“who lack standing” - So we’re going all the way to Dred Scott now? Didn’t Roe basically create a workaround specifically to avoid the obvious standing problem in that case? Or was that already a thing?
My argument has always been simple: SCOTUS is an inherently political institution. Its power to check the legislative and executive branches is extremely important, but the pearl clutching about overturning longstanding precedent amounts to pearl crutch-ing for those who like what the precedent was.
I think there are plenty of practical reasons not to overturn Roe, but fretting over a fear of appearing “political” when the other side of the debate argues they favor the legislature’s right to protect defenseless lives is the worst of the bunch.
Listen here, sparky, you're insulting all of my hobbies and informed professional interests, and I won't stand for it. And not only that, but you clearly don't know what you're talking about. "Capable of repetition yet evading review" as a standing substitute (what I assume you were referring to) is entirely different than a fetus being a proper party to a lawsuit. Understand? No, you probably don't. You simply oppose abortion in your heart. You could have just stated that.
If understanding the history and evolution of the Fourteenth Amendment were a college sport, I would be a 5-star recruit. I will be vindicated in the final analysis. You'll see. You'll all see. (That goes for you too, Chings.)
First of all, the 5 star recruit totally dodged my Dred Scott standing comparo. Is your learned position that that decision was correct until later constitutional amendments?
Second, I was really just indulging your tangent about standing with my comment about Roe. My QUESTION (which you didn’t answer) was whether the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception existed before Roe, or whether it was created in order to decide that case? It’s certainly not in the constitution in either event.
The point being that standing seems to be another one of those things that can have political undertones as well.
I don't think making Dred Scott comparisons is useful, considering that slavery was legal at the time. I attempted to address your argument by inferring and then addressing the "capable of repetition yet evading review" test, which was NOT developed specifically for Roe. It also applied to situations in which a government, governmental subunit, agency, etc. would initiate proceedings and then dismiss them (to avoid an unfavorable decision) only to reinitiate proceedings later. Rinse, repeat, because it takes a long time for cases to reach final judgment, as you know.
I'm just endeavoring to inform regarding the current state of constitutional jurisprudence on the matter, and then make an informed prediction about what I think the Court will do. However, I have been dilatory in performing the most important aspect, which is looking closely at the Mississippi law. Is it just that abortions cannot be had after 15 weeks unless medically necessary? That is *roughly* in line with existing precedent, which states that prior to the point of viability, states may not restrict a woman's access to abortion. But after the point of viability, states may reasonably regulate abortion access, except that they cannot restrict abortions that are medically necessary for the health of the mother. If that's all true, then the question becomes: "has medical science advanced to the point that 15 weeks is a reasonable approximation of the point of viability?" That's kind of a tough question for a court to answer. I'm predicting a splintered plurality opinion that won't mean much but will give everyone something to bitch about while not understanding what it all means.
If my very surface-level understanding of the Mississippi law is correct, then the court need not revisit Roe/Casey/etc. in order to uphold the Mississippi law. However, it also seems absurd for the Supreme Court of the United States to declare that 15 weeks is the point of viability. But that would seem to be the gambit happening, here.
