The Roe Countdown

[ponderingturtle]

Enough evidence, in fact, that it would be almost perverse to believe that, as people who are not mind readers, we simply cannot know if he is taking certain positions (including going hardline on abortion) to pander to an evangelical base.

True it is always different when it is your mistress that gets knocked up vs your stated policy position. That is true of all of the evangelical base to start with.

 

[Baylor]

One admittedly presumptive take on a motive (albeit one that has a mountain of evidence to support it).

That's it. That's all it takes for unrepentant regressives to make it all go away.

You could have just saved us all the bother and said "FAKE NEWS!"

ETA: It's the last sentence of the first paragraph, of course it takes an oversized bite. That's how oratory works. But the real principle on display here is any 10 words shoved together where an author words their opinions very forcefully means nothing in the entire article counts at all, the piece is a sham, the author is a fraud, and all other authors referencing the same data in the future will be equally suspect.

Also second of the second. Hate to join the skeptic who shouts "you didn't read it!" but that kinda proves you didn't.

You and The Atheist might believe in psychic powers, but I don't.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Also second of the second. Hate to join the skeptic who shouts "you didn't read it!" but that kinda proves you didn't.

My having referenced one example of the word "believes" but not another might be a flimsy bit of evidence in support of the idea that I didn't read it, but it's far from proof.

Seems like you're doing a little mind-reading of your own.

You and The Atheist might believe in psychic powers, but I don't.

You are the only one of the three of us in this case to put forward a mind-reading theory.

Do not pin that **** on me or in any way suggest it is my premise to defend.

Keep your ******** on your side of the screen.

Anyways, good job not addressing anything of substance whatsoever.

 

[The Atheist]

Anyways, good job not addressing anything of substance whatsoever.

And good job you for playing along.

I find it easy to make no response to idiotic and trolling posts. Dignifying them with a typed reply is...

...dignifying them.

 

[Baylor]

Anyways, good job not addressing anything of substance whatsoever.

Already did. We can relitigate since you didn't follow along. Trump's two Supreme Court appointees have both said Roe v Wade is "settled." The author of that trash Guardian piece, assumes psychic powers and claims Trump "believes" Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. All comes down to whom you believe. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, or the psychic powers on an opinion piece.

 

[Baylor]

And good job you for playing along.

I find it easy to make no response to idiotic and trolling posts. Dignifying them with a typed reply is...

...dignifying them.

Sure buddy. It couldn't be because you didn't expect your histrionics and lack of knowledge to get called out.

 

[Dancing David]

Confession. On a purely cynical, political level leaving Roe V Wade "technically" in place but gutting it as much as possible is a much better strategy for the Republicans.

They are still trying the death by a thousand cuts, the restriction of access being the most successful ones so far, the recent Alabama bill is just a rally point for the voters

 

[The Atheist]

They are still trying the death by a thousand cuts, the restriction of access being the most successful ones so far, the recent Alabama bill is just a rally point for the voters

Or, is it the way forward for Republican/christians to ban abortion without overturning Roe?

I imagine there's a clear case the states can put that their bans don't contravene Roe, because the woman still has the option of abortion, only it applies to women who don't know they're pregnant.

Might even work. Sales of pregnancy test kits will go through the roof.

 

[Upchurch]

Republican mega-donor demands Missouri Gov. Parson veto eight-week abortion ban

A source close to Humphreys confirmed to The Star that if Parson does sign the abortion bill, Humphreys will bankroll an effort to repeal the new law by putting it on the ballot in 2020.

Humphreys’ threat is not hollow.

Since 2015, he and his family have poured more than $15 million into Missouri politics, supporting various Republican candidates and campaigns.

Not bad. Good to know moderate Republicans will still surface, from time to time.

 

[The Atheist]

Not bad. Good to know moderate Republicans will still surface, from time to time.

A drop in the ocean compared to these guys, though: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/democrats-governors-abortion_n_5ce5cf0ee4b0db9c29929cd3

 

[Darat]

Or, is it the way forward for Republican/christians to ban abortion without overturning Roe?



I imagine there's a clear case the states can put that their bans don't contravene Roe, because the woman still has the option of abortion, only it applies to women who don't know they're pregnant.



Might even work. Sales of pregnancy test kits will go through the roof.

Until they decide for safety reasons each pregency testing kit needs to be registered, and then returned and the result carefully recorded....

 

[DragonLady]

Until they decide for safety reasons each pregency testing kit needs to be registered, and then returned and the result carefully recorded....

Unfortunately, I can actually picture that happening.

 

[Segnosaur]

Republican mega-donor demands Missouri Gov. Parson veto eight-week abortion ban

Not bad. Good to know moderate Republicans will still surface, from time to time.

While its good that a notable republican donor is stepping up, the big question is: why was he a republican donor in the first place?

The republican party is known for its ties to christian evangelicalism. He should have known years ago that if the party he has financially supported for years had the opportunity, that there was a chance that a ban on abortions would be a desired outcome for many republican politicians.

Maybe he should have supported the "Leopards eating people's faces" party instead.

 

[Segnosaur]

Already did. We can relitigate since you didn't follow along. Trump's two Supreme Court appointees have both said Roe v Wade is "settled."

They claimed to respect precedent, but as the article pointed out, acted to overturn precedent in one of their cases.

The fact that they said "we respect precedent" and then acted to overturn a previously established precedent likely means that their claim that they "respect precedent" was a lie. You know, something they didn't really mean.

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, or the psychic powers on an opinion piece.

Gorsuch and Kavanugh lied when they said they respected precedent. So why are you assuming they'll be honest when they talk about RvW as "settled"?

The opinion piece provided evidence. No 'psychic powers' needed.

 

[cosmicaug]

Already did. We can relitigate since you didn't follow along. Trump's two Supreme Court appointees have both said Roe v Wade is "settled."

They claimed to respect precedent, but as the article pointed out, acted to overturn precedent in one of their cases.

The fact that they said "we respect precedent" and then acted to overturn a previously established precedent likely means that their claim that they "respect precedent" was a lie. You know, something they didn't really mean.

That's a bit of an overstatement. No one nominated to the SCOTUS is ever going to say that they don't respect precedent. Nevertheless, SCOTUS will overturn precedents from time to time. That doesn't mean that Supreme Court nominees are all liars. It's more nuanced than that. Overturning precedent just needs to have some damn good reasons. What's unusual is overturning precedent and justifying it with 'because I said so' —which is how some are portraying the California v Hyatt decision (and if these conservative justices are fine with doing that in some obscure case about jurisdictional issues, it makes folk wonder if they wouldn't also do it for abortion).

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, or the psychic powers on an opinion piece.

Gorsuch and Kavanugh lied when they said they respected precedent. So why are you assuming they'll be honest when they talk about RvW as "settled"?

The opinion piece provided evidence. No 'psychic powers' needed.

Kavanaugh is a serial perjurer and it certainly seems disingenuous to dismiss the entire article on the basis of calling a reasonable inference (that barely has relevance to the rest of the article) "mind reading" (though I personally think that she was wrong about the second inference: Kavanaugh was chosen on the basis of Trump's perception regarding Kavanaugh's beliefs in an expanded view of executive branch power and the antiabortion stuff was just icing on the cake —basically, Trump thinks Kavanaugh will kowtow to him).

 

[cosmicaug]

That's a bit of an overstatement. No one nominated to the SCOTUS is ever going to say that they don't respect precedent.

The corollary to that, of course, is that if you are concerned with a ruling being overturned and your candidate says they respect stare decisis, it means nothing.

 

[Baylor]

Gorsuch and Kavanugh lied when they said they respected precedent. So why are you assuming they'll be honest when they talk about RvW as "settled"?

The opinion piece provided evidence. No 'psychic powers' needed.

No it didn't. It provided wild speculation and fear mongering for histrionic skeptics. Christian/Conservative/Womyn hater/bad man Kavanaugh already sided with "liberal justices" in declining to hear a case that could defund Planned Parenthood.

Kind of strange there was no wild speculation about Kavanaugh, nor did anyone assume psychic powers to determine Kavanaugh's motivations. There was no poll made by our valiant womym champion OP. In fact, I don't even recall a thread on the topic.

 

[Baylor]

Or, is it the way forward for Republican/christians to ban abortion without overturning Roe?

I imagine there's a clear case the states can put that their bans don't contravene Roe, because the woman still has the option of abortion, only it applies to women who don't know they're pregnant.

Might even work. Sales of pregnancy test kits will go through the roof.

You just said in your OP you think Roe v. Wade will be overturned in a year. (lol) You don't even have faith in your own arguments. Add that with your histrionics, why should anyone take you seriously?

 

[cosmicaug]

Temporary injunction on lates Mississippi abortion law. What's the next step for this one? Appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/federal-judge-blocks-mississippi-anti-abortion-law-n1010196

 

[The Atheist]

Dunno where it goes next, but there's a nice bit in the article:

Anti-abortion advocates have said that they hope the bills, which have prompted swift legal challenges, will ultimately lead to the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion nationwide.