Texas 6-week abortion ban takes effect after Supreme Court inaction

I'm curious about this. I know there's a line of argumentation that men shouldn't opine about abortion issues because they can't get pregnant. Is that the thinking you're adopting here? It's never struck me as sound logic or likely to result in good policy. We, the citizens of this nation, get to offer input into the decision-making process on a whole range of issues that have not yet, and probably never will, directly affect each of us individually. We don't regularly just turn the nation's decision-making process over to the group with the most vested interest. Gun owners don't get exclusive rights to set gun laws. Soldiers don't get exclusive rights to determine if, when, and which, country we invade. Parents of school-age children don't get to set our education policies. Likewise, women of child-bearing years don't get sole rights to determine the nation's (or state's) abortion policies. When they try to tell men / post-menopausal women to S.T.F.U., they deserve ridicule, not deference.

 

I've never heard that. Everyone has a right to his opinion. What I have heard is that the decision to abort is not a man's to make, and with that I agree.

Men are certainly allowed to input their opinions in the lawmaking process. One side supports the woman's choice, the other gives the fetus rights. That's a decision both should make. What I don't like is decisions based on religion.

 

Psaki gave voice to that line of thinking just the other day:

Psaki lashes out at male reporter over Biden abortion question

 

That's a huge stretch. Yes, Psaki may have "lashed out" (boo-hoo), but her answer was what I just wrote. Biden supports a woman's choice.

 

Can the Left not phrase anything properly? It's not a BAN.. it merely holds the abortionist liable if they abort after 6 weeks. To call it a ban is to tell a lie.

 

Look at this dumb statement from Breyer

SNIP
Despite calls to expand the size of the Supreme Court, Justice Stephen Breyer has stood firm in his belief that such a reform will erode public faith in the institution.

"One party could do it, I guess another party could do it. On the surface, it seems to me that you start changing these things around, and people will lose trust in the court," Breyer said in an excerpt of an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace airing Sunday.
ENDSNIP

https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-stephen-breyer-says-biden-155954427.html

Did he NOT see how the last 2 justices were appointed to this court for life? Or read the decision he dissented on in this case?

Those are the things that will cause people to lose trust in the court and already have....

It's ALREADY packed, Stevie.... Biden would only be potentially fixing something, not breaking it...

 

I agree with Breyer, though there are limits which are being pushed.

The makeup of the Court is inherently political, and tradition has been pushed aside by Republicans to the extreme we now see. We can't solve this with even more politicization. The issue of near-election appointments can be easily solved with legislation or simple rule changes.

The more the Supreme Court looks like Congress, the more political it will become, and the public may indeed see it this way and lose faith. We need to take politics out of the SC, by reforming the nomination process; injecting more politics would not only change public opinion, it would certainly backlash over time.

 

Well, the argument for balancing is certainly a fair one on either side, but he's clearly implying people haven't already lost faith in the SCOTUS.

I think that ship sailed the day Gorsuch was confirmed... and it's not coming back to port anytime soon.. That was the end of my personal belief in the SCOTUS....

Bottom line - The majority will respect the court more when the court is more in agreement with the majority...

 

What the Republicans have done does not meet the traditional definition of "court-packing".

 

Your personal belief aside, people's respect for the Supreme Court is about where it was during the Obama administration. Confidence in Institutions | Gallup Historical Trends

Despite the frantic screaming from the Left, the Supreme Court, as an institution, has not seen the public's confidence in it appreciably decline during or since the Trump administration.

If you want to see what an actual decline looks like, take a look at the confidence numbers for "television news". They're in the ******* now, approaching Congress' bottom-of-the-barrel numbers.

 

What definition is that??

This guy calls what they did "classic court packing"

https://www.rutgers.edu/news/what-court-packing

What the Republicans meets any logical layman definition of court packing....

What Biden should be considering would not... if he got the 2 sides more in balance, especially with the makeup of the country, where for once, popular vote should be a consideration....

 

The dictionary definition:

Court-packing | Definition of Court-packing by Merriam-Webster

Republicans did not "pack the court", but that's exactly what you're calling for Biden to do.

 

If public trust has waned, it's because of the recent politics behind the Court's makeup. The Court itself really hasn't been a cause for concern.

U.S. Supreme Court v. American public opinion: the verdict is in | Harvard Kennedy School

Given that Roberts is now the person most likely to cast a pivotal fifth vote, most court watchers expected the court to shift to the right across key issues. But that did not happen this year. Instead, the court ruled in favor of the liberal position across key cases, including the cases involving LGBTQ rights, abortion access, DACA, and presidential powers.

Like other court watchers, we were surprised. After all, Roberts was the key swing vote on many of these cases, and he’s hardly liberal.

However, our study showed that the court’s position in every major case this term was exactly in line with public opinion. This could provide helpful context for the otherwise surprising rulings. For example, in Bostock v. Clayton County—the court’s LGBTQ-workers’ rights case—our data showed that 83 percent of Americans believed that it should be illegal to terminate a worker because of LGBT status. The number was still high—74 percent--looking only at the Republicans in the study.

Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh side with liberal Supreme Court justices in computer fraud case | Fox News

^^^ not a big case, but shows moderation.

I think we need to wait and see. Roe v Wade is gonna come up, and that may be the line in the sand. Myself, I have faith in the Court, and I really don't see Roe being overturned.

 

Agreed. What McConnell did was temporary reverse-packing. It was underhanded, regardless of what it's called.

 

We shall see, but that Texas failure to preserve the status quo on abortion in Texas makes little sense to anybody who follows the general procedures of the SCOTUS... I read some of Roberts dissent on that and think he's on the money..

What IF this court sides with Mississippi?? Still gonna have faith?

 

Yeah?? Sorry, that's not how I see it.... Denying Garland his hearing is a clear cut case of "an attempt to change the ideological makeup of the court."... It might not have involved changing the number of the court, but there couldn't be a clearer attempt to change the makeup of an Obama nominee for an unknown in 2017.

If you want to hang your hat on McConnell keeping it at nine as not being court packing, be my guest...

 

If the Court overrules Roe, then it has crossed a line, IMO. And if this happens, it may take some time, but eventually abortion would be legal in every state that outlawed it.

I'm not sure increasing the size of the Court would be beneficial. It would give the impression that these vital issues are decided by push-button, which is what we're trying to prevent.

Overruling precedent isn't something done without process nor reason, at least until now, it seems.

The Rights and Wrongs of Overruling Precedent – Reason.com

The Supreme Court has over time developed four factors to consider when overturning precedent: the quality of the past decision's reasoning, its consistency with related decisions, legal developments since the past decision, and reliance on the decision throughout the legal system and society.

When the court last month overruled Nevada v. Hall – a four-decade-old precedent concerning states' immunity from lawsuits in other states' courts – in a 5-4 decision along ideological lines, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in dissent that none of the four factors justified the majority's reasoning.

"The majority has surrendered to the temptation to overrule Hall even though it is a well-reasoned decision that has caused no serious practical problems in the four decades since we decided it," he wrote. "Today's decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next…"

 

I agree (with the bold), but your eventually doesn't help women in need now in Texas or soon in the other drag-women-around-by-the-hair states...

 

Yes, it's not a cut and dried issue, and none of the options are very attractive.

 

The only good option was to leave the status quo in Texas until their law is determined to be constitutional, because there's a reasonable chance it isn't and many people are directly affected now. That used to be an easy call to get a stay/freeze/TRO (whichever was formally requested here)

I'm still really disappointed I haven't heard of a single wealthy/brave doctor in Texas continuing to perform services in Texas.... The fastest way to get this to go away (and it's still pitifully slow) is to put it directly to the test.

I admire what Garland did, but that will probably take longer....

 

I wasn't particularly thinking along those lines, but I do feel women's voice should be at the table, so to speak.

 

Who claims, beside the abortionistas and the satanists, that the have the right to stop another's beating heart?

DOJ FILES BASELESS SUIT AGAINST TEXAS OVER ITS ABORTION LAW

"The Biden/Garland Justice Department has sued the state of Texas over its new anti-abortion law. Whatever one’s views of the Texas law, the DOJ’s suit is baseless. Its filing demonstrates that under Joe Biden and Merrick Garland, the DOJ has become a hyper-partisan, unprincipled, and lawless tool of the left."

"DOJ lacks authority to file any lawsuit unless a statute grants litigation authority to the Attorney General. The DOJ’s complaint cites no statute granting such authority."

Biden just gets dumber and dumber. Now? Lawsuit abuse, on top of the rest of his FU's.

 

The heart isn’t actually beating at 6 weeks — anyone that says so isn't medically proficient or they are simply dishonest. Who besides the pro-birth crowd believe they have the right to control what civil contracts people can sign and what people must do with their own womb?

I do have to applaud the right for giving the left a way to come after guns in their states without breaching the constitution. Bravo, really

Y’all always seem to do what you accuse the left of doing — paving the way for it.

 

Yes, since there are way less female misogynists than male misogynists.


There were so many women's voices "at the table" in Mexico that abortion is now legal there ....making it a more enlightened country than this one.

And Texas women can now have "vacations" in Mexico

 

Then don't sweat it.

These folks believe they have the right to protect a beating heart.

Lots of gun topics or start a new one. That's not the topic here.