I feel kind of apathetic about it. It couldn't have happened without the participation of a lot of women, so they got what they wanted.

I feel kind of apathetic about it. It couldn't have happened without the participation of a lot of women, so they got what they wanted. — frank

Less than 20% of all women want an outright ban on abortion, and yes - they may get what they wanted- at least in some states.

It is unfortunate that cancer did not kill justice Ginsburg earlier than it did. — Streetlight

Or alternatively she could've just vacated her position, being in her 80s and having survived cancer multiple times. It was arrogant of her to not consider the greater good which is ironic for a justice.

I suppose she isn't the only person in power who feels like staying well beyond their prime. The average age of US congress is around 60 and the past two presidents have been over 75. Though in that case I don't blame them entirely since the voters still decided to keep them in anyways, but for Ginsburg that was all her.

SC justices tend to hang on until the the grim reaper takes them away. There had been discussions about her leaving sooner but she refused, Strategic "early" retirements are very rare.

There should be mandatory retirement. "For life" doesn't mean quite the same number of years that it did when the SCOTUS was created. Deaths or forced retirements may be inconvenient, no matter what system is in place.

The key to maintaining control over "democratic" government is to maintain control from the bottom up. Local political machinery has to be in place for the national machinery to hold on to power. If Democrats once knew that, they seem to have forgotten, Republics have learned it well.

Another thing, the opponents to Roe vs, Wade have maintained a 50 year (1973-2022) campaign to overturn the decision. Victory at this point can not be a surprise, because piece-by-piece, the conservatives have been moving necessary pieces on the political chessboard toward checkmate.

It is unfortunate that cancer did not kill justice Ginsburg earlier than it did. — Streetlight

GFY, man.

Less than 20% of all women want an outright ban on abortion, and yes - they may get what they wanted- at least in some states. — Relativist

But 42% of the women who voted in 2016 voted for Trump.

[

the opponents to Roe vs, Wade have maintained a 50 year (1973-2022) campaign to overturn the decision. Victory at this point can not be a surprise, because piece-by-piece, the conservatives have been moving necessary pieces on the political chessboard toward checkmate. — Bitter Crank

Bingo. It was inevitable, considering their laser focus.

Left-leaning people were far too complacent, taking their successes for granted, and not recognizing that there's a struggle to retain their gains. Same sex marriage could easily be next to go.

Between the extremes - Dems: print more money and give it away, do away with borders - Reps: pray that women will not have the right to abortion - there must be a middle way.

I actually see this as a good thing. From what I understand, the legality of Roe v Wade was always a bit sketchy. Even RBG said “the court ventured too far in the change it ordered.”
I’m all for abortion rights but do it the right way.
In my (completely disinterested, it doesn’t affect me) opinion, the legal cut-off should be at the “point of viability.”
If it gets overturned it will be up to the states. What do you think?

GFY, man — 180 Proof

Obama met with Ginsburg in 2013 to encourage her to retire before the midterm election. Instead, she resisted pressure from the President and other liberals, remained on the bench, and the rest is history; she was replaced by Amy Coney Barrett who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade and roll back women's rights so that mothers had more rights than their daughters do today. That's inescapably RBG's legacy. She had the opportunity to retire and allow a Democratic President with a Democratic controlled senate pick her replacement. Instead she allowed egotistical arrogance to take precedence over political imperative. Had she died during her surgery for pancreatic cancer in 2009 Roe v. Wade would not have been overturned, given that Roberts likely sided with the liberal wing and the vote is 5-4, and therefore millions of women would have retained a fundamental bodily right (not to mention how the ruling places gay marriage, and contraceptives on the chopping block). I would much rather prefer a Supreme Court Justice die of cancer in her then mid-70s then the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the cataclysmic political and social consequences we're about to face.

Yes but girlboss energy.


(But like, just one girlboss, not all the others who might say, drop dead from ectopic pregnancies).


The American ability to fetishize and grovel at the feet of their most powerful and most elite members of society will never not surprise me.

I actually see this as a good thing. From what I understand, the legality of Roe v Wade was always a bit sketchy. Even RBG said “the court ventured too far in the change it ordered.”
I’m all for abortion rights but do it the right way.
In my (completely disinterested, it doesn’t affect me) opinion, the legal cut-off should be at the “point of viability.”
If it gets overturned it will be up to the states. What do you think? — Paulm12

Yep.

People now going to appeal to this republican to help them save women from being forced birthing machines.

Also "point of viability" sounds good to me too, because when not wielded as a completely made up, non-medical notion by anti-abortion misogynists - which is what it is, and what they all are - that would be the baby at term.

Americans now get to vote on the issue, like most other countries. The end.

Anyway, the Christian Taliban and the Dems are the two big winners here, so let's call it a draw.

Anyway this is why Jan 6 was never, ever a problem except for the fact that the wrong people were doing it.

Are there any other innocent old people we can wish hindsight cancer on for ethical reasons? You never know what harm granny might cause if we don't kill her off. *Cackle*

Very rarely (ever?) do I feel a need to defend Streetlite. He surely could have phrased it less abrasively. I think what he meant was that Ginsberg should have resigned early in her illness, rather than gutting it out into a Republican administration.

Do any SCOTUS justices think they are a-political? the law is political; they are political creatures of necessity.

You have to let people decide, though. If you can't do that, then what?

Let people decide... what?

Whether they want abortion in their communities.

Well, yes. Let people decide -- that's what Roe vs. Wade established. Same for several other private activities. The personal sphere is private and not a proper object of governmental intrusion.

This shouldn’t be the least bit surprising. There will be plenty of other decisions to come. Watch EPA v. West Virginia, for example, which WILL limit EPA’s ability to regulate carbon emissions. Will be even deadlier than this one. Etc.

Republicans will still take the house and senate, by the way.

Christian Taliban — Baden

This Christian Evangelical movement predates the Taliban. It's completely home grown, no need to transpose it.

Just noticed this thread.

Question: if the Supreme Court of the USA really does overturn Roe v Wade, as seems highly likely, won't this undermine the Republican vote in the mid-term elections? I'm guessing that it will be an extremely unpopular decision with female voters in particular, who could quite feasibly express their ire by not voting Republican. I don't know, but I haven't read any commentary to that effect, and it would seem likely to me.

The solution to the abortion issue is a simple one: Contraceptives (birth control pills, IUDs, condoms, etc.) and sex education (coitus interruptus, abstinence, avoiding premarital sex, etc,) Provisions for accidental pregnancies (contraceptives are not a 100% effective & rape) have to be made (a few licensed clinics should be allowed to operate. It's a win-win!

With all due respect, that's bullshit. (1) The US Senate had a GOP-majority from 2011[2015]-2021; Moscow Mitch denied "44" one SC nominee in 2016 and there's no reason to believe he wouldn't have denied another in 2013-2014. (2) Dems have failed to codify protections for reproduction right's for over four decades. (3) As a member of a co-equal branch of government, no SC Justice is or has ever been obligated to resign her lifetime appointment for partisan political expedience – sexist double standard via hindsight bias!

SLX has no skin in this US Constitutional game so his a-holish noise is merely distasteful. I give you much more credit for knowing better, counselor; vilifying a dead woman without warrant (as pointed about in 3 points above), who was a proven champion of women's civil/human rights and tireless, life-long public servant, is fucking shameful, Maw. Wtf, man?! :shade:

Males that don't express they want children, yet are interested in sex, get a reversible vasectomy (or something to that effect).
Legislation and medical science to work out the details.
(Could incidentally prevent some pregnancies from rape.)
Simple, huh?

^{The Guardian via Facebook (May 3, 2022)}

life-long public servant, — 180 Proof

Too long, as it has turned out.

In any case it is true that it is unfair to pin this on a single judge, least it be unclear that the supreme court in general has always been an anti-democratic guarantor of capitalist propagation and should probably be torn down brick by brick anyway.

One hopes, skeptically, that this will physically happen in the next month or so.

(1) The US Senate had a GOP-majority from 2011-2021; Moscow Mitch denied "44" one SC nominee in 2016 and there's no reason to believe he wouldn't have denied another in 2013-2014. (2) Dems have failed to codify protections for reproduction right's for over four decades. (3) As a member of a co-equal branch of government, no SC Justice is or has ever been obligated to resign her lifetime appointment for partisan political expedience – sexist double standard via hindsight bias! — 180 Proof

1) The GOP did not have a senate majority until 2014, not 2011. Democrats controlled the Senate under Obama from 2009-2013 during which Ginsburg, having recently undergone pancreatic cancer surgery, could have retired and safely been replaced by a liberal judge.

2) Yes maybe their inability to do so would have been a red flag for RBG to retire strategically. Of course the Democrats also suck, I'm happy to distribute blame beyond RBG. Like the sword of Damocles the Dems have dangled the GOP threat towards abortion rights for years as a paramount reason to vote for them. This is where the strategy has lead them.

3) This is simply not true, Breyer faced pressure to retire, and fortunately had the good sense to do so. Trump/GOP also worked to convince the ~80 year old Anthony Kennedy to retire and be replaced by a raging alcoholic Federalist Society member in his 50s, surely for overt political purposes. Nothing to do with sexism; I'm baffled by that connection. Regardless, she was a public servant within an increasingly partisan and increasingly powerful branch of Government and it was selfish to treat her lifetime appointment with such a self-serving attitude.

a proven champion of women's civil/human rights and tireless, life-long public servant, is fucking shameful, Maw. — 180 Proof

Yes wonderful, and due to her explicit stubbornness not only will we see a rollback of women's rights, likely gay rights, continued rollback of civil rights, etc., but Ketanji Brown Jackson, the fifth woman to serve on the Supreme Court, will likely be writing dissents for the rest of her career on the bench. What's really more shameful here?