Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, leaves issue up to states

[NorrinRadd]

It is also interesting that in the interview he not only noted that the Trump appointees to the SCOTUS were dishonest in their hearings where they stated they would not try and overturn Roe vs Wade

Proof that Little Frankie is a moron. None of them would have been stupid enough to make such a claim. Turley has already repeatedly called out those who make the claim, because he attended the hearings. They affirmed Roe v. Wade was "settled law." They affirmed in general terms the principle of "stare decisis." But they would never be fool enough to make direct statements about how they would rule w.r.t. a particular case. Neither "settled law" nor "stare decisis" is inviolable. Interestingly, the practice of carefully avoiding giving specific answers about such things has come to be known as "the Ginsberg Rule," because RBG caused more than a little dyspepsia during her Senate confirmation by her frequent use of the practice.

[rogue06]

I have read the FAQ and it all looks dandy to me.
https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/ar...ive-health-act

If you strip any and all penalties for ignoring the "law" and eliminated the oversight that would call out any violations, you have thereby legalized it no matter how much they want to pretend to the contrary. Otherwise, there would have been nothing to "celebrate."

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Proof that Little Frankie is a moron. None of them would have been stupid enough to make such a claim. Turley has already repeatedly called out those who make the claim, because he attended the hearings. They affirmed Roe v. Wade was "settled law." They affirmed in general terms the principle of "stare decisis." But they would never be fool enough to make direct statements about how they would rule w.r.t. a particular case. Neither "settled law" nor "stare decisis" is inviolable. Interestingly, the practice of carefully avoiding giving specific answers about such things has come to be known as "the Ginsberg Rule," because RBG caused more than a little dyspepsia during her Senate confirmation by her frequent use of the practice.

Does the derogatory language in the opening sentence indicate a degree of anger that Schaeffer has expressed deep regret for his earlier activities? As far as I can determine Thomas has not made any "definite statements".

[rogue06]

Hutchinson was not a first hand witness to the incident in the car. But she was told about it. J6 will no doubt want to question those present in the car.

So nothing but second and third hand hearsay. The gold standard of reliability according to the Democrats.

Now that they established that bar I wonder how the left would act if that were the standard applied into any investigation of old Joe and his spawn. If allowed, we probably should already be organizing the firing squad.

As for "no doubt" wanting to question those present... I wouldn't put any money on that. You already have instances of presenting evidence that had been blatantly tampered with and altered so you might be underestimating their gall. And even if they do, will it be behind closed doors so we are forced to rely on Schiff for an accurate portrayal of their testimony. The same guy who completely and totally altered the conversation between Trump and the Ukrainian leader (and might have gotten away with it if Trump hadn't expectantly declassified the call and released it).

I figure that at best if they permit them to testify (and by all accounts, the agents are chomping at the bit to set the record straight) the MSM will decide that they really need to be broadcasting something else that day

Trumplovers are making a big deal out of very little but I think we are moving towards some serious legal action against Trump’s CoS.

I got quite the chuckle last night listening to flustered members of the MSM angrily insist we should ignore her made up stories and focus instead on the seriousness of her charges. It was the so-called "October Surprise" of 1980 all over again -- where the senior George Bush was accused of flying to Europe to talk to Iranian officials to get them to hold onto the American hostages until after the election. That story was also rapidly and thoroughly debunked by the Secret Service as balderdash. But the left would have none of it. They insisted that the evidence didn't matter that it was the seriousness of the charge that counted.

42 years later and they still haven't learned a thing.

And while some were trying to dismiss it as maybe getting a detail or two wrong, her claims were far more about getting details wrong. It is making up an entire incident.

Moreover, her credibility has been called into question again, this time over a handwritten note that she says she wrote but a lawyer denies that and says he wrote it. A simple handwriting analysis should solve that but will the J6 circus ever have that done. My bet would be on no.

[rogue06]

I mean states could start trying to impose sanctions on the other states...oh wait liberal california has already let that genie out of the bottle under trump.

It is almost funny how the left keeps doing things that inevitably turn around and bite them in the butt.

It goes back to the adage that whenever they're in power they act like that is a permanent situation, and whenever they're out of power they act like that is a permanent situation as well. They have zero foresight for consequences.

Maybe that's why they keep getting blindsided by supposed unintended consequences of their actions -- even when they are specifically warned that those consequences will result.

[Cow Poke]

the fascists want to prevent free movement:



Very un-american by any standard.
Americans, resist fascist leadership. Quit your church!

myob

[rogue06]

It is also interesting that in the interview he not only noted that the Trump appointees to the SCOTUS were dishonest in their hearings where they stated they would not try and overturn Roe vs Wade; and that overturning Roe vs. Wade might not be the end of the matter.

Good job impeaching your own source.

SCOTUS nominees make a point of never promising to rule on hypothetical cases or even actual cases working their way toward the Supreme Court. For one thing they would have to recuse themselves if they did so. Politicians from both sides do their best to get them to do so but none ever do.

[Cow Poke]

Yes. Blue states and Red states who hate each other. Definitely not United States. The difference more defined now by the SCOTUS ruling. Could SCOTUS itself split into SCOTRS and SCOTBS?

States don't hate each other. It's the politicians and politics of the states that are at odds.

[Cow Poke]

Good job impeaching your own source.

SCOTUS nominees make a point of never promising to rule on hypothetical cases or even actual cases working their way toward the Supreme Court. For one thing they would have to recuse themselves if they did so. Politicians from both sides do their best to get them to do so but none ever do.

Yeah, the Democrats will try every trick in the book to try to get a SCOTUS nominee to forecast how they would rule on a case, but that's one of the most sacred functions of SCOTUS, is not to rule (or project how you will rule) until the case is presented and argued.

What happens is that the Democrats will keep asking and rephrasing the question until the nominee finally says something that the Democrat thinks they can use in the future.

[CivilDiscourse]

It is also interesting that in the interview he not only noted that the Trump appointees to the SCOTUS were dishonest in their hearings where they stated they would not try and overturn Roe vs Wade; and that overturning Roe vs. Wade might not be the end of the matter.

You are going to need to provide evidence for that claim, and not just a news article/opinion article/liberal politician making that claim, but an actual evidence of the justice making that specific claim during sworn testimony...as justices have been following the Ginsberg rule for a long time.

GINSBURG

JUDGE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: “You are well aware that I came to this proceeding to be judged as a judge, not as an advocate. Because I am and hope to continue to be a judge, it would be wrong for me to say or preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were I to rehearse here what I would say and how I would reason on such questions, I would act injudiciously. Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues; each case is based on particular facts and its decision should turn on those facts and the governing law, stated and explained in light of the particular arguments the parties or their representatives choose to present. A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/20/1993)

KAGAN

SOLICITOR GENERAL ELENA KAGAN: “[T]he Senate has a very significant role to play in picking Supreme Court Justices...and part of that is getting some sense, some feel of how a nominee approaches legal issues...But I would say that there are limits on that. [S]ome of the limits I talked about in [a law review] article...I mean, that article makes very clear that it would be inappropriate for a nominee to talk about how she will rule on pending cases or on cases beyond that that might come before the Court in the future.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 6/29/2010)

Q: “Was Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), an example of the Supreme Court properly reinterpreting the Constitution in light of its timeless principles?” …

ELENA KAGAN RESPONSE: “I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of Roe v. Wade other than to say that it is settled law entitled to precedential weight. The application of Roe to future cases, and even its continued validity, are issues likely to come before the Court in the future.” (Senate Judiciary Committee, Kagan: Response To Questions For The Record, P.2, 2010)

KAGAN: “…inappropriate for a nominee to ever give any indication of how she would rule in a case that would come before the Court. And I think, too, it would be inappropriate to do so in a somewhat veiled manner by essentially grading past cases.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, Pg.80, 6/28-30 &7/1/2010)

SOTOMAYOR

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): “Well, then maybe it would be fair for me to ask you what is your understanding of the constitutional limitations then on government entity -- any government entity taking land for public purpose?”

JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR: “...As I've indicated to you, opining on a hypothetical is very, very difficult for a judge to do. And as a potential justice on the Supreme Court but, more importantly, as a Second Circuit judge still sitting, I can't engage in a question that involves hypotheses.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/14/2009)

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: “What my experience on the trial court and the appellate court have reinforced for me is that the process of judging is a process of keeping an open mind. It's the process of not coming to a decision with a prejudgment ever of an outcome, and that reaching a conclusion has to start with understanding what the parties are arguing, but examining in all situations carefully the facts as they prove them or not prove them, the record as they create it, and then making a decision that is limited to what the law says on the facts before the judge.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/14/2009)

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): “My question to the chief justice and now to you is: do you agree with the direction the Supreme Court has moved in more narrowly, interpreting congressional authority to enact laws under the Commerce Clause? Generally, not relating to any one case.”

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: “No, I know. But the question assumes a prejudgment by me of what's an appropriate approach or not in a new case that may come before me as a Second Circuit judge or, again, if I'm fortunate enough to be a justice on the Supreme Court. So it's not a case I can answer in a broad statement.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/14/2009)

BREYER

JUDGE STEPHEN BREYER: “Let us imagine, if I am lucky and if you find me qualified and vote to confirm me, I will be a member of the Supreme Court, and, as a member of that Court, I will consider with an open mind the cases that arise in that Court. And there is nothing more important to a judge than to have an open mind and to listen carefully to the arguments...I will try very hard to give you an impression, an understanding of how I think about legal problems of all different kinds. At the same time, I do not want to predict or commit myself on an open issue that I feel is going to come up in the Court.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/12/1994)

FORMER SEN. STROM THURMOND (R-SC): “Judge Breyer, it is likely that Justice Blackmun is most widely known to the public as the author of Roe v. Wade. What was your impression of his majority opinion in that landmark decision? In particular, give us your thoughts on where he draws the line at different points during pregnancy as it relates to the State's interest in the regulation of abortion-related services? For instance, do you agree that the first trimester of pregnancy is distinctive and that the State should not be able to prohibit abortion during that period?”
JUDGE BREYER: “You are asking questions, Senator, that I know are matters of enormous controversy...The questions that you are putting to me are matters of how that basic right applies, where it applies, under what circumstances. And I do not think I should go into those for the reason that those are likely to be the subject of litigation in front of the Court.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/12/1994)

ROBERTS

JUDGE JOHN ROBERTS: “It's a matter of great importance not only to potential Justices but to judges. We're sensitive to the need to maintain the independence and integrity of the court. I think it's vitally important that nominees, to use Justice Ginsburg's words, ‘no hints, no forecasts, no previews.’ They go on the Court not as a delegate from this committee with certain commitments laid out and how they're going to approach cases, they go on the Court as Justices who will approach cases with an open mind and decide those cases in light of the arguments presented, the record presented and the rule of law. And the litigants before them have a right to expect that and to have the appearance of that as well. That has been the approach that all of the Justices have taken.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 9/13/2005)

ABC’S TERRY MORAN: “…this week, in an extraordinary statement, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Democrat nominated by President Clinton, took Roberts’s side.”
JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: “Judge Roberts was unquestionably right.” (ABC’s “World News Tonight,” 9/29/2005)

ALITO

JUDGE SAMUEL ALITO: “But the line that I have to draw, and I think every nominee, including Justice Ginsburg, has drawn, is to say that, when it comes to something that realistically could come before the Court, they can’t answer about how they would decide that question. That would be a disservice to the judicial process.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 1/11/2006)

[rogue06]

abortion.jpgROE2.jpg

ROE3.jpgRoe1.jpg

[rogue06]

The fascists want to prevent free movement:



Very un-American by any standard.
Americans, resist fascist leadership. Quit your Church!

I agree that if the church you are in supports abortion then it is time to look for a new one.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Good job impeaching your own source.

SCOTUS nominees make a point of never promising to rule on hypothetical cases or even actual cases working their way toward the Supreme Court. For one thing they would have to recuse themselves if they did so. Politicians from both sides do their best to get them to do so but none ever do.

I never employed the word "promising". And what Schaeffer, in his brief interview, opined might occur was later intimated by Thomas.

[Mountain Man]

Yes. Blue states and Red states who hate each other. Definitely not United States. The difference more defined now by the SCOTUS ruling. Could SCOTUS itself split into SCOTRS and SCOTBS?

SCOTBS would be a fitting abbreviation for a liberal leaning court.

[firstfloor]

If you strip any and all penalties for ignoring the "law" and eliminated the oversight that would call out any violations, you have thereby legalized it no matter how much they want to pretend to the contrary. Otherwise, there would have been nothing to "celebrate."

Doctors are regulated surely. Or are you insisting on fascist oversight?