Roe v Wade Being Repealed

Author
Discussion

irc

Original Poster:

3,343 posts

113 months

Tuesday 3rd May
quotequote all
According to a leak of a draft Supreme Court judgement.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-6130274...

Regardless of the issue of abortion should major issues like it not be decided by elected representatives and not unelected judges?

JeffreyD

5,992 posts

17 months

Tuesday 3rd May
quotequote all
The argument is that it devolves the decisions making process to the States, so local officials can pass laws for their state.


It's a retrograde step, but gven what's happened with their court system, not a surprise


Leithen

8,440 posts

244 months

Tuesday 3rd May
quotequote all
irc said:
Regardless of the issue of abortion should major issues like it not be decided by elected representatives and not unelected judges?
An ultimate, or supreme in this case, court will always be required to rule where laws conflict.

Better to have the most independent, skilled individuals as judges in that chamber than elected ones.

The US court is not perfect as different administrations attempt to appoint individuals who are not necessarily independent. Difficult to prevent interference though.

Byker28i

41,754 posts

194 months

Tuesday 3rd May
quotequote all
More on this as it was Politico that forst reported it
Politico are reporting that the Supreme Court has voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court

That would make abortion immediately illegal in at least 13 states if true, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-c...

This opinion also says states can criminalise abortion, with no rape or incest exception.

Supreme court appointments for Kavanaugh had witnesses blocked and rushed through, Amy Coney Barrett rushed through and appointed, Judge Thomas wife was participating in trumps insurrection...



Edited by Byker28i on Tuesday 3rd May 09:20

vonuber

16,420 posts

142 months

Tuesday 3rd May
quotequote all
Land of the free.

ZedLeg

3,860 posts

85 months

Tuesday 3rd May
quotequote all
It's been coming since the republicans managed to pack the court during Trump's presidency, if there was to be any change to the rules it should be changing the lifetime appointment to a set limit.

Looking at what's been leaked from the proposal, it's obviously being used as a wedge issue for christian conservatives to push for a lot of other regressive civil rights changes.

Byker28i

41,754 posts

194 months

Tuesday 3rd May
quotequote all
ZedLeg said:
It's been coming since the republicans managed to pack the court during Trump's presidency, if there was to be any change to the rules it should be changing the lifetime appointment to a set limit.

Looking at what's been leaked from the proposal, it's obviously being used as a wedge issue for christian conservatives to push for a lot of other regressive civil rights changes.
They've already discussed abandoning gay rights, interracial marriages etc

Pelosi's statement
https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/5222-2

sugerbear

2,552 posts

135 months

Tuesday 3rd May
quotequote all
irc said:
According to a leak of a draft Supreme Court judgement.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-6130274...

Regardless of the issue of abortion should major issues like it not be decided by elected representatives and not unelected judges?
The Supreme Court are elected judges.



8.4L 154

5,119 posts

230 months

Tuesday 3rd May
quotequote all
sugerbear said:
irc said:
According to a leak of a draft Supreme Court judgement.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-6130274...

Regardless of the issue of abortion should major issues like it not be decided by elected representatives and not unelected judges?
The Supreme Court are elected judges.
No they are not. They are appointed by the sitting president at the time when there is a vacancy.

Leithen

8,440 posts

244 months

Tuesday 3rd May
quotequote all
sugerbear said:
The Supreme Court are elected judges.
US Supreme Court Judges are nominated, confirmed and then appointed for life.

Their confirmation is voted upon, but they are not elected individuals.

RDMcG

17,301 posts

184 months

Tuesday 3rd May
quotequote all
8.4L 154 said:
No they are not. They are appointed by the sitting president.
They are proposed by the sitting president but approved by the Senate.

MC Bodge

18,583 posts

152 months

Tuesday 3rd May
quotequote all
Despite the UK's problems, I'm glad that we live in a modern European nation (even Northern Ireland now allows terminations).

Jon Ronson did an interesting programme on R4 about how abortion fairly quickly in the 1970s became the hot "culture wars" issue that it now is in the US, having previously been a relatively minor issue.



Edited by MC Bodge on Tuesday 3rd May 09:54

Byker28i

41,754 posts

194 months

Tuesday 3rd May
quotequote all
RDMcG said:
8.4L 154 said:
No they are not. They are appointed by the sitting president.
They are proposed by the sitting president but approved by the Senate.
Well recently they've been put forward by the Federalist society, but I get what you mean.
Then there's Kavanaughs perjury, the question of who paid off his debts etc, but then they are supposed to be above politics but they aren't. Money now invades and perverts every aspect of the US system

deckster

7,381 posts

232 months

Tuesday 3rd May
quotequote all
MC Bodge said:
Jon Ronson did an interesting programme on R4 about how abortion fairly quickly in the 1970s became the hot "culture wars" issue that it now is, having previously been a relatviely minor issue.
Just to point out that it is only a hot issue in the US and other similarly backward nations. In civilised countries it's not even a question.

JagLover

37,630 posts

212 months

Tuesday 3rd May
quotequote all
irc said:
According to a leak of a draft Supreme Court judgement.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-6130274...

Regardless of the issue of abortion should major issues like it not be decided by elected representatives and not unelected judges?
Abortion is something that should indeed be dealt with by the elected politicians. There isn't anything in the US constitution about abortion and the judges in 1973 used a clause in the constitution to claim a right to an abortion that is disputed by a number of legal scholars. This more than any other judgement "politicised" the supreme court in many people's eyes and led to the right to appoint supreme court judges becoming a key issue in many presidential campaigns. This was likely a factor in many Republicans holding their noses and voting for Trump in 2016 for example.

A significant majority of Americans think abortion should be legal so if it had remained with elected politicians then likely this would have been to the benefit of the Democrats.

roger.mellie

3,389 posts

29 months

Tuesday 3rd May
quotequote all
I often stay out of these debates as I've a hammered in by catholic upraising side of me that is anti abortion, and a wised up and realised it's a women's rights issue that's not exactly pro abortion but pro women's rights. That the US has made it so political sickens me. There's plenty of room for debate but turning it into partisan politics is wrong. Very wrong in my view.

But - if turning it over to judges becomes a political game by proxy due to who picks the judges that's even worse.

Politicians should own their decisions, pretending it's an independent judiciary making them so that you can wash your hands is wrong. I love the US, but the system is not as pure as some like to think.

The rights and wrongs of Roe vs Wade are important, but the rights and wrongs of who decides are equally important.

MC Bodge

18,583 posts

152 months

Tuesday 3rd May
quotequote all
deckster said:
MC Bodge said:
Jon Ronson did an interesting programme on R4 about how abortion fairly quickly in the 1970s became the hot "culture wars" issue that it now is, having previously been a relatviely minor issue.
Just to point out that it is only a hot issue in the US and other similarly backward nations. In civilised countries it's not even a question.
Good point. I have amended my post.

Ronson's prog made the point that even prominent evangelical leaders had previously believed that women should have the choice about their own life and bodies (quite rightly, in my opinion).

RDMcG

17,301 posts

184 months

Tuesday 3rd May
quotequote all
I have a winter place in Arizona and live in Toronto. At this stage the differences are stark . We have long past the debates on abortion,gay marriage,LGBTQ ( still some issues on sports), and have very liberal right-to-die and medical assistance in dying laws.

When I grew up as a youngster in Ireland I had the very poorly informed view that the US stood for freedom,that the sixties were a wave of optimism and a break from the restrictive laws of Ireland where abortion,divorce,gay rights and media were all controlled by the church which forbade the lot


I would never have imagined Ireland becoming a liberal democracy and the US turning so far backwards. There are more disruptions to cone as the US turns inwards and heads for isolationism.


sugerbear

2,552 posts

135 months

Tuesday 3rd May
quotequote all
RDMcG said:
8.4L 154 said:
No they are not. They are appointed by the sitting president.
They are proposed by the sitting president but approved by the Senate.
Both of whom are elected. People might not like the way the judges are elected but they are elected by virtue of the senate and president being themselves elected. Supreme Court justices are only elected if they are confirmed by the senate which requires a majority of the senate.

I am not saying that I agree with the choices (and a certain republican going against convention blocked a Supreme Court appointment in 2016).


wisbech

2,218 posts

98 months

Tuesday 3rd May
quotequote all
Posted from other thread. I agree with Jagdlover - the reason why it has been much less an issue elsewhere is that, for example in the UK, we can just point at the laws passed by Parliament, rather relying on a rather tenuous legal argument.

Quick skim read - yep, it's an absolute overturn - saying a moral issue like this must be the decision of the States, as it was historically. And it isn't written explicitly in the constitution so there!

I get the reasoning, but they are at great pains to point out a few times that this doesn't impact other moral issues, because this moral issue is somehow unique in that involves a foetus. But that's a weak hook to hang on to for other moral cases (inter-racial marriage, gay marriage, sodomy and blow jobs) They are being disingenuous by pretending the (logical and strong) argument to overturn Roe can't apply elsewhere, which is a very political decision in a case that is supposedly all about getting the court out of politics... (there's also some pooh-poohing of the right to privacy, i.e. pointing out there is no right to private enjoyment of illicit drugs)

My favourite bit, saying no biggie to women's rights as they are 55% of voters in Mississippi so totes obvs they can vote for abortion if they want it. Which is logically stupid - you could rip out all rights not written specifically in black and white in the US constitution on the same basis. By definition rights aren't subject to majority/ plurality approval

The reasoning behind this case (that it is not a fundamental right, but one that different states can decide by legislature). We had this until recently in the UK - abortion legal, apart from Northern Ireland where sectarianism meant that neither community wanted to go against their Church’s teachings for fear it would signal they were soft on the culture wars. Plus everyone just went to the mainland anyway.

TBH, that’s the route that most of the world went (legislation/ referendum, not the judiciary). I’m not sure that there is any causation, but the abortion culture wars have been less divisive - and more about the slow retreat of the Catholic Church as a moral arbiter/ actor, especially as the folk memory of them being guardians of national resistance fades (Ireland, Poland)

Will make US politics even more of a clusterfk going forward. I can see a backlash - especially if conservatives insist on no exceptions which will make for tragic cases that will catch the public eye and make for emotional ads. The case that broke the deadlock in Ireland was a Hindu mother with a dying baby that killed her - the doctors couldn’t help, despite pleas from her and her husband