Author Topic: Supreme Court Cases Thread  (Read 3126 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BIG APPLE CAT

  • smelly poor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3095
  • slide rule enthusiast
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #50 on: May 03, 2022, 12:26:17 PM »
Wow. If this turns out to be correct, I will have a lot of egg on my face. I've obviously been pretty outspoken that I did not think the Court would actually throw out Roe/Casey and their progeny. This would cause me to completely change my thinking. Two quick thoughts:

1.) This is HIGHLY unusual in that these draft opinions never see the light of day, and leaks from the Supreme Court before an opinion comes down don't happen. This had to have come from one of the Justices' law clerks (in particular, either from the liberal wing or John Roberts).
2.) I am holding out hope that this will not come to fruition because the Politico article gets some things not quite correct when it comes to SCOTUS procedures. It gets a lot of things correct, but it is not the case that a draft of a "majority" opinion means that a decision has been reached. Particularly in the case of deadlocks, it has happened in the past that one justice will circulate a draft "majority" opinion to try to sway votes to his/her side. Let us hope that is the case here.

i got my money on Sotomayor's clerk as the leaker

Offline star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 58814
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #51 on: May 03, 2022, 12:31:32 PM »
Kav was probably drunk and let it slip
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 80693
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #52 on: May 03, 2022, 12:59:35 PM »
Wildcard is Thomas’ QAnon wife getting too hornt over it to keep it a secret.

Offline CHONGS

  • Master of the Atom
  • Administrator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 17697
    • View Profile
    • goEMAW.com
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #53 on: May 03, 2022, 01:19:27 PM »
I've heard it came from Roberts.

Online Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 34608
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #54 on: May 03, 2022, 01:59:07 PM »
Probably a good time to invest in whatever company makes abortion pills, right?

Offline cfbandyman

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6118
  • To da 'ville.
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #55 on: May 03, 2022, 02:37:25 PM »
Wow. If this turns out to be correct, I will have a lot of egg on my face. I've obviously been pretty outspoken that I did not think the Court would actually throw out Roe/Casey and their progeny. This would cause me to completely change my thinking. Two quick thoughts:

1.) This is HIGHLY unusual in that these draft opinions never see the light of day, and leaks from the Supreme Court before an opinion comes down don't happen. This had to have come from one of the Justices' law clerks (in particular, either from the liberal wing or John Roberts).
2.) I am holding out hope that this will not come to fruition because the Politico article gets some things not quite correct when it comes to SCOTUS procedures. It gets a lot of things correct, but it is not the case that a draft of a "majority" opinion means that a decision has been reached. Particularly in the case of deadlocks, it has happened in the past that one justice will circulate a draft "majority" opinion to try to sway votes to his/her side. Let us hope that is the case here.

Yeah, I guess I still don't actually expect that to happen, but even still, if it does, the back alley unattended consequences of this is going to be interesting to see
A&M Style: 1/19/13 Co-Champion of THE ED's College Basketball Challenge

The art of the deal with it poors


Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 15401
  • Distinguished Scholar/Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #56 on: May 03, 2022, 02:42:08 PM »
Wow. If this turns out to be correct, I will have a lot of egg on my face. I've obviously been pretty outspoken that I did not think the Court would actually throw out Roe/Casey and their progeny. This would cause me to completely change my thinking. Two quick thoughts:

1.) This is HIGHLY unusual in that these draft opinions never see the light of day, and leaks from the Supreme Court before an opinion comes down don't happen. This had to have come from one of the Justices' law clerks (in particular, either from the liberal wing or John Roberts).
2.) I am holding out hope that this will not come to fruition because the Politico article gets some things not quite correct when it comes to SCOTUS procedures. It gets a lot of things correct, but it is not the case that a draft of a "majority" opinion means that a decision has been reached. Particularly in the case of deadlocks, it has happened in the past that one justice will circulate a draft "majority" opinion to try to sway votes to his/her side. Let us hope that is the case here.

Yeah, I guess I still don't actually expect that to happen, but even still, if it does, the back alley unattended consequences of this is going to be interesting to see

And as always, it will be the poor who suffer. I can afford plane tickets and abortion fees for my harem of pelts, but very many cannot. You are also correct that this will spawn a (potentially) dangerous black market for abortion services. I just can't wrap my legal mind around pulling the rug out from generations of people who have organized their lives around the fidelity of the professed law of the land. Seems like a real dick move. And also ... what even is stare decisis at that point?

Online Trim

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40188
  • Pfizer PLUS Moderna
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #57 on: May 03, 2022, 02:50:47 PM »
This could be a long-term good thing if there are abortion states and nah states, and this is an important enough thing for that to be the initial us breakup.

Then progress to other issues within those two spots to get it down to a good number and that works geographically.

Online Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 34608
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #58 on: May 03, 2022, 03:02:06 PM »
Seriously, though, don't those abortion pills have a shelf life of 5-6 years? Seems easy enough to just keep one in the medicine cabinet if you live in a state that makes them illegal. No reason to expect people to need back alley anythings in 2022.

Online chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 20678
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #59 on: May 03, 2022, 03:03:39 PM »
Seriously, though, don't those abortion pills have a shelf life of 5-6 years? Seems easy enough to just keep one in the medicine cabinet if you live in a state that makes them illegal. No reason to expect people to need back alley anythings in 2022.

No. None of that.


Offline catastrophe

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 12586
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #61 on: May 03, 2022, 03:36:22 PM »
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/10/plan-c-secret-option-mail-order-abortion/620324/

 :dunno:
Really interesting. Thanks for sharing that.

Although it’s definitely not the time to eulogize Roe, I have always disliked the basis for that precedent and feel like rather than always having abortion rights hinging on tight SCOTUS votes, it might be time to let the free market determine how the dust settles.

If “Plan C” really is a relatively safe alternative, then I can see how that might work itself out.

Online chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 20678
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #62 on: May 03, 2022, 03:43:43 PM »
That's some Elon Musk level problem solving right there. Phew! We can all go home now!

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 15401
  • Distinguished Scholar/Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #63 on: May 03, 2022, 04:08:36 PM »
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/10/plan-c-secret-option-mail-order-abortion/620324/

 :dunno:
Really interesting. Thanks for sharing that.

Although it’s definitely not the time to eulogize Roe, I have always disliked the basis for that precedent and feel like rather than always having abortion rights hinging on tight SCOTUS votes, it might be time to let the free market determine how the dust settles.

If “Plan C” really is a relatively safe alternative, then I can see how that might work itself out.

Perhaps you should disclose your deeply held beliefs on the subject before floating a "free market" red herring like that. Gmafb.

Your implied meaning of "free market" means majoritarianism and a rejection of any Constitutional levers to counteract the "tyranny of the majority." Protecting the basic rights of those who may not constitute a majority or a plurality of a community has been deeply rooted in our American conscience for ... somewhere between 150 and 247 years (I guess there are arguments for fewer years). This is sometimes called the "counter-majoritarian difficulty". (E.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-majoritarian_difficulty)

I'm not a (medical) doctor, but it seems to me that relying on, at present, the potential availability of Plan C is a foolish substitute for safe, legal abortions. I think you live in Texas, if memory serves. So you should know full well that Texas and many other states will quickly act to close any gaps in the law that currently exist as it relates to availability of Plan C. From that Atlantic article:

Quote
Of course, other factors might be discouraging people from pursuing self-managed abortions. The procedure involves severe cramping and heavy bleeding, and in the states that are most hostile to abortion rights, women who self-induce their own abortions must rely on hotlines and text support from faraway doctors if they get scared or experience complications. Aid Access is based in Austria, beyond the reach of Texas law enforcement and the new abortion-medication measure, but the site still inhabits a legal gray area: Four states have criminalized managing one’s own abortion, and about two dozen people have been prosecuted for self-managing an abortion since 2000. Mainstream medical research generally suggests that self-managed abortions are safe and effective, but anti-abortion-rights groups vehemently disagree and have published their own reports saying they are dangerous. Whatever the reason, far fewer women in the U.S. have medication abortions than in some other countries: Medication abortions accounted for 40 percent of all U.S. abortions in 2017, compared with more than 90 percent in Finland and more than 80 percent in Mexico City, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

So, despite whether you want to deal with the potential medical complications and lack of adequate healthcare services that accompany a self-induced abortion in America, you still might be a criminal for doing so. I think that's outrageous, and I find you to be a person who is smart enough to follow along, here.

Offline cfbandyman

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6118
  • To da 'ville.
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #64 on: May 03, 2022, 04:16:38 PM »
Wow. If this turns out to be correct, I will have a lot of egg on my face. I've obviously been pretty outspoken that I did not think the Court would actually throw out Roe/Casey and their progeny. This would cause me to completely change my thinking. Two quick thoughts:

1.) This is HIGHLY unusual in that these draft opinions never see the light of day, and leaks from the Supreme Court before an opinion comes down don't happen. This had to have come from one of the Justices' law clerks (in particular, either from the liberal wing or John Roberts).
2.) I am holding out hope that this will not come to fruition because the Politico article gets some things not quite correct when it comes to SCOTUS procedures. It gets a lot of things correct, but it is not the case that a draft of a "majority" opinion means that a decision has been reached. Particularly in the case of deadlocks, it has happened in the past that one justice will circulate a draft "majority" opinion to try to sway votes to his/her side. Let us hope that is the case here.

Yeah, I guess I still don't actually expect that to happen, but even still, if it does, the back alley unattended consequences of this is going to be interesting to see

And as always, it will be the poor who suffer. I can afford plane tickets and abortion fees for my harem of pelts, but very many cannot. You are also correct that this will spawn a (potentially) dangerous black market for abortion services. I just can't wrap my legal mind around pulling the rug out from generations of people who have organized their lives around the fidelity of the professed law of the land. Seems like a real dick move. And also ... what even is stare decisis at that point?

All 100% valid points, and at this point, yeah, like what would they actually base this on, j/k lolz privacy only matters in certain cases?
A&M Style: 1/19/13 Co-Champion of THE ED's College Basketball Challenge

The art of the deal with it poors


Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 15401
  • Distinguished Scholar/Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #65 on: May 03, 2022, 04:32:55 PM »
Wow. If this turns out to be correct, I will have a lot of egg on my face. I've obviously been pretty outspoken that I did not think the Court would actually throw out Roe/Casey and their progeny. This would cause me to completely change my thinking. Two quick thoughts:

1.) This is HIGHLY unusual in that these draft opinions never see the light of day, and leaks from the Supreme Court before an opinion comes down don't happen. This had to have come from one of the Justices' law clerks (in particular, either from the liberal wing or John Roberts).
2.) I am holding out hope that this will not come to fruition because the Politico article gets some things not quite correct when it comes to SCOTUS procedures. It gets a lot of things correct, but it is not the case that a draft of a "majority" opinion means that a decision has been reached. Particularly in the case of deadlocks, it has happened in the past that one justice will circulate a draft "majority" opinion to try to sway votes to his/her side. Let us hope that is the case here.

Yeah, I guess I still don't actually expect that to happen, but even still, if it does, the back alley unattended consequences of this is going to be interesting to see

And as always, it will be the poor who suffer. I can afford plane tickets and abortion fees for my harem of pelts, but very many cannot. You are also correct that this will spawn a (potentially) dangerous black market for abortion services. I just can't wrap my legal mind around pulling the rug out from generations of people who have organized their lives around the fidelity of the professed law of the land. Seems like a real dick move. And also ... what even is stare decisis at that point?

All 100% valid points, and at this point, yeah, like what would they actually base this on, j/k lolz privacy only matters in certain cases?

Well, the basis appears to be, based on the circulated draft opinion, that the right to an abortion is not deeply rooted in American tradition, because our history shows we have often prohibited it. (This is Alito's fanciful application of the test often used in substantive due process cases.) You know, just like prohibition of miscegenation, school integration, legal discrimination, etc. are deeply rooted in American tradition.

Online chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 20678
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #66 on: May 03, 2022, 04:43:07 PM »
That's ultimately what conservatives are about, right? Keep doing the same crap we've done in the past.

Online Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 34608
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #67 on: May 03, 2022, 04:53:35 PM »
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/10/plan-c-secret-option-mail-order-abortion/620324/

 :dunno:
Really interesting. Thanks for sharing that.

Although it’s definitely not the time to eulogize Roe, I have always disliked the basis for that precedent and feel like rather than always having abortion rights hinging on tight SCOTUS votes, it might be time to let the free market determine how the dust settles.

If “Plan C” really is a relatively safe alternative, then I can see how that might work itself out.

I think the danger is probably that if someone takes one of these pills and has excessive bleeding or something, that they wouldn't be able to go to a hospital without going to prison or whatever the penalty in the state would be. Still, it's a pretty safe, readily available option for people who would otherwise be left looking for someone on the black market.

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 15401
  • Distinguished Scholar/Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #68 on: May 03, 2022, 04:56:06 PM »
That's ultimately what conservatives are about, right? Keep doing the same crap we've done in the past.

What I'm saying is that Plessy v. Ferguson held in the late Nineteenth Century that "separate but equal" was cool. When Plessy was overturned in the 1950's in Brown, it was a HUGE deal. That was a unanimous decision, by the way, because the Chief Justice found that disturbing the doctrine of stare decisis was such a big deal that the Court must put forth a united front in doing so. If some substantially similar form of Alito's opinion comes down, this will be the biggest departure from stare decisis since Brown, and in my opinion the most controversial departure ever. It simply does not compute in my brain, and I will have to do a bunch of rewiring up there if it happens.

Offline catastrophe

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 12586
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #69 on: May 03, 2022, 05:25:19 PM »
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/10/plan-c-secret-option-mail-order-abortion/620324/

 :dunno:
Really interesting. Thanks for sharing that.

Although it’s definitely not the time to eulogize Roe, I have always disliked the basis for that precedent and feel like rather than always having abortion rights hinging on tight SCOTUS votes, it might be time to let the free market determine how the dust settles.

If “Plan C” really is a relatively safe alternative, then I can see how that might work itself out.

Perhaps you should disclose your deeply held beliefs on the subject before floating a "free market" red herring like that. Gmafb.

Your implied meaning of "free market" means majoritarianism and a rejection of any Constitutional levers to counteract the "tyranny of the majority." Protecting the basic rights of those who may not constitute a majority or a plurality of a community has been deeply rooted in our American conscience for ... somewhere between 150 and 247 years (I guess there are arguments for fewer years). This is sometimes called the "counter-majoritarian difficulty". (E.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-majoritarian_difficulty)

I'm not a (medical) doctor, but it seems to me that relying on, at present, the potential availability of Plan C is a foolish substitute for safe, legal abortions. I think you live in Texas, if memory serves. So you should know full well that Texas and many other states will quickly act to close any gaps in the law that currently exist as it relates to availability of Plan C. From that Atlantic article:

Quote
Of course, other factors might be discouraging people from pursuing self-managed abortions. The procedure involves severe cramping and heavy bleeding, and in the states that are most hostile to abortion rights, women who self-induce their own abortions must rely on hotlines and text support from faraway doctors if they get scared or experience complications. Aid Access is based in Austria, beyond the reach of Texas law enforcement and the new abortion-medication measure, but the site still inhabits a legal gray area: Four states have criminalized managing one’s own abortion, and about two dozen people have been prosecuted for self-managing an abortion since 2000. Mainstream medical research generally suggests that self-managed abortions are safe and effective, but anti-abortion-rights groups vehemently disagree and have published their own reports saying they are dangerous. Whatever the reason, far fewer women in the U.S. have medication abortions than in some other countries: Medication abortions accounted for 40 percent of all U.S. abortions in 2017, compared with more than 90 percent in Finland and more than 80 percent in Mexico City, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

So, despite whether you want to deal with the potential medical complications and lack of adequate healthcare services that accompany a self-induced abortion in America, you still might be a criminal for doing so. I think that's outrageous, and I find you to be a person who is smart enough to follow along, here.
The problem with your first point is you’re starting from the assumption that terminating a pregnancy is a “basic” right. If we’re in a post-Roe world you simply have to let that go.

Yes, I think the circumstances of many Americans could be significantly worse if criminalization of abortions were left to the states. My “free market” point is that we may need to go through some growing pains to arrive at a lasting solution to the abortion debate. SCOTUS Justices aren’t philosopher kings who can just impose solutions to complex problems.

Online chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 20678
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #70 on: May 03, 2022, 05:28:23 PM »
That's ultimately what conservatives are about, right? Keep doing the same crap we've done in the past.

What I'm saying is that Plessy v. Ferguson held in the late Nineteenth Century that "separate but equal" was cool. When Plessy was overturned in the 1950's in Brown, it was a HUGE deal. That was a unanimous decision, by the way, because the Chief Justice found that disturbing the doctrine of stare decisis was such a big deal that the Court must put forth a united front in doing so. If some substantially similar form of Alito's opinion comes down, this will be the biggest departure from stare decisis since Brown, and in my opinion the most controversial departure ever. It simply does not compute in my brain, and I will have to do a bunch of rewiring up there if it happens.

I see what you mean. I was more trying to talk crap on his motivations and assuming the legal justification was bullshit.

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 15401
  • Distinguished Scholar/Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #71 on: May 03, 2022, 05:33:21 PM »
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/10/plan-c-secret-option-mail-order-abortion/620324/

 :dunno:
Really interesting. Thanks for sharing that.

Although it’s definitely not the time to eulogize Roe, I have always disliked the basis for that precedent and feel like rather than always having abortion rights hinging on tight SCOTUS votes, it might be time to let the free market determine how the dust settles.

If “Plan C” really is a relatively safe alternative, then I can see how that might work itself out.

Perhaps you should disclose your deeply held beliefs on the subject before floating a "free market" red herring like that. Gmafb.

Your implied meaning of "free market" means majoritarianism and a rejection of any Constitutional levers to counteract the "tyranny of the majority." Protecting the basic rights of those who may not constitute a majority or a plurality of a community has been deeply rooted in our American conscience for ... somewhere between 150 and 247 years (I guess there are arguments for fewer years). This is sometimes called the "counter-majoritarian difficulty". (E.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-majoritarian_difficulty)

I'm not a (medical) doctor, but it seems to me that relying on, at present, the potential availability of Plan C is a foolish substitute for safe, legal abortions. I think you live in Texas, if memory serves. So you should know full well that Texas and many other states will quickly act to close any gaps in the law that currently exist as it relates to availability of Plan C. From that Atlantic article:

Quote
Of course, other factors might be discouraging people from pursuing self-managed abortions. The procedure involves severe cramping and heavy bleeding, and in the states that are most hostile to abortion rights, women who self-induce their own abortions must rely on hotlines and text support from faraway doctors if they get scared or experience complications. Aid Access is based in Austria, beyond the reach of Texas law enforcement and the new abortion-medication measure, but the site still inhabits a legal gray area: Four states have criminalized managing one’s own abortion, and about two dozen people have been prosecuted for self-managing an abortion since 2000. Mainstream medical research generally suggests that self-managed abortions are safe and effective, but anti-abortion-rights groups vehemently disagree and have published their own reports saying they are dangerous. Whatever the reason, far fewer women in the U.S. have medication abortions than in some other countries: Medication abortions accounted for 40 percent of all U.S. abortions in 2017, compared with more than 90 percent in Finland and more than 80 percent in Mexico City, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

So, despite whether you want to deal with the potential medical complications and lack of adequate healthcare services that accompany a self-induced abortion in America, you still might be a criminal for doing so. I think that's outrageous, and I find you to be a person who is smart enough to follow along, here.
The problem with your first point is you’re starting from the assumption that terminating a pregnancy is a “basic” right. If we’re in a post-Roe world you simply have to let that go.

Yes, I think the circumstances of many Americans could be significantly worse if criminalization of abortions were left to the states. My “free market” point is that we may need to go through some growing pains to arrive at a lasting solution to the abortion debate. SCOTUS Justices aren’t philosopher kings who can just impose solutions to complex problems.

You kind of skirted my actual first point. The question was, where do you fall on the pro-life vs. pro-choice spectrum?

Offline catastrophe

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 12586
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #72 on: May 03, 2022, 06:14:24 PM »
I consider myself pro life but I don’t believe in completely banning abortion.

If I were the philosopher king I’d probably make abortion legal up to a few weeks before viability. Then ban it starting around 20 weeks or so, allowing exceptions where the fetus is not viable or where the mother’s health is at serious risk by continuing the pregnancy. I’d probably make an exception to that last exception in cases where the baby is far enough along it could reasonably be “birthed” just as much as it could be terminated.

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 15401
  • Distinguished Scholar/Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #73 on: May 03, 2022, 06:26:23 PM »
I consider myself pro life but I don’t believe in completely banning abortion.

If I were the philosopher king I’d probably make abortion legal up to a few weeks before viability. Then ban it starting around 20 weeks or so, allowing exceptions where the fetus is not viable or where the mother’s health is at serious risk by continuing the pregnancy. I’d probably make an exception to that last exception in cases where the baby is far enough along it could reasonably be “birthed” just as much as it could be terminated.

Thank you for giving an honest, direct answer and not a dax answer.

I largely would be fine with that compromise, and it's not that different than the current status of the law developed in Roe and its progeny (in fact, it's pretty close to the current state of the law!). I disagree with your last point, if I understand you to mean that the baby's health should take priority over the mother's health.

Online chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 20678
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #74 on: May 03, 2022, 06:31:01 PM »
Completely share this sentiment.

Quote
The leaker — whoever it is and whatever their motivations — has done a public service...by damaging the Court’s mystical aura of legitimacy at precisely the moment when it deserves to be damaged. If the Court is going to function as a partisan institution, then the public should know at least as much about how it works as we know about any other branch of government.