Roberts is now asking the civ pro question.
Basically Mississippi asked for the law to bye analyzed under current law in its cert petition and then in its merits brief was like, well actually can you just overturn Roe and Casey.
THIS IS UNUSUAL.
Basically Mississippi asked for the law to bye analyzed under current law in its cert petition and then in its merits brief was like, well actually can you just overturn Roe and Casey.
THIS IS UNUSUAL.
Usually if a litigant wants to overturn precedent, they SPECIFICALLY ask the Supreme Court to do that in their cert petition.
You can't say you want the Court to answer one question and then switch when they decide to take the case.
it's procedurally improper.
You can't say you want the Court to answer one question and then switch when they decide to take the case.
it's procedurally improper.
But Roberts doesn't seem to care much. @Hegemommy has been saying for YEEEEAAARS that Roberts is no friend to abortion.
He's showing his hand here.
We told y'all not to get too excited about his June Medical Services opinion.
He's showing his hand here.
We told y'all not to get too excited about his June Medical Services opinion.
Gorsuch: Are you saying the Constitution is silent and neutral on abortion and the issue should be left to the states?
Stewart: Yes. It should be left to the people.
Gorsuch: if you were to prevail, the majority of states would continue to freely allow abortion?
Stewart: Yes
Stewart: Yes. It should be left to the people.
Gorsuch: if you were to prevail, the majority of states would continue to freely allow abortion?
Stewart: Yes
So Gorsuch is revealing that he's on board for throwing it back to the states which is awesome since GOP is making it impossible for people to vote at the state level which means as the GOP gains more state control abortion rights go into the toilet.
Oh my bad. That was Kavanaugh not Gorsuch.
So much for Kavanaugh being a vote for abortion rights, in case anyone thought that. LOL.
So much for Kavanaugh being a vote for abortion rights, in case anyone thought that. LOL.
And now Barrett is up to take that bs ball and run with it.
Julie Rikelman is up arguing for JWHO.
Mississippi's ban is flatly unconstitutional under decades of precedent.
She gives three reasons:
Mississippi's ban is flatly unconstitutional under decades of precedent.
She gives three reasons:
1. stare decisis presents a high bar. In Casey this court examined and rejected every reason for overruling roe holding that a woman's right to end pregnancy before viability was a rule of law and component of liberty.
2. Casey and Roe were correct. For a state to take control of a woman's body and demand she go through pregnancy and childbirth is a fundamental deprivation of her liberty.
3. Eliminating or reducing the right to a bortion will propel women backwards. Two generations have now relied on this right. One out of 4 women ends a pregnancy. Poor women and young people are most effected.
Thomas is up asking a question about a woman in South Carolina who ingested cocaine post viability and was imprisoned.
he wants to know whether or not if a preggo ingests cocaine previability, if they could be criminally liable for child neglect.
he wants to know whether or not if a preggo ingests cocaine previability, if they could be criminally liable for child neglect.
He's talking about Regina McKnight, I think!!
Rikelman is all: Yeah this is a case about a ban on abortion wtf are you talking about.
Rikelman stresses that previability, termination is 100% the pregnant woman's decision
Roberts: This is a 15 week ban not a total ban, what's the big deal?
BASICALLY he wants to know if this really going to effect the hard hit communities Rikelman mentioned.
Rikelman is CRUSHING IT.
BASICALLY he wants to know if this really going to effect the hard hit communities Rikelman mentioned.
Rikelman is CRUSHING IT.
Roberts: If you think the issue is one of choice, that supposes there's a point at which they had the choice. Why would 15 weeks be an inappropriate line.
Viability doesn't have anything to do with choice but if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time
Viability doesn't have anything to do with choice but if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time
Rikelman is pointing out that these abortion hostile states aren't going to stop at 15 weeks.
Roberts says that 15 weeks is not that far from viability.
Roberts says that 15 weeks is not that far from viability.
Roberts legit chined in with "We're on the level with North Korea andChina now. OOGEDY BOOGEDY."
Rikelman schools him on international laws re abortion and says that he's wrong. She also says 15 weeks is NINE WEEKS before viability.
Rikelman schools him on international laws re abortion and says that he's wrong. She also says 15 weeks is NINE WEEKS before viability.
BARRETT is up:
She thinks safe haven laws (i.e., dump your baby at a hospital or fire house laws) should matter.
RIkelman: They don't matter. The idea that a woman could place a child up for adoption has been true since Roe. They already had considered safe haven type laws.
She thinks safe haven laws (i.e., dump your baby at a hospital or fire house laws) should matter.
RIkelman: They don't matter. The idea that a woman could place a child up for adoption has been true since Roe. They already had considered safe haven type laws.
Rikelman cont'd: We don't just focus on the burdens of parenting. PREGNANCY ITSELF IS UNIQUE.
It impacts women's lives and their ability to care for other children, other family members, ability to work.
It impacts women's lives and their ability to care for other children, other family members, ability to work.
Rikelman: It's 75X more dangerous to give birth in MS than to have a previabiity abortion and those risks threaten the lives of women of color.
She set Barrett back on her heels.
She set Barrett back on her heels.
Gorsuch is asking a Very Reasonable question about star decisis and how the undue burden tests fits in to all of this.
Rikelman: Undue burden doesn't matter here because this is a ban not a regulation and undue burden standard relates to regulations not bans.
ISSA BAN.
Rikelman: Undue burden doesn't matter here because this is a ban not a regulation and undue burden standard relates to regulations not bans.
ISSA BAN.
A 15 WEEK BAN IS A BAN IT'S NOT A REGULATION AAAAAAARGH
Gorsuch: If the Court extends the undue burden standard to all bans/regulations, would that be workable? That's ok right?
Rikelman: No.
NO BECAUSE THAT'S A REVERSAL OF ROE AND CASEY.
Rikelman: No.
NO BECAUSE THAT'S A REVERSAL OF ROE AND CASEY.
you don't need an undue burden analysis on previability bans if previabilty bans are ipso facto unconstitutional.
I keep saying this. I will die on this hill.
I keep saying this. I will die on this hill.
Alito: What do you say to the argument that the viability line doesn't make any sense. It's arbitrary. The interests of women getting abortions doesn't disappear when the viability line is crossed.
No. BECAUSE ROE ITSELF WAS A COMPROMISE.
Alito is so close to getting it.
No. BECAUSE ROE ITSELF WAS A COMPROMISE.
Alito is so close to getting it.
Alito is trying to get Rikelman to say that viability isn't a principled line.
Roe balanced the interest of the woman and the state.
Alito: The fetus has an interest in having a life.
Me: Do all fetuses though? Do we KNOW they want to be born?? Especially into poverty?
Roe balanced the interest of the woman and the state.
Alito: The fetus has an interest in having a life.
Me: Do all fetuses though? Do we KNOW they want to be born?? Especially into poverty?
Rikelman: the court set a line between conception and birth and looked at the fetus's ability to survive as a legal line because it's objectively identifiable and doesn't require the Court to do any guess work.
viability is an identifiable line. it's workable. the end.
viability is an identifiable line. it's workable. the end.
Roberts is yammering about the regulations in Casey. He's really ready to shiv Casey
.
.
Fun Fact:
Sam Alito wrote the 3rd Circuit opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and uphold ALL the regulation INCLUDING THE SPOUSAL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT
Sam Alito wrote the 3rd Circuit opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and uphold ALL the regulation INCLUDING THE SPOUSAL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT
Once again I am asking Stephen Breyer to retire.
What is he talking about???
Thomas: where is the right to abortion protected in the constitution.
Rikelman: Liberty. Textual protection in the 14th amendment. The Court has interpreted liberty as a right to make family decision including the right to end a previability pregnancy.
Rikelman: Liberty. Textual protection in the 14th amendment. The Court has interpreted liberty as a right to make family decision including the right to end a previability pregnancy.
Thomas: Yeah but...
lol
Rikelman keeps saying "this is how the court has interpreted the liberty clause." Emphasizing court decision dating back decades. Julie is politely slapping Thomas across the face with a white glove.
lol
Rikelman keeps saying "this is how the court has interpreted the liberty clause." Emphasizing court decision dating back decades. Julie is politely slapping Thomas across the face with a white glove.
Alito is up again.
He wants to talk about common law. He asks are there any decisions or laws around 1868 recognizing the right to abortion.
*dramatic eyeroll*
Rikelman is ready. You don't have to get ready if you stay ready!
He wants to talk about common law. He asks are there any decisions or laws around 1868 recognizing the right to abortion.
*dramatic eyeroll*
Rikelman is ready. You don't have to get ready if you stay ready!
Kavanaugh wants to know why dirty abortion lovers are constantly asking the Court to pick sides. He says it's a neutral issue. The Court isn't pro-life or pro-choice.
Are you fucking kidding me, Brad? Ask the other 5 FedSoc captured justices if they're "pro-life" or pro-choice
Are you fucking kidding me, Brad? Ask the other 5 FedSoc captured justices if they're "pro-life" or pro-choice
Solicitor General Prelogar is up arguing for JUSTICE (The Department of):
Overruling Roe consequences will be swift.
Points out that half of states would ban abortion at all stages without exception for rape and incest.
Overruling Roe consequences will be swift.
Points out that half of states would ban abortion at all stages without exception for rape and incest.
"The Court has never revoked a right that is so fundamental to so many Americans and so central to their ability to participate full and equally in society."
Thomas wants to know what the right is: liberty, privacy, autonomy, abortion?
"What specifically is the right here? I know what right is at issue in the 2nd Amendment and the 4th Am."
It's the right of a women prior to viability to decide whether to continue a pregnancy.
"What specifically is the right here? I know what right is at issue in the 2nd Amendment and the 4th Am."
It's the right of a women prior to viability to decide whether to continue a pregnancy.
"I'm just a cave man justice. I don't understand your abortion and liberty and substantive due process rights." - Thomas, basically
The Court interprets amendments all the time. It's absurd for Thomas to pretend otherwise. In fact they interpreted it to be a personal right to bear arms rather than a militia right.
So piss off, buddy
So piss off, buddy
Breyer is big mad. I'm here for it. he's basically saying "open your eyes!"
He's also giving out homework assignments, asking people to read specific bits of Casey.
Nobody wants homework, Stephen.
He's also giving out homework assignments, asking people to read specific bits of Casey.
Nobody wants homework, Stephen.
Alito is being rude af and trying to put it into the universe that Roe v. Wade is as egregiously wrong as Plessy v. Ferguson.
ANd I want to dramatically toss myself off the bottom stair.
ANd I want to dramatically toss myself off the bottom stair.
Alito, being rude: "Can a decision be overruled simply because it was wrong even if nothing has changed between the time of that decision and the time the Court is given an opportunity to overrule it?? YES OR NO."
Rikelman, essentially: No. Y'all have never done that. Stop it.
Rikelman, essentially: No. Y'all have never done that. Stop it.
On the reliance interests at play here: Women have relied on abortion. White people relied on Plessy and its guarantee of separate but equal.
IT'S THE SAME THING.
Seriously that's what Alito basically said.
IT'S THE SAME THING.
Seriously that's what Alito basically said.
Kagan gets back into reliance interests and Rikelman is ready.
Not all women will have or want to have an abortion. But 1 in 4 women have. They rely on Roe's guarantees.
Not all women will have or want to have an abortion. But 1 in 4 women have. They rely on Roe's guarantees.
Sotomayor is talking about how not all women have a choice. Some women are victims of rape. Some women are uninsured and can't pay for contraceptives.
MS argues that birth control is cheap and accessible so where's all the reliance?
This is an absurd thing to say of course.
MS argues that birth control is cheap and accessible so where's all the reliance?
This is an absurd thing to say of course.
Contraceptives fail. Contraceptives cannot REPLACE abortion. But they sure can reduce the rate of abortion.
But antis don't care about that because they are coming for birth control too.
But antis don't care about that because they are coming for birth control too.
Thomas wants to talk about criminalizing pregnancy and ingestion of cocaine previability and child neglect. (look up Regina McKnight. IT was a TRAVESTY.)
Prelogar: That has to do with a child that was born.
Prelogar: That has to do with a child that was born.
"The nature of fundamental rights is that it's not left up to state legislatures to decide whether to honor them or not." - Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar
BAM.
BAM.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
