Politico has obtained a draft of the final opinion of the case.

But SCOTUS has officially overturned Roe vs. Wade and Casey vs. Planned Parenthood.

The decision, according to the draft, will be 5-4. It appears Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan join Roberts in dissent.

Unexpectedly, it appears Samuel Alito writes the decision, which fully repudiates the 1973 Roe decision and it's 1992 counterpart in Casey.

(Many felt that Amy Coney Barrett would write the decision, as did I.)

Politico notes these highlights:

1) The Constitution does not refer to abortion in any way, hence there is no Constitutional provision to protect it.

My Note: This would probably also mean a complete repudiation of the bedrock of the Roe decision, in that there is no Constitutional mention of the concept of privacy either -- this would also allow the Court to reverse Loving, the Texas Sodomy Decision, and Obergefell.

2) Unexpectedly (and I also believe against the Court's precedent in Obergefell), this decision WILL return the question to the States.

My note: I fully expected a 50-state illegality, under the same Establishment Clause protections (that if a fetus is an unborn person with innate Constitutional right not to be aborted, the Establishment Clause applies there, as it did in Obergefell). This almost certainly indicates that, once a sufficiently-religious right-wing party can get an Obergefell reversal to the Court, the Court is prepared to reverse that as well.

3) Roe imposed the same "highly restrictive" (pro-abortion) "regime on the entire Nation".

My note: Which would completely make sense under the Establishment Clause. To go the other direction cannot punt this question to the States, but must grant a fetus the same right to "life" in California it has in Arkansas, as an example. That this decision, apparently, does not do this, indicates the Court is prepared to revoke similarly imposed rights in other cases.

4) The punishment of abortion as murder is correct common law since the inception of this country until 1973.

My note: This clause basically opens the door to the prosecution of anyone involved in an abortion, as a concept of murder. And how anyone, given that concept, does not go back to the Court and question how any state can actually allow abortion when others see it first-degree and perhaps capital murder, is beyond any semblance of my comprehension.

5) "Our nation's historical understanding of ordered liberty" allows this to be punted to the States.

My note: Why? Especially given previous court precedent (which it now certainly implies will be revoked, first chance SCOTUS gets), does this mean that the physical geographical state of the fetus' mother determines what rights the fetus gets, if any? Why, then, did this same court rule otherwise in decisions like Obergefell? You now have question as to whether one state can actually sanction, as murder, an abortion performed in a legal state on and at the behest of the mother from a state where it is illegal. It would appear that question is answered in the affirmative, if the mother is living in a state where abortion is illegal. You have now stated that, contrary to other court opinion, neither fetus NOR mother has Establishment Clause protection.

6) The revocation is meant to be the final Constitutional word on abortion, because this Court believes this is the only way it can be settled correctly, stare decisis be damned.

7) The Court points to other decisions similarly revoked.

My Note: And, IMODO, points that this Court will gladly add to that number.. Obergefell and Texas Sodomy probably go next, and a Texas Sodomy reversal probably eventually reverses Loving.

8) Casey called on the sides to close the debate and closed the door on the anti-abortion movement improperly.

My Note: The Constitution is nothing more than an imposition of rights against the majority toward the minority, lest the minority be ostracized at minimum and murdered at maximum. Most of the highest-level civil rights discussions in this country are impositions, not rights already granted. This is a tradition stemming back to the 1868 ratification of the 14th Amendment -- a point which many Rightists believe upon that the country was lost.

9) The Court cannot bring a final end to this, though it desires to (See #6).

My Note: And therein, though not quite to the extent I felt it would, is the true matter of this decision. The Conservative Court will use it's majority, even sans Roberts, to reimpose many of the same limitations, as they and their political heralds were voted into office to do.

This decision is basically not only a reversal of Roe and Casey, but nullifies any future attempt to impose rights under the Establishment Clause on states and persons unwilling to accept them. This Court must now reverse Obergefell and Texas Sodomy, using this Roe reversal as precedent.

10) The Court disavows any authority to have knowledge on how society will rue this reversal, nor to have it influence the decision.

My take: And there's your reversal of Obergefell -- for, though I believe correctly, that is EXACTLY what the Court did in Obergefell by imposing it as a 50-state situation.

The Court knew what would happen if gay marriage was thrown to the States, and let that influence it's decision. This decision throws the barn door wide to reverse every meaningful civil and human rights imposition on the right wing of this country over the last 60 or so years.

Mike

Roberts, apparently, is only dissenting in part.

He is willing to move the line to 15 weeks.

Mike

On 5/2/2022 9:49 PM, Michael Falkner wrote:

> The Court knew what would happen if gay marriage was thrown to the States, and let that influence it's decision. This decision throws the barn door wide to reverse every meaningful civil and human rights imposition on the right wing of this country over the last 60 or so years.
>
> Mike

In other words, WE'RE FUCKED.

--
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In
practice, there is." Ruben Goldberg

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 9:36:15 PM UTC-7, RoddyMcCorley wrote:

> In other words, WE'RE FUCKED.

Pretty much.

Mike (One of the reasons I wrote that "resolution solution" as the third option for a Republican 118th Congress next year.)

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:49:17 PM UTC-5, Michael Falkner wrote:
>
> My take: And there's your reversal of Obergefell -- for, though I believe correctly, that is EXACTLY what the Court did in Obergefell by imposing it as a 50-state situation.
>
> The Court knew what would happen if gay marriage was thrown to the States, and let that influence it's decision. This decision throws the barn door wide to reverse every meaningful civil and human rights imposition on the right wing of this country over the last 60 or so years.

This makes no legal sense. None of the opinions in Obergfell mention Roe. Overturning Roe will have zero effect on Obergfell.

Doug

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 7:54:10 AM UTC-7, Emperor Wonko the Sane wrote:
> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:49:17 PM UTC-5, Michael Falkner wrote:
> >
> > My take: And there's your reversal of Obergefell -- for, though I believe correctly, that is EXACTLY what the Court did in Obergefell by imposing it as a 50-state situation.
> >
> > The Court knew what would happen if gay marriage was thrown to the States, and let that influence it's decision. This decision throws the barn door wide to reverse every meaningful civil and human rights imposition on the right wing of this country over the last 60 or so years.
> This makes no legal sense. None of the opinions in Obergfell mention Roe. Overturning Roe will have zero effect on Obergfell.

Not only is your premise categorically false, but Alito mentions it right in the opinion.

Both Obergefell and Lawrence may also have been meaningfully overturned with this decision.

(What I wrote had nothing to do with that knowledge -- I found out about it later that evening.)

Mike

> 2) Unexpectedly (and I also believe against the Court's precedent in Obergefell), this decision WILL return the question to the States.
>
> My note: I fully expected a 50-state illegality, under the same Establishment Clause protections (that if a fetus is an unborn person with innate Constitutional right not to be aborted, the Establishment Clause applies there, as it did in Obergefell). This almost certainly indicates that, once a sufficiently-religious right-wing party can get an Obergefell reversal to the Court, the Court is prepared to reverse that as well.

Why? Thomas, and, IIRC, Scalia, made it quite clear in any number of dissents that they both felt that it should be left up to the states. Neither ever expressed an opinion that there should be an outright ban. Besides, if the reason for the overturn is, "Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution," then neither is banning it, so it should be left up to "the states, or the people" under the 10th Amendment - and, in fact, that is how the leaked opinion ends.

Now, why do I have the feeling that this just opened the door for the Democrats to take overwhelming control of Congress and who knows how many state legislatures over the next few years? Even the 2022 Senate doesn't seem as much as a lock for the Republicans as it did last week. Remember, any party that can get 290 Representatives, 67 Senators, and 38 state legislatures can pretty much rewrite the Constitution.

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 11:00:32 AM UTC-7, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> > 2) Unexpectedly (and I also believe against the Court's precedent in Obergefell), this decision WILL return the question to the States.
> >
> > My note: I fully expected a 50-state illegality, under the same Establishment Clause protections (that if a fetus is an unborn person with innate Constitutional right not to be aborted, the Establishment Clause applies there, as it did in Obergefell). This almost certainly indicates that, once a sufficiently-religious right-wing party can get an Obergefell reversal to the Court, the Court is prepared to reverse that as well.

> Why? Thomas, and, IIRC, Scalia, made it quite clear in any number of dissents that they both felt that it should be left up to the states. Neither ever expressed an opinion that there should be an outright ban. Besides, if the reason for the overturn is, "Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution," then neither is banning it, so it should be left up to "the states, or the people" under the 10th Amendment - and, in fact, that is how the leaked opinion ends.

Under the same Establishment Clause argument given in Obergefell. If the Court can impose gay marriage on states and peoples who will not abide it, then the Court can also impose that a fetus has the rights, as a citizen of the state in which it resides (and since it lives, it IS such a citizen -- that's another thing they're going to have to parse out!), regardless of whether the state would allow abortion or not. The same 14th Amendment clause which made gay marriage 50-state legal.

This is one of the reasons Alito SPECIFICALLY called for the overturn of Obergefell in the draft Roe overturn decision.

The fact they are punting to the states means neither mother nor fetus has that protection, and, hence, the Roberts Court must overturn Obergefell -- if this decision doesn't do so already.
> Now, why do I have the feeling that this just opened the door for the Democrats to take overwhelming control of Congress and who knows how many state legislatures over the next few years? Even the 2022 Senate doesn't seem as much as a lock for the Republicans as it did last week. Remember, any party that can get 290 Representatives, 67 Senators, and 38 state legislatures can pretty much rewrite the Constitution.

Exactly. One of the reasons I proposed a hypothetical that 218 Reps and 67 Senators from the other party should be the automatic removal of a President -- that would take an amendment, mind you.

I don't know about that situation, simply because I think there are at least enough Putin supporters cogent enough to actually state that a sufficient Red victory in November can remove Biden without impeachment/trial -- see my other post earlier on that subject.

I think the best case for the D's is what we have now. But what I would say is this: If they could get a 51st D Senator and somehow hold the House, then Biden resigns and Kamala names her replacement to be confirmed in the Congress.

Mike

> > Why? Thomas, and, IIRC, Scalia, made it quite clear in any number of dissents that they both felt that it should be left up to the states. Neither ever expressed an opinion that there should be an outright ban. Besides, if the reason for the overturn is, "Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution," then neither is banning it, so it should be left up to "the states, or the people" under the 10th Amendment - and, in fact, that is how the leaked opinion ends.
> Under the same Establishment Clause argument given in Obergefell. If the Court can impose gay marriage on states and peoples who will not abide it, then the Court can also impose that a fetus has the rights, as a citizen of the state in which it resides (and since it lives, it IS such a citizen -- that's another thing they're going to have to parse out!), regardless of whether the state would allow abortion or not. The same 14th Amendment clause which made gay marriage 50-state legal.
>
> This is one of the reasons Alito SPECIFICALLY called for the overturn of Obergefell in the draft Roe overturn decision.
>
> The fact they are punting to the states means neither mother nor fetus has that protection, and, hence, the Roberts Court must overturn Obergefell -- if this decision doesn't do so already.

Question: can a Federal court convict someone of murder if no state lines were crossed in the commiting of the crime? If not, then the court can't really ban state abortion laws, except maybe under some "violation of the fetus's civil rights" crime that was used to convict the Rodney King attackers.

>> Now, why do I have the feeling that this just opened the door for the Democrats to take overwhelming control of Congress and who knows how many state legislatures over the next few years? Even the 2022 Senate doesn't seem as much as a lock for the Republicans as it did last week. Remember, any party that can get 290 Representatives, 67 Senators, and 38 state legislatures can pretty much rewrite the Constitution.
> Exactly. One of the reasons I proposed a hypothetical that 218 Reps and 67 Senators from the other party should be the automatic removal of a President -- that would take an amendment, mind you.

What do you mean by "automatic" - and wouldn't that mean that any replacement President would have to be from the same party, as otherwise it defeats the purpose of the law?

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 12:37:33 PM UTC-7, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:

> Question: can a Federal court convict someone of murder if no state lines were crossed in the commiting of the crime? If not, then the court can't really ban state abortion laws, except maybe under some "violation of the fetus's civil rights" crime that was used to convict the Rodney King attackers.

That's one possibility.

That's not even the worst of it. In a state which prohibits abortion, they're ALREADY STARTED arresting for murder -- the only reason the one woman in 2022 was let go was that this decision has not been enacted yet.

What I openly see happening (and what many propose will happen): You're a mother who wishes to abort a fetus in a red state. You cross state lines, and abort the baby in a blue state. The red state not only arrests you for the abortion, but tacks on a charge of crossing state lines to commit a felony.

And, when challenged, they can now state that, under their laws, the fetus is a citizen of the state in which it resides -- meaning that if the mother leaves the state for the express purpose of eliminating the fetus, you, in fact, DO have the "violation of civil rights", as well as the murder AND the crossing lines to commit it.

In short, I think your answer is an uncategorical yes, even IF state lines are crossed.

> > Exactly. One of the reasons I proposed a hypothetical that 218 Reps and 67 Senators from the other party should be the automatic removal of a President -- that would take an amendment, mind you.
> What do you mean by "automatic" - and wouldn't that mean that any replacement President would have to be from the same party, as otherwise it defeats the purpose of the law?

Exactly said intent. The House of Representatives would elect said President as the Speaker of the House.

Mike