.
List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia
How is the government forcing women to assume the risks and costs of pregnancy anything like Plessy?Not every precedent is a good one. Should the court have upheld Plessy v. Ferguson??
In fact Wikipedia has a long list of Supreme court rulings that were later reversed.
List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
It's not directly comparable I'm pointing out that not every precedent is a good one.
As to why it's good, it's because the child as a right to life that overwrites everyone else's rights.
Right to life > bodily autonomy > freedom of religion > property rights
A
anon_b29nm7v7dwp6r
Guest
Unless that right conflicts with someone’s right to own guns….then the 2nd amendment rules….
considering another school shooting yesterday I wish all the GOP would take your position on everything
If it's not comparable then it shouldn't be a critical argument towards ruling against Roe.
How do you feel about frozen embryos? Do they have the right to life?
The same exact context that Hoosier brought up. And it was brought up in nearly every round of questioning by the conservative justices.
Only way to overturn a SCOTUS decision without the SCOTUS is a constitutional amendment which is a near impossible hurdle to clear and takes 75% of the states.
We can't even clear that hurdle to get rid of the electoral college which has proven itself to be ineffective at it's original intentions.
The argument from precedent when in the SCOTUS is not a good one because the SCOTUS can overrule it's own precedents and has done so hundreds of times. Plessy is just the most well known.
Politically or religiously
Religiously I would tend towards yes
Politically I would say no.
Politically as I have maintained several times my view is that the beginning of life is the first flicker of brain function. Frozen embroyos don't have that.
Why would an unviable fetus' life trump the life of the mother? It was pointed out that the risk factor of death increases some 16 times by carrying a pregnancy to term. What right does the state have to force women to assume this risk?
It's pointing out that an argument from precedent is a bad one. The supreme court can and has over-ruled itself.
I hope they do with this, but I don't think they will.
Overturning Roe would take a lot of backbone.
Similar threads
