Dobbs is issued, and Roe and Casey are overturned
In a vote that was telegraphed in advance by the unusual leak, SCOTUS has overruled Roe and Casey, thus ending federal control over the states’ ability to set their own abortion laws.
My original prediction for Dobbs prior to the leak (and I don’t have time to locate it right now) was that Roberts would opt for a narrow ruling that upheld the Mississippi state law involved but left Roe and Casey for another day, and that one or two of the other conservative justices might agree with him and thus the can would be kicked down the road. That didn’t happen. The other conservative justices held firm against the precedents of Roe and Casey, and Roberts himself did exactly as predicted (although he reluctantly concurred with the majority), and therefore the Mississippi law was upheld 6-3 and Roe and Casey have been overturned.
As for the liberal justices, they voted exactly as expected.
There is little doubt in my mind that Roe and Casey were terrible decisions in the legal sense. It used to be that even many legal scholars on the left acknowledged that even if they approved of the result. But after Roe’s having been in place for nearly fifty years, several generations have grown up assuming it will continue to be the law. To me, the legal arguments against Roe and Casey are exceptionally strong, but the political repercussions are potentially as bad as the ruling itself was. It really depends on the reaction of the left – which at the moment is of course fury – and what that might lead to.
AOC has predictably said this:
Speaking outside the Supreme Court, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) told protesters that “right now, elections are not enough” to reclaim abortion rights in America “we have to fill the streets.”
Insurrection, anyone? Will AOC be impeached for this? No, of course not. It’s particularly horrendous that she’s saying those words in light of the recent arrest of a man planning to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh, but hey, rabble-rousers gotta rabble-rouse. The real question is whether the protests will amount to anything, and what effect the Dobbs ruling will have on the vote in November.
What will different states end up doing about abortion, now that they are able to enact whatever abortion laws they wish, from strict to permissive? Blue states can continue to have abortion on demand, so most Democratic voters won’t find that this limits abortion in their states at all. Red states can do what they want, which will be varying degrees of prohibition that remain to be seen. More moderate states will almost certainly be in the middle. This is where we would have been, I think, without the fifty years of turmoil that Roe engendered. But now turmoil seems to be rampant in the US, and not just about abortion.
One fear I have, as an older person, is that illegal abortion will take the place of legal abortion and the results will be quite a few deaths of pregnant women. Those who believe that every abortion is murder probably will say it’s a tradeoff they’re willing to make to preserve the lives of so many unborn. I’ve written a great deal on abortion, and I refer you to this list if you want to learn them, with a more personal story here.
My hope – although I think it’s a vain one – is that this ruling will cause a lot more people to use birth control more assiduously. That wouldn’t eliminate unwanted pregnancies, but it would help reduce them. If abortion isn’t such an easily available backup, logic would dictate that might happen – but sex is an area where logic so often falters.
As for the decision itself, I haven’t read the whole thing, just short parts of it. Here are some excerpts:
…[I]n 1973, this Court decided Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113. Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one. It did not claim that American law or the common law had ever recognized such a right, and its survey of history ranged from the constitutionally irrelevant (e.g., its discussion of abortion in antiquity) to the plainly incorrect (e.g., its assertion that abortion was probably never a crime under the common law). After cataloging a wealth of other information having no bearing on the meaning of the Constitution, the opinion concluded with a numbered set of rules much like those that might be found in a statute enacted by a legislature…
…Roe…It imposed the same highly restrictive regime on the entire Nation, and it effectively struck down the abortion laws of every single State.
Justice Byron White aptly put it in his dissent, the decision represented the “exercise of raw judicial power,” and it sparked a national controversy that has embittered our political culture for a half century.
Eventually, in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), the Court revisited Roe, but the Members of the Court split three ways…
Paradoxically, the judgment in Casey did a fair amount of overruling. Several important abortion decisions were overruled in toto, and Roe itself was overruled in part. Casey threw out Roe’s trimester scheme and substituted a new rule of uncertain origin under which States were forbidden to adopt any regulation that imposed an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to have an abortion. The decision provided no clear guidance about the difference between a “due” and an “undue” burden. But the three Justices who authored the controlling opinion “call[ed] the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division” by treating the Court’s decision as the final settlement of the question of the constitutional right to abortion.
As has become increasingly apparent in the intervening years, Casey did not achieve that goal. Americans continue to hold passionate and widely divergent views on abortion, and state legislatures have acted accordingly…
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, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely–the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but
any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”The right to abortion does not fall within this category.
Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown in American law…
Stare decisis, the doctrine on which Casey’s controlling opinion was based, does not compel unending adherence to Roe’s abuse of judicial authority. Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences.
And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.
How many people even understand that’s what Dobbs now does – “returns the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives”? I would guess a lot of people think that Dobbs bans abortion, which it does not. The important issue of who decides – the federal judiciary or the state legislatures – which is the heart of Dobbs, is probably of little importance to a great many people, who want what they want.
[NOTE: Trump’s SCOTUS appointments led directly to Dobbs, as many have pointed out. But another important player was McConnell – whom many conservatives nevertheless detest – because he agreed to block Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to SCOTUS.]
“But another important player was McConnell”
Credit where credit is due and McConnell deserves his share. But let’s all remember that when he refused to allow a hearing for Garland, literally everyone expected Hillary to win the White House. So I don’t think you can argue that McConnell was expecting this result at all.
Mike
while having participated in abortions in medical school, I can say if its not murder it comes very close. But I’m still of the legal early and rare crowd. It scares me how blue states are permitting full term abortions which is ok with conquistadora types like Cortez.
I miss those days when people like Michal Kinsley would proudly say he was ” pro-choice and anti-Roe”
“My original prediction for Dobbs prior to the leak (and I don’t have time to locate it right now) was that Roberts would vote for a narrow ruling that upheld the Mississippi state law involved but left Roe and Casey for another day, and that one or two of the other conservative justices might agree with him and thus the can would be kicked down the road.”
That was my prediction as well. Even after the leak, I thought there was a decent chance Roberts could scramble and piece together some kind of patchwork to not formally overturn Roe, and strong arm either Gorsuch or Kavanaugh to go long.
Well, we were quite wrong.
In your penultimate paragraph, you first say Dodd and then Dobbs.
In many ways, it was easier with Roe, a really bad legal ruling, in effect. The opposition could rage all it wanted but the hard work of making law, and of compromising to make law, was out of reach.
I guess I am of the opinion that no, there will be no repercussions for the woke children. For the life of me I do not know why the SCOTUS issued this decision so close to the midterms. The GOP may have torpedoed itself once again by assuming everyone shares their values and that by projecting the same onto society they might somehow achieve something. It was a very, very stupid move, IMO. Again, this is putting the basic merits, which are true, to the side. We have to stop pretending that though that might have meaning to us, it sure doesn’t to the opposition.
There are many reasons to be discontent with the current administration, and this is such a divisive topic, it could not have come at a worst time; regardless of what the fallout may be, the violence, the mayhem; The White House will not condemn it, let alone try to reign it in. The 21st century just seems to be lost on the GOP, and they always act accordingly. Will we ever have a free and fair government again? I am skeptical. It’s a pyrrhic victory, at least at this particular time, and I do not know what they are trying to prove. It is certain they do not understand the internet generation. Nobody in that cohort is watching or listening to the stuff that purports to ‘educate’ them. Nope, it’s all Tik Tok radicalism and possibly checking a tweet or two. The vocal are preaching to the choir.
What they understand is that someone laid bricks out on the street for them and they can still go home to mom at night, and possibly collect a paycheck in the process. The mayhem will commence, and the current administration will do very little to dissuade it. It almost feels like begging for defea on the part of non-Demst in November, IMO.
Though I am very much in favor of states making these decisions, the timing of this was stupid beyond belief. Pray the midterms haven’t been utterly and completely thrown.
MBunge:
What you say makes no sense to me. Why would he block Garland – who at the time was reputed to be one of the more moderate possibilities (we now know that wasn’t true, but no one seemed to know it back then) – if he thought Hillary was certain to win and to probably nominate someone even more to the left than Garland? Nor do I think that he thought that the next Senate would end up being controlled by the right – that wasn’t forecast, either, and it didn’t happen.
I think he just thought that he would buy time, block Garland, and hope for the best in 2020 whatever it might be in terms of the election.
By the way, although McConnell is no Trump fan, he has said that he would vote for him for president if he’s nominated in 2024.
Sorry for the typos. Typing hastily.
Justice Kavanaugh: Regarding Griswold, Eisenstadt, Loving, and Obergefell, overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.
Justice Thomas: I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” . . . For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.
Does Thomas contradict himself (and Kavanaugh) here? I do not see the connection between “nothing should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion” and “for that reason, we should reconsider precedents including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”
Is Thomas simply saying that Griswold, Lawrence, Loving, and Obergefell should be seen as open to being overruled at some future point?
Using the standards – social & science – of the time we live in, it is not possible to find any citizen that supports Slavery. And many ponder how our ancestors could have done so.
In the future the same will be said of Abortion.
Kate:
I keep trying to make it Dodd! I don’t know why. Will fix.
I guess I am of the opinion that no, there will be no repercussions for the woke children. For the life of me I do not know why the SCOTUS issued this decision so close to the midterms. The GOP may have torpedoed itself once again by assuming everyone shares their values and that by projecting the same onto society they might somehow achieve something. It was a very, very stupid move, IMO. Again, this is putting the basic merits, which are true, to the side. We have to stop pretending that though that might have meaning to us, it sure doesn’t to the opposition.
You’re welcome to die on that other hill yonder, where they go to the mat for the Export Import Bank and minor reductions in marginal tax rates.
Well the left side of all my FB contacts are going absolutely nuts. The common theme is that all those conservatives want to turn back the clock so that all those nasty white Christian men are the only ones in charge; just like those that wrote the constitution. And, beware, they are coming for blacks, gays, and anyone who’s not a white male.
I knew the reaction would be crazy, but I have to now wonder if this is the spark that finally ignites CW2, or something close to it? There’s so much mental issues that many haven’t recovered from Covid, and now the economy heading down the tubes, people are at the breaking point. I have real doubts the country will make it through the next month, let alone the summer or to the fall election.
This is my understanding of this topic-
Lots of reporters keep saying that the Supreme Court “cancelled” the “Roe vs. Wade law”.
Not quite right.
First – Roe vs. Wade is a court decision, + not a law.
As I understand it-
The Federal, Supreme Court evaluates the Federal Laws, + then tells the Fed. govt., + everyone else in the USA, what a law CAN do in the USA.
The Supreme Court does not: make laws, cancel or [strike down] laws, or change parts of laws.
The Supreme Court doesn’t have the power to make or cancel laws.
“Though I am very much in favor of states making these decisions, the timing of this was stupid beyond belief. Pray the midterms haven’t been utterly and completely thrown.” – James
This very likely will have little effect on the midterms, or slightly favor conservatives if the left-wing fascists turn this into another summer of fire.
Blue states already have, or will soon have laws legalizing abortion on demand until the minute of birth.
States that restrict abortion have conservative majorities that reflect their constituencies.
A few states will likely battle to a draw, possibly allowing abortion with limits.
I stand by my position from six weeks ago, this throws Democrats an electoral lifeline. Up until today, the GOP was all but guaranteed to take the House. After today, the Democrats have a small chance of holding it; and while the GOP still is heavily favored, it’s much more likely they will only win a small majority.
I think the Democrats will now be favored to hold the Senate, either maintaining the tie, or gaining a seat or two
I certainly hope I’m wrong. And of course, none of the possible electoral consequences are a valid legal argument for upholding Roe. Still, I really wish SCOTUS had waited until next year.
Neo, it’s probably because Dodd-Frank was such a mess so it sticks in your mind.
“I knew the reaction would be crazy, but I have to now wonder if this is the spark that finally ignites CW2, or something close to it?”
I have wondered about the same. One of the primary catalysts for the Civil War was a divisive Supreme Court decision. Could this be a primary catalyst for a second civil war?
And no, I’m not comparing the substance of Dobbs to Dred Scott. Just considering the possibilities of where this might lead.
“There’s so much mental issues that many haven’t recovered from Covid, and now the economy heading down the tubes, people are at the breaking point.”
Absolutely!
“I have real doubts the country will make it through the next month, let alone the summer or to the fall election.”
Well I don’t think we are quite that close to the breaking point. But we are inching towards it. I think an unfavorable election to the left (either in 2022 or 2024) will be the breaking point.
the lizard caucus has been heard from
https://dossier.substack.com/p/roe-v-wade-aftermath-free-world-leaders
Yesterday we were told that something clearly in the constitution is in fact not there.
Today we are told something clearly not in the constitution is definitely there.
On the leak, have suspicion we will hear nothing more e about it, I doubt it was a Supreme Court Justice and it’s one of their clerks and a Leftist.
Glad it’s done but if it would have gone like Obama care and they weaseled their way out I think the Supreme Court would be done for as its now a political party. Leftist do turn it into politics as the all vote lock step.
Always need to remind yourself that Facebook and Twitter are not real life.
James and Brian E,
I think Dobbs and the gun control issue, plus J6 hearings will move a lot of votes. A big chunk of the electorate will not understand any of the finer points of these issues.
I had a conversation yesterday with a friend who is almost a political changer from left to right and he brought up another friend of ours who is eating up the J6 hearings hook, line, and sinker. The other friend is a highly educated person.
If that’s not depressing enough, there is this article. It is long on innuendo and short on facts, but it suggests that Biden is trying to weaponize all federal agencies that come in contact with large numbers of the public to do get-out-the-vote work, in conjunction with left wing NGO’s.
Brian E at 5:05 PM nails it.
Here In WA our dumbass governor is very upset by this and then in his next breath says this won’t affect the law in WA at all.
Well the left side of all my FB contacts are going absolutely nuts.
Hasn’t happened here. Saw comments from three people. One a woman we haven’t seen in ten years who makes dippy political posts betwixt and between pictures of her quilting projects, pictures of her three grown sons, and an infrequent anathema issued her ex-husband. Another a bachelor clergyman who is assiduous about keeping his non-superficial sentiments to himself. And the third the chief blowhard among our shirt-tails (father of four, lapsed schoolteacher, severe case of COVID panic). The three persons in question are, respectively, 71, 42, and 44 years of age.
TommyJay:
Move them where? From Democrat to more intense Democrat?
The January 6th hearings, for example, have not changed polls nor have they even drawn much of an audience. I don’t know that any votes will change because of Dobbs or gun control, either, although they might. I think, though, that they will merely intensify anger on the left, which isn’t a movement of votes.
If Gallup is a reasonable reflection of actual sentiment, only 5% think abortion is the most important issue for them. We do not even know the percentage on either side of the issue. The economy totally dominates all other concerns.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/Most-Important-Problem.aspx
I think Dobbs and the gun control issue, plus J6 hearings will move a lot of votes.
Where?
The smart money says the vote mover is the inflation and incipient recession.
Ackler:
Do you base that opinion on polls, or observation, or what? Do you know people who were planning to vote Republican who will now change to Democrat?
I don’t know such people, although I suppose they exist.
I also think there were apathetic people on the right who pointed to the failure to overrule Roe as an example of the idea that Democrats and Republicans constitute a uniparty and it doesn’t matter who they vote for because it’s all the same. Maybe this will energize them to get out to vote for Republicans whereas they might have stayed home before.
Who knows?
That’s why I ask you what you’re basing your opinion on.
The gun case yesterday only applied to six states I believe as all the others were in compliance.
And this today does nothing to all the deep blue states and probably little to most of the purple states.
These two rulings have gotten a huge amount of coverage and I’m not saying they are not major but very little will change probably.
But just in case Dick’s Sporting Goods (and a bunch of other corps) will pay for your travel to get your abortion. Until they quietly stop at some point in the not too distant future.
Living in a deep blue state surrounded by crazy leftists can warp your perception if you aren’t careful.
I doubt it was a Supreme Court Justice and it’s one of their clerks and a Leftist.
Marc Esposito, a Richmond trial lawyer who’s a regular at Turley’s, is of the opinion that the perp was an administrative employee of the court. His reasoning is that no elite young lawyer would for nebulous gain risk disbarment and risk possible criminal charges (if placed under oath by investigators). An alternative hypothesis is that Sotomayor forwarded the draft to the Administration so they could prepare and (contrary to her intentions), some nosepicker therein leaked it to Politico. (IMO, the clerk who makes the most plausible candidate of those profiled to date currently works for Breyer).
As to waiting for the right time to release the decision– doing it without regard to politics is how conservatives wish the Supreme Court operated– apolitical. Since Bjork was Bjorked, it’s been hard to consider the Court as anything but an extension of the political parties.
“Why would he block Garland – who at the time was reputed to be one of the more moderate possibilities”
It was a flex. He could do it. He knew it would play well with the GOP base and not annoy his corporate buddies. He probably wanted to return fire for Harry Reid nuking the filibuster for judicial nominations. And I doubt he expected Hillary to nominate anyone more liberal than Garland.
I think McConnell’s political brilliance is overstated but I find it hard to believe he would do something like deny a hearing to a President’s Supreme Court nominee with no more thought than just crossing his fingers and wishing for the best.
Mike
To those concerned over the timing of the decision, I for one take heart in Alito’s comment:
We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today’s decision overruling Roe and Casey. And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision.
“No authority” – what a quaint concept. How do we get more figures throughout the branches of government to embrace it?
This issue flabbergasts me. There are multiple birth control methods available these days. There is also abstinence. 🙁 But considering all the contraception available today, one would think the number of unwanted pregnancies would be relatively small and less of a problem in our society. Apparently not.
Many people will say they want abortions to be safe. We all know that abortion will continue even if it’s illegal. That way is not safe. Thus, the need for it to be legal. But if it’s to be legal, shouldn’t there be some restrictions? Shouldn’t there also be alternatives? I have always thought that the majority of people could hash those issues out. But no. It seems too many are unwilling to compromise.
Many people who claim to be pro “choice” are hostile to centers that allow women with unwanted pregnancies to choose to have their babies and place them for adoption. They claim to be all for women’s “reproductive health choices,” when they actually only favor unreproductive choices. There should be room for women to make either of those choices.
The state of Washington is already proclaiming itself an abortion tourism destination state. 🙁 Noises are being made about paying the costs for these “tourists” to come and have abortions. (I hope it’s not taxpayer money they’re talking about.) That’s about as pro-abortion as it gets. Our AG is assuring women that they will be able to get an abortion on demand up to the 25th week of pregnancy and later depending on “circumstances.”
If Jane’s Revenge carries out their threat to riot all over the country, I think it will be bad for the Democrat’s. Independents and even many moderate Dems are sick of the violence and the Democrat mayors/governors/ DOJ letting it happen with no pushback. Even they see the rule of law as being violated because of partisan politics.
Move them where?
Move them from the mushy independent middle to Democrat. Those folks would have voted on economic issues, but probably won’t now.
Move the lazy, but now motivated Democrats to the polls or mailbox in CA.
Move the unmotivated youth to register for the first time. Biden’s operatives may even offer little gifts if they do so. Gifts were documented in 2020. At Indian reservations IIRC. They got away with before; expand the program.
MBunge:
I think you’re a very poor mind-reader.
At the time of the Garland nomination, every single piece on the right said that Garland was one of the more moderate possibilities. It turned out to be wrong, but it was absolutely thought to be the case from his previous career. It was discussed over and over that McConnell’s gambit might backfire because undoubtedly if Hillary was elected (which most people although not all thought would happen) she would be almost guaranteed to nominate someone further to the left.
TommyJay:
You have offered zero evidence for your assertions. In recent polls, even after the leak of Dobbs, very few people were saying abortion would be an important issue for the in 2022.
And of course the left had been already intensifying its drive to enroll and motivate every single person to vote that it possibly can.
However, you could be correct. I simply don’t know. But neither do you.
Neo’s comment to MBunge begs the question, “What was McConnell‘s rationale at the time?” Certainly he must have explained himself. What politician doesn’t love to do so?
I honestly don’t remember, and am too lazy to look it up. It does strike me as unrealistic he thought Hillary might not win.
Was McConnell just trying to fire up the base and get out the vote for all Republicans not just Trump?
Not saying he had no principled opposition to Garland but I think it is hard to believe he really thought Trump would win at that point in time.
Re: November
People care WAY more about $6/gallon gas than they do about having the “right” to kill babies up to delivery.
No truer words than “It’s the economy, stupid” have ever been spoken.
Keep sending our money to Ukraine; keep paying off other people’s student loans.
Tell us Putin is making all this stagflation happen. Short of another massive steal—red wave.
Mike Plaiss; Griffin:
Of course, we don’t know what was in his mind. Can’t assume he was telling the truth. What he said was that because the election would be so soon, we should wait and give the American people a chance to say who they wanted to be in charge of nominating the next SCOTUS justice.
I think he thought it was at least possible that Trump would win. If he let Garland be approved, there was no chance of a Republican nominee. He was willing to roll the dice for a chance, even a small one.
I think he thought it was at least possible that Trump would win. If he let Garland be approved, there was no chance of a Republican nominee. He was willing to roll the dice for a chance, even a small one.
Yes, that sounds reasonable. But if true, then MBunge has a point. Good job Mitch.
neo,
For me anyway the major problem with McConnell on a lot of things is he does what’s best for his power and who he believes are his backers not the actual base of his party.
I don’t for one second think that Chuck Schumer believes all this woke crap (there are numerous clips of him saying all kinds of things that would make him a moderate now) but he knows where the base of his party is and he goes with it.
McConnell, much like McCain gets all severe conservative around election time but then he gets all compromisy when the election is over.
That’s how we have the Republican senators voting for gun control and 15 house Republicans going along with it while zero Democrats go the other way.
McConnell, fair or not, encapsulates that kind of Republican for many and therefore he doesn’t get much of a benefit of the doubt when he does things we like and agree with.
“It was discussed over and over that McConnell’s gambit might backfire because undoubtedly if Hillary was elected (which most people although not all thought would happen) she would be almost guaranteed to nominate someone further to the left.”
So…what’s your theory? Mine is that McConnell knew he was in a situation that might not occur again for a century or more, so he decided to do a little political grandstanding. Throw the base some red meat. Fire a warning shot at Democrats not to screw around with Senate rules. Maybe collect a scalp to improve his own political standing. But ultimately he didn’t think it was going to matter all that much.
Your theory is…
A. He wanted to stop a supposedly more moderate nominee for the Supreme Court so Hillary could pick someone more liberal?
B. That while the entire American political establishment was 10000000% sure Hillary would win, McConnell was so sure Trump had it in the bag he was willing to risk Hillary picking a more liberal nominee?
C. He did it “just because?”
Does McConnell deserve to take a bow for ending Roe? Absolutely. But when he refused to give Garland a hearing, did he have even the slightest idea it would result in ending Roe? Yeah…not buying that.
Mike
Here in New Mexico’s 2nd congressional district, we are represented at the federal level by our state’s only Republican, Rep. Yvette Herrell.
A bit of background: In 2018, Herrell was defeated in her effort to represent NM-2 when a trove of “just enough” votes for her opponent was “discovered” in the wee hours of election night. In 2020, Herrell defeated the same opponent by 8 points, in part because of voters’ reaction to the shenanigans of two years before.
Since the 2020 election, redistricting has moved Herrell into an area that went for Biden by 6 points. Maybe she figures that she is already toast. In any case, she may not have helped her prospects by pinning a large gloating tweet to her Twitter account today. I suppose that’s one way to turn out the Republican base, but it may also be unwise in a purplish state where there are independent and moderate Republican voters who are not happy with the Dobbs decision (including its implications for Obergefell). The Supreme Court may have given the Democrats an early Christmas present.
As many point out above, a vote this November for a democrat is a vote to continue or even increase their economic pain.
Speaker Tip O’Neal famously observed that, “all politics is local” in the aggregate, nothing is more local than people’s pocketbook.
Dire implications for Obergefell, dire and dread. To be sure, must not tamper with the Sacrament of Death …… Funny how equal rights, non-discrimination, led to widespread grooming, pronouns, destruction of women’s sports. But dire implications for Obergefell are a thing now.
Neo,
Yes I do know several people who are fairly moderate (some even slightly to the right) and not terribly political in general, who are steadfastly pro choice. None have specifically said they’d vote Republican unless Roe is overturned, but they seem at least open to the GOP. But I now expect them to all either rush to the Democrats or (at best) stay home on election day.
I really don’t think polls on this issue are of much value at present or for the next few weeks; it will be a cumulative effect, as reality sets in (abortion is now illegal in nine states with more likely to come) for many moderate, but pro-choice, voters. And I assure you, the Democrat/MSM complex will talk of little else from now until election day.
But all of the above is only (at most) half the problem. The bigger problem is: Republicans are bad to hopeless in managing attacks from the left (the media in particular) on abortion. Who here remembers Todd Aiken? Richard Mourdock? It’s been ten years, but they should still be infamous. Both completely blew entirely winnable U.S. Senate races in red states because they gave moronic answers to the oldest abortion ‘gotcha’ question: but what about rape? Not only that, but their bungling helped Democrats push the ‘women’s health’ trope, which gave Obama a solid issue to bludgeon Romney with.
Ten years later, has the GOP learned anything? I have my doubts.
As hard evidence, here’s a surprising election result from the spring (before the Dobbs leak):
https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2022/05/03/carol-glanville-upsets-robert-regan-bid-michigan-house/9614211002/
A Democrat upset in a solidly Republican legislative district because…the idiot GOP candidate made idiotic comments about abortion and rape.
For the next four months expect every GOP candidate for every office to be inundated with that dreadful ‘gotcha’ question. And expect more than a few (I’m looking at YOU, MTG) to give idiotic answers, which will be repeated and amplified incessantly by every mainstream media organ.
And…of course, further alienate moderate and largely apolitical (but pro choice) swing voters. The exact voters necessary to push the GOP candidate over the top in many swing states and districts.
Did Ruth’s regrets motivate her to deny Barack “burden” Obama his choice?
MBunge:
I missed the part where I said that McConnell should take a bow for ending Roe.
I guess that’s because – I didn’t say it.
I explained what I think were his reasons, but I also said neither I nor you really know what he was actually thinking. But I also think that yes, he thought that blocking Garland gave the right a small chance – small, but certainly not zero – to have the opportunity to name the next SCOTUS justice. And if that happened, that justice would add to the possibility of a conservative majority some day. And conservative majorities make conservative decisions, for the most part (at least, more conservative decisions than liberal majorities do).
One more thing. I know, you should know, and McConnell knows that there is very little difference between the justices that Democratic presidents nominate. Some are more extreme than others, but on all important issues none of them defect from the party line (unlike justices nominated by Republicans, who sometimes do defect). So he was risking almost nothing when he was risking that Hillary might win and appoint a somewhat more leftist justice than Garland (who after all turned out to be as leftist as they come, but that wasn’t known at the time).
Ackler:
I wonder what your moderate pro-choice friends would say if you suggested they start or join a drive for a constitutional amendment that says states cannot ban abortion. That would be the way to go about making it the law of the land, not Roe.
Neo,
I agree completely. I have pointed that out a few times over the years. The response is typically, ‘well that will never happen’. That’s likely correct but misses the underlying point.
Prediction:
After dark, some “youths” and Pantifa will take advantage of the crowd to ignore Spongebrain’s CYA exhortation of “peaceful”.
Additionally, none of them actually care about the abortion issue.
MollyG on June 24, 2022 at 4:42 pm
Did you really mean to include Loving in your list of cases?
I suspect Justice Thomas has no plans or desire to overturn Loving, unless he also plans to divorce his wife.
@R2L: Kavanaugh mentioned Loving, and it seemed to me that Thomas was enlarging on Kavanaugh’s comment.
And in an ironic turn of events Joe Biden. Joe Biden helped start the whole “let’s make supreme court appointments political” thing with the “Biden Report” on Robert Bork which torpedoed him. Pretty much before this the deal was the president got to appoint anybody he wanted as long as he/she wasn’t ridiculous. Without what happened to Bork who knows how history would have turned out.
So he was risking almost nothing when he was risking that Hillary might win and appoint a somewhat more leftist justice than Garland
Yes, that is a very good point.
I saw one woman I respect very much react with fear about Dobbs and even post an article by someone who’s convinced the world is collapsing because of Dobbs, so I felt I needed to respond to her because I think many people who have been misinformed about the implications of the ruling need to take a deep breath and realize that the ruling only puts the matter back to a political solution. I wanted to offer her a different perspective.
Why does abortion matter to me, a man? It matters because the issue is personal. My mother was adopted. I never knew her birth mother, so I don’t know if she would have aborted my mother if it had been legal. My wife’s mother told her own daughter outright that she would have aborted her if it had been legal at the time. Also last September 30, I was told I would be terminated by November 22 since I objected to mandatory COVID vaccination based on my religious convictions. I condemn no one who took the vaccine, but my ethics prevent me from taking it. That led me to speak out for the first time in the workplace about my beliefs. Now I have to decide whether to drive to my church tonight and stay up all night to make sure it’s not firebombed or vandalized by people who have been driven to an irrational frenzy. So, I just want to make clear that abortion is very personal to me as well, even if I’m on the other side.
She responded that she was actually really concerned about Obergfell being potentially overturned because she is happily in a same sex marriage. I don’t discount that being a possibility, but assured her that I’m on her side on that issue. My objection to Obergfell is semantic rather than substantive. It makes the definition of husband and wife meaningless. As a semanticist and ontologist, I see that as making our ability to understand the world more difficult. My spiritual beliefs condemn adultery for both gays and straights. I think allowing homosexuals to pledge their lifelong fidelity to others of the same sex is progress to a more moral society.
unlike justices nominated by Republicans, who
sometimes dousually defectFIFY
I think allowing homosexuals to pledge their lifelong fidelity to others of the same sex is progress to a more moral society.
https://alchetron.com/cdn/pugsley-addams-c3bce0b2-5a1d-4fc0-9965-651ccac23d3-resize-750.jpg
But I now expect them to all either rush to the Democrats or (at best) stay home on election day.
You should hang around with a better class of people.
Since Bjork was Bjorked, it’s been hard to consider the Court as anything but an extension of the political parties.
I don’t hold the Democratic Party responsible for this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn4ulCuq5AM
Art Deco:
No, they don’t usually defect. Not most of them. However, it’s not unusual for one to defect in an important case. And sometimes one goes all the way over to the left quite consistently.
When I first saw excerpts of the leak, my first thought was
‘I felt a disturbance in force. It as as if 50 governors, state legislatures and state judiciaries cried out in terror.’
– Be Kenobi (apochryphal)
On the whole, I prefer these policy decisions be decided on the states, to greatest extent possible. Move interest, power out of the federal realm.
I’d really prefer more sent back to the counties and municipalities ( things like min wage, rather than the state). Decentralize the government.
Mostly for that reason, I am happy about the analysis in Dobbs. I hope it becomes a framework for analysis of economic policies and such.
A quick look at the news this morning leads me to think that the “night of rage” following the reversal of Roe didn’t turn out to be much. This is good, and it also indicates that the actual level of rage among voters isn’t going to be very high.
No, they don’t usually defect. Not most of them.
Opponents:
1. Earl Warren
2. Wm J. Brennan
3. Harry Blackmun
4. John Paul Stevens
5. David Souter
Occasional opponents:
1. Potter Stewart
2. Warren Burger
3. Lewis Powell
4. Sandra Day O’Connor
5. Anthony Kennedy
Not opponents:
1. John Marshall Harlan
2. Wm. Rehnquist
3. Antonin Scalia
4. Clarence Thomas
5. Samuel Alito
Ambiguous
1. Charles Whittaker
2. John Roberts
Benefit of Doubt:
1. Neil Gorsuch
2. Brett Kavanaugh
3. Amy Coney Barrett
The bulk of the caseload of the court concerns modes of operation that are understood only by lawyers and concerns issues of interest only to lawyers and people working in particular sectors. Antonin Scalia was supposed to have been an administrative law maven second to none. Know nothing about that. I’m vaguely aware that their are cross-cutting cleavages among the judges of matters of interest to those who are not insiders (e.g. on the subject of 4th Amendment jurisprudence and eminent domain). I am aware that the courts in general have broken sharply in favor of 2d Amendment rights and I’d never have expected that.
However, you get to questions of social policy landing on the court’s docket, Byron White is the only Democratic appointee to the Court in the last 60-odd years who was ever off the reservation. Note, the Court which imposed Roe had six Republican appointees on it, four of whom favored the decision and one of whom was opposed. (I believe what is known suggests that Warren Burger endorsed the decision so that he and not Wm. O. Douglas could assign the opinion). Now look at Casey: Byron White was the only Democratic appointee left on the Court, and he was in the minority in re that decision. Five of the eight Republican appointees formed the majority. Two of Ronald Reagan’s three nominees to the Court were among those five.
Thanks to Trump and McConnell.
Very much gratitude for the courage and integrity of five true justices.
Kate:
That is good violence being rare last night. Jane’s Revenge raged for naught last night? The left were violent yesterday afternoon (and evening?) in Seattle.
Shocked and surprised I am not. It’s their right after all (sarc).
I’d really prefer more sent back to the counties and municipalities ( things like min wage, rather than the state). Decentralize the government.
Not labor law. The regulatory aspect of local government ought be pre-occupied with questions of land use and nuisance abatement.
Also, we would benefit from amending county and municipal boundaries and assembling multi-county authorities for certain functions. Too many postage stamps.
I suspect that a constitutional amendment that stated that the States cannot ban abortion in the first trimester or until the heartbeat is detectable would pass.
Headlines are stating that 11 States currently ban any abortion. That’s 22% of the States. 3/4 of the State legislatures are needed to pass an amendment. I suspect Congress would do so as well.
I suspect that a constitutional amendment that stated that the States cannot ban abortion in the first trimester or until the heartbeat is detectable would pass.
You’re wrong.
“I’d really prefer more sent back to the counties and municipalities ( things like min wage, rather than the state). Decentralize the government.
Not labor law. The regulatory aspect of local government ought be pre-occupied with questions of land use and nuisance abatement.”
Why should large density populations like SF or NYC set policy for min wage in places like Baker, CA or North Dansville, NY?
It strikes me that if one accepts the worry about “white male patriarchy,” etc. being given by the Dobbs decision a supposedly free hand to restore the oppression of women that was lifted to a large degree by Roe (this is the caricature, you understand, though one seemingly held in earnest by many – my Nextdoor feed contained a lot of examples), then a counterpoint worth considering is the fact that many state legislatures and so on are not the white-male-only preserve that they may have been once upon a time. There are many more women and minorities in positions of civic authority now than there were in 1973.
Given this fact: (a) it is less likely that, again assuming one accepts the premise of “the patriarchy” and so on, the “oppression” of serious abortion restrictions will be reimposed to a draconian extent even in those states whose electorates are very conservative; and (b) it follows that, as and where greater restrictions on the abortion franchise are imposed in this or that jurisdiction, women and minorities, in their capacities as legislators, judges, etc., will be playing a greater and more direct role in imposing them than they were in a position to do in those previous eras. After all, there will be some pro-life women in state legislatures and governorships now who would not have been in those positions prior to Roe. Thus, it will clearly not be any longer simply the “white male patriarchy”, etc., but more of a societal cross-section which will be imposing any new limitations.
I guess this is another way of making the point that some segments of the activist Left are still living in 1959.
This very likely will have little effect on the midterms, or slightly favor conservatives if the left-wing fascists turn this into another summer of fire.
Brian E:
I agree.
The Supreme Court rulings on Dobbs and the Second Amendment are excellent examples of why I disagree with you that the “left is winning the war.”
We’ve taken some hard hits, as I granted in my original comment, but in war one must attend not only to territory lost, but the delta of the changes occurring.
If this is losing, I can only hope we continue losing.
@ Kate – one reason for the lack of mostly peaceful protests may be that Biden Inc. sent a memo. That Biden himself did not make any speech is irrelevant.
Probably they were afraid he wouldn’t follow his cheat sheet.
https://nypost.com/2022/06/22/biden-denounces-threatened-night-of-rage-over-anticipated-abortion-ruling/
Why denouncement instead of support for “making your voices heard” in a kinetic fashion?
Because President Biden doesn’t dare undercut the rationale of the January 6 Committee for indicting President Trump for inciting “insurrection” – and anyway, plenty of non-presidents are advocating that course over the decision, so he doesn’t have to.
https://notthebee.com/article/no-words-liberals-are-waging-a-terrifying-insurrectionist-war-against-the-legitimacy-of-the-supreme-court-because-theyre-mad-that-roe-v-wade-got-repealed
Biden did finally get around to speaking, and ratified his press secretary’s statement.
But the context is important.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2022/06/24/president-joe-biden-finally-responds-to-dobbs-decision-n2609275
Bonus from the Townhall post I looked at above. I had forgotten that there was another Court decision that caused the extensions of abortion access; I was attributing those to Roe.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2022/06/24/president-joe-biden-finally-responds-to-dobbs-decision-n2609275
That is how we got from “safe, legal, and rare” to “all abortion all the time.”
Polls consistently show that the US public (in general) will tolerate abortion in the first trimester, look somewhat askance in the second, and reject it in the third.
When the Democrats went to straight-up infanticide, they gave away their game.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2022/06/25/feminist-writer-abortion-is-killing-and-thats-ok-n2609310?utm_campaign=rightrailsticky1
PS In another Dobbs thread, Aggie posted a link to a post that could be a companion piece to the one Townhall dissects. It’s like the Left has some kind of Talking Points factory.
https://quillette.com/2022/06/24/the-tragedy-of-the-unwanted-child-what-ancient-cultures-did-before-abortion/
“I fear illegal abortion will replace legal abortion”? Really? The spectre of backstreet abortions with coathangers? Anyone conducting abortions outside state laws will quickly be arrested, prosecuted and jailed. The left is trying to say that women in a conservative state is are stupid or poor to buy a bus ticket to a blue state, which is pure BS.
Related (Turley):
“What progressives get wrong about overturning Roe: Now, it’s citizens who will decide.
“The Supreme Court has now given millions of citizens rather than nine justices the power to decide whether to legalize abortion.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2022/06/24/overturning-roe-supreme-court-abortion-ruling-victory-america/7723195001/?gnt-cfr=1
Portland OR where riots are a useful thing:
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/06/26/antifa-rampages-through-portland-declaring-death-to-scotus-n584444
As expected.
IN Eugene, OR on Friday the riot didn’t metastasize, some got arrested. Almost as if in Portland rioting is condoned?
Why pro-abortion radicals are rioting in left-wing jurisdictions is hard to understand. California and New York have virtually no restrictions on abortion up to the point of delivery, and California’s legislature is proposing to effectively extend that to seven days postpartum.
@ Kate > “Why pro-abortion radicals are rioting in left-wing jurisdictions is hard to understand.”
Not really.
They know doing it in a Red State (the real ones, not the purple ones) would get them arrested — if not shot.
They only bully people they know will give in, or who already have.
https://www.sbsun.com/2020/06/02/black-lives-matters-protesters-being-met-with-opposition-a-new-trend/
https://www.gopusa.com/black-lives-matter-protests-being-met-by-armed-residents-in-some-small-cities/
https://michaelsavage.com/massresistance-overwhelms-black-lives-matter-protest-in-los-angeles-suburb/
WaPo spun the washing machine in high gear – see, there were only peaceful protests, really, so the city didn’t need all those armed people to show up just because Antifa was coming to town.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/protests-armed-white-vigilantes/2020/06/04/09e17610-a5bb-11ea-b619-3f9133bbb482_story.html
AesopFan:
The Antifa came to Coeur d’Alene ID in the summer of 2020 from the Puget Sound area (IIRC) to do some mostly peaceful protesting. They were met by lots of locals armed with handguns and semi-auto rifles that arrested the Antifa play time before it could start. I would imagine the WAPost cried about that too.
Keep your mostly peaceful in Olympia, Seattle, and Portland.