Can Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Center be overturned?

[Patriotic Voter]

Obviously it would not happen with a politically biased Republican supermajority at the SCOTUS, which is what we have now, but the Democrats only have to confirm two federal judges to make it liberal again. After that inevitably happens, even if they are appointed by different Presidents, a case about women losing the right to have abortions when they needed them can be brought to federal courts and eventually the SCOTUS. Can you see this happening?

 

[Credence]

Obviously it would not happen with a politically biased Republican supermajority at the SCOTUS, which is what we have now, but the Democrats only have to confirm two federal judges to make it liberal again. After that inevitably happens, even if they are appointed by different Presidents, a case about women losing the right to have abortions when they needed them can be brought to federal courts and eventually the SCOTUS. Can you see this happening?

Only if Thomas or Alito step down soon and under Dem POTUSes or unless they limit terms by age. The conservative judges are pretty young and will be on the bench for decades. Probably not in my lifetime

 

[weaver2]

Obviously it would not happen with a politically biased Republican supermajority at the SCOTUS, which is what we have now, but the Democrats only have to confirm two federal judges to make it liberal again. After that inevitably happens, even if they are appointed by different Presidents, a case about women losing the right to have abortions when they needed them can be brought to federal courts and eventually the SCOTUS. Can you see this happening?

I cannot see the constitutional basis for Dobbs. The fetus has no federal standing and Dobbs gives the states the right to give it a a legal standing that takes precedence over the rights of the mother. So now in a dozen + states women are denied the right to control their decisions and their lives. Most rights are universal. Why is this right not universal for women?

However given the SC's present composition this is not going to change.

 

[mrjurrs]

Yes.
It could also be 'overturned' by law.

 

[Ginger Ale]

Somethings going to happen because women are not letting go of this chew toy, I promise you that.

 

[weaver2]

Somethings going to happen because women are not letting go of this chew toy, I promise you that.

I hope you are right but I just don't see how it will happen. The SC is not going to change. 75% of the states will not vote for a constitutional amendment and the Senate and the House will not vote in a federal law protecting the right to abort. I don't even see enough angry women to make up a convincingly rowdy mob.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Only if Thomas or Alito step down soon and under Dem POTUSes or unless they limit terms by age. The conservative judges are pretty young and will be on the bench for decades. Probably not in my lifetime

Ugh ,John Roberts shares my birthday. I don't like that.

Clarence Thomas is about the same age as Trump the Terrorist. He would be the first to die or retire.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I cannot see the constitutional basis for Dobbs.The fetus has no federal standing and Dobbs gives the states the right to give it a a legal standing that takes precedence over the rights of the mother. So now in a dozen + states women are denied the right to control their decisions and their lives. Most rights are universal. Why is this right not universal for women?

However, given the SC's present composition, this is not going to change.

This is why I call the SCOTUS partisan with the justices being Democrats or Republicans instead of liberal or conservative (along with the fact three of them were appointed by Trump the Terrorist). They already had decided to rule against JWHC no matter what in that case before seeing any evidence or hearing anyone testify under oath. They all knew the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly does not give unborn humans the right to life and does give all fertile female citizens the right to "life, liberty, and property."

But looking forward, do you think Dobbs vs. JWHC will be overturned after Democrats regain control of the SCOTUS?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Obviously it would not happen with a politically biased Republican supermajority at the SCOTUS, which is what we have now, but the Democrats only have to confirm two federal judges to make it liberal again. After that inevitably happens, even if they are appointed by different Presidents, a case about women losing the right to have abortions when they needed them can be brought to federal courts and eventually the SCOTUS. Can you see this happening?

Nothing is going to get better for SCOTUS if we keep allowing partisan justices to sit. Having Democrate biased judges is still bias that should not exist in the courts. Corruption will never fix corruption.

Until then 1/3 of our government is illegitimate.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Yes. It could also be 'overturned' by law.

That will require a blue wave in next year's election because Republicans are trying to legislate Dobbs.

 

[Ginger Ale]

I hope you are right but I just don't see how it will happen. The SC is not going to change. 75% of the states will not vote for a constitutional amendment and the Senate and the House will not vote in a federal law protecting the right to abort. I don't even see enough angry women to make up a convincingly rowdy mob.

Well, I'm in a ton of woman's groups and forums and the majority are working toward a solution. It takes time. I haven't seen any let up on it tho, if I do I'll change my tune. Half the women on there are republicans who've said they won't vote red until they rid their states of these laws. I have hope.

I think those politicians who fail to see what a long term problem abortion bans will be in their upcoming elections don't talk to many women. Our health care isn't like taxes, or infrastructure. Not by a long shot.

It's good to keep it on the front lines tho, and talk about it often otherwise people will feel hopeless.

 

[choiceone]

Obviously it would not happen with a politically biased Republican supermajority at the SCOTUS, which is what we have now, but the Democrats only have to confirm two federal judges to make it liberal again. After that inevitably happens, even if they are appointed by different Presidents, a case about women losing the right to have abortions when they needed them can be brought to federal courts and eventually the SCOTUS. Can you see this happening?

Yes. Conservatives are dying at a higher rate than liberals. It's only a matter of time. That's what's comforting about liberal and progressive values - they're almost guaranteed to win eventually.

 

[trixare4kids]

Obviously it would not happen with a politically biased Republican supermajority at the SCOTUS, which is what we have now, but the Democrats only have to confirm two federal judges to make it liberal again. After that inevitably happens, even if they are appointed by different Presidents, a case about women losing the right to have abortions when they needed them can be brought to federal courts and eventually the SCOTUS. Can you see this happening?

What for? It would be faster if congress codified womens' choice as federal law.

 

[weaver2]

Ugh ,John Roberts shares my birthday. I don't like that.

Cheer up and smile. Betty White also shares your birthday. I cannot think of a more enjoyable person to share with.

 

[Lursa]

I hope you are right but I just don't see how it will happen. The SC is not going to change. 75% of the states will not vote for a constitutional amendment and the Senate and the House will not vote in a federal law protecting the right to abort. I don't even see enough angry women to make up a convincingly rowdy mob.

We need a state to criminalize having an abortion. And then have a woman arrested for murder or some other felony. Then take it to SCOTUS (we cant force them to take it...they refused to hear the one for fetal personhood).

Then they would have to weigh her life, her Constitutional rights to due process, bodily autonomy, liberty, etc against that of the unborn which has ZERO legal standing federally. The govt is obligated to protect the woman and her rights. If they try to use 'the states' interests,' then they also run into the 13th Amendment: Involuntary servitude.

13th Amendment​

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.​

If it's for 'the states' interest,' that equates to involuntary servitude. To force the woman to maintain the pregnancy FOR the state.

It would be govt use of force to demand women remain in a more risky and dangerous physical state without their consent...to serve society or the govt. Involuntary servitude.

"Compelling state's interest?" compelling the woman without her consent, to serve the state's interest.

Look at the wording...if you are forcing (compelling) women to comply with a state's interest...what else is that? To risk their lives, their health without their consent, for the state. ?? It's involuntary servitude, slavery.

 

[choiceone]

We need a state to criminalize having an abortion. And then have a woman arrested for murder or some other felony. Then take it to SCOTUS (we cant force them to take it...they refused to hear the one for fetal personhood).

Then they would have to weigh her life, her Constitutional rights to due process, bodily autonomy, liberty, etc against that of the unborn which has ZERO legal standing federally. The govt is obligated to protect the woman and her rights. If they try to use 'the states' interests,' then they also run into the 13th Amendment: Involuntary servitude.

13th Amendment​

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.​

If it's for 'the states' interest,' that equates to involuntary servitude. To force the woman to maintain the pregnancy FOR the state.

It would be govt use of force to demand women remain in a more risky and dangerous physical state without their consent...to serve society or the govt. Involuntary servitude.

"Compelling state's interest?" compelling the woman without her consent, to serve the state's interest.

Look at the wording...if you are forcing (compelling) women to comply with a state's interest...what else is that? To risk their lives, their health without their consent, for the state. ?? It's involuntary servitude, slavery.

I really like this. I think you are onto a winning perspective with this because of the "state's interest" angle.

 

[Lursa]

I really like this. I think you are onto a winning perspective with this because of the "state's interest" angle.

Feel free to share it. See if you find additional judicial references, etc.

 

[Visbek]

Obviously it would not happen with a politically biased Republican supermajority at the SCOTUS, which is what we have now, but the Democrats only have to confirm two federal judges to make it liberal again.

It could happen. After all, the current SCOTUS has repeatedly trashed established precedents.

It would probably require different legal reasoning, iirc equal protection is another option.

I tend to doubt it will happen. A national law seems more plausible, though that would require a Democratic President, House, and few pro-choice Republican Senators in place.

 

[Superfly]

Yes. Conservatives are dying at a higher rate than liberals. It's only a matter of time. That's what's comforting about liberal and progressive values - they're almost guaranteed to win eventually.

I hate to be ghoulish, but the conservatives are dying out and the young voters (usually democrats or independents) are turning 18 at the rate of about a million per day.

It’ll happen.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Obviously it would not happen with a politically biased Republican supermajority at the SCOTUS, which is what we have now, but the Democrats only have to confirm two federal judges to make it liberal again. After that inevitably happens, even if they are appointed by different Presidents, a case about women losing the right to have abortions when they needed them can be brought to federal courts and eventually the SCOTUS. Can you see this happening?

Yes, it could happen with a politically-biased Democrat supermajority.

 

[Bodi]

Obviously it would not happen with a politically biased Republican supermajority at the SCOTUS, which is what we have now, but the Democrats only have to confirm two federal judges to make it liberal again. After that inevitably happens, even if they are appointed by different Presidents, a case about women losing the right to have abortions when they needed them can be brought to federal courts and eventually the SCOTUS. Can you see this happening?

They are all corrupt scumbags...

 

[Lursa]

Yes, it could happen with a politically-biased Democrat supermajority.

How about some judges that know and respect the Constitution?

 

[Noodlegawd]

How about some judges that know and respect the Constitution?

Do you mean judges who can find anything they want in the Constitution, depending on their political leaning, or the ones who read what it actually says and apply that?

 

[Lursa]

Do you mean judges who can find anything they want in the Constitution, depending on their political leaning, or the ones who read what it actually says and apply that?

Not at all. See post 15.

Even RGB critisized earlier decisions in RvW for not taking a stronger stance and using other Constitutional bases for RvW.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

How about some judges that know and respect the Constitution?

In other words, justices who are not politically biased against "we the people."