Well, As Expected SCOTUS HAS Struck Down Roe

[weaver2]

Not really…book censorship doesn’t fit…neither do medical records…neither do personal writings and papers…nor religious and political criticism and action. Why? Because they are protected by entirely different parts of the Constitution. Well, thus far half your list isn’t applicable.

Roe was decided on the 4th Amendment protection of personal privacy, not on the legality of abortion. Overturning Roe means there is no personal privacy for matters concerning sex, sexuality and reproduction. If abortion bans, sodomy laws, contraception bans, gay marriage prohibitions, laws against homosexuality and miscegenation laws are re-criminalized by reinstating them then the 4th Amendment no longer protects against search and seizure.


Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean?
"The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.
Whether a particular type of search is considered reasonable in the eyes of the law, is determined by balancing two important interests. On one side of the scale is the intrusion on an individual's Fourth Amendment rights. On the other side of the scale are legitimate government interests, such as public safety.
The extent to which an individual is protected by the Fourth Amendment depends, in part, on the location of the search or seizure. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998).
Home
Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).
However, there are some exceptions. A warrantless search may be lawful:
If an officer is given consent to search; Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582 (1946)
If the search is incident to a lawful arrest; United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)
If there is probable cause to search and exigent circumstances; Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)
If the items are in plain view; Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985).
A Person
When an officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot, the officer may briefly stop the suspicious person and make reasonable inquiries aimed at confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993)
Schools
School officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority; rather, a search of a student need only be reasonable under all the circumstances.
New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985)
Cars
Where there is probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains evidence of a criminal activity, an officer may lawfully search any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found.
Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009),
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-fede...ional-outreach/activity-resources/what-does-0"

In other words, if the activity has been criminalized then the 4th Amendment doesn't protect you or your private papers, that would include medical, pharmaceutical, mail-tracking records, library cards, for starters.

Overturning Roe is only the beginning.

 

[AZRWinger]

It's not hysteria. It's a demonstration that SCOTUS has turned into a right-wing thugfest imposing their minority will on others.

Let's see how non-hysterical you are when the Dems are back in power, pack the courts and dispense with all this wing-nut authoritarianism you're so very fond of.

Returning abortion to state control triggers accusations of a "right wing thugfest" but it's Republicans that are over reacting. Please.

Radical Leftists have dominated the judiciary for decades as the so-called penumbral right to privacy upon which Roe is based shows.

 

[Credence]

I am horrified that IF the above is true, it was leaked. Who would do this?

If it is true, Roe was overturned, I want to read the SC decision before I comment.

I think whoever leaked the draft should be fired / disbarred. Personally I believe it may have been one of the liberal Justices clerk.

Having said that, I can understand why it was leaked. Since it is only a draft and the decision will be rendered June-July there is still time for public opinion to possibly change the outcome JMHO Damn the two justices (Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) who made us believe they would not reverse Roe v Wade due to precedent and settled law. Liars

I believe this is horrific. I also hope there is some compromise made even if it means the 15 week cutoff that Justice Roberts proposed and provide exceptions for the mother's life and rape/incest

That is all I have to say

 

[trixare4kids]

"After almost fifty years, Roe vs. Wade is a done deal.
The overturning of R. v. W is deliberate fear mongering by the Democrats. It's simply a false narrative they're pushing in order to get votes. IOW, a load of donkey ."
- @trixare4kids circa 2020

"If it is true, Roe was overturned, I want to read the SC decision before I comment."
- @trixare4kids today

 

[mrjurrs]

It's certainly going to be interesting to see how a vote like this will change things.
The rest of the free world has gone towards reproductive rights and the US is seemingly curtailing them.
Even Ireland has allowed abortion.

Yep, we will be able to join Egypt, Iraq and 18 other backwaters soon.

A list of countries where abortion is illegal

The US Supreme Court is reportedly considering overturning abortion rights.

qz.com

 

[Perotista]

Well, you're not a pregnant woman wondering how, now that her future plans are quashed and she has to be a mom, by law - what is she going to do? I know. You don't care. That's the problem.

If this draft becomes reality, we don't know that it will. It's only one of many drafts so far. Abortion isn’t going away. Each state will decide whether abortion is legal in their state or not. Abortion if this thing does become a reality will be thrown back into the political arena with each state legislature deciding on abortions legality in their state. I prefer to sit back and watch and listen as I know what a draft is. Nothing here is written in stone. This could be a ploy, the leak, to see how folks would react.

Both political parties do that all the time, leak things to judge how the people react to it. I don’t know. No one knows. Even if all of this becomes true, Abortion will still be legal in a majority of states. In those states, it will be like the ruling never happened.

 

[lurchadams]

Returning abortion to state control triggers accusations of a "right wing thugfest" but it's Republicans that are over reacting. Please.

Radical Leftists have dominated the judiciary for decades as the so-called penumbral right to privacy upon which Roe is based shows.

You still haven't explained why it's ok to deny 70% of this nation the right to abortion if they want it. You're part of the 30% who's against it. Not only are you against it but you're for imposing your authoritarian, minority, "greater than thou" will on others.

In my opinion, you are part of the problem that might destroy this nation.

 

[NotreDame]

Roe was decided on the 4th Amendment protection of personal privacy, not on the legality of abortion. Overturning Roe means there is no personal privacy for matters concerning sex, sexuality and reproduction. If abortion bans, sodomy laws, contraception bans, gay marriage prohibitions, laws against homosexuality and miscegenation laws are re-criminalized by reinstating them then the 4th Amendment no longer protects against search and seizure.


Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean?
"The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.
Whether a particular type of search is considered reasonable in the eyes of the law, is determined by balancing two important interests. On one side of the scale is the intrusion on an individual's Fourth Amendment rights. On the other side of the scale are legitimate government interests, such as public safety.
The extent to which an individual is protected by the Fourth Amendment depends, in part, on the location of the search or seizure. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998).
Home
Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).
However, there are some exceptions. A warrantless search may be lawful:
If an officer is given consent to search; Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582 (1946)
If the search is incident to a lawful arrest; United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)
If there is probable cause to search and exigent circumstances; Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)
If the items are in plain view; Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985).
A Person
When an officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot, the officer may briefly stop the suspicious person and make reasonable inquiries aimed at confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993)
Schools
School officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority; rather, a search of a student need only be reasonable under all the circumstances.
New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985)
Cars
Where there is probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains evidence of a criminal activity, an officer may lawfully search any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found.
Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009),
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-fede...ional-outreach/activity-resources/what-does-0"

In other words, if the activity has been criminalized then the 4th Amendment doesn't protect you or your private papers, that would include medical, pharmaceutical, mail-tracking records, library cards, for starters.

Overturning Roe is only the beginning.

Roe was decided on the 4th Amendment protection of personal privacy,

This is factually wrong. This is also legally incorrect.

The Court in Roe relied upon the 14th amendment due process clause for its decision, not the 4th amendment. The rather obvious clue is when they said, “This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

I need not address the rest of your post “concerning sex, sexuality and reproduction. abortion bans, sodomy laws, contraception bans, gay marriage prohibitions, laws against homosexuality and miscegenation” as those subjects, where previously addressed by the Court, were not rooted in the 4th amendment. All of them, where previously addressed by the Court, were based in the 14th, including contraception bans, except the narrow contraception case involving married couples use of contraceptions which wasn’t rooted in the 4th but a myriad of amendments in the BOR by invoking the oh so poor logic it has never been used again “penumbra” derived from various amendments in the BOR.

This isn’t and never has been a 4th amendment issue.

 

[Deuce]

Do SCOTUS decisions get leaked?
I thought they were pretty secretive?

It would be pretty easy to identify a leaker and I'm sure they're dealt with pretty harshly as from the little I know about the supreme court they get pretty annoyed about not following protocol.

It has never happened before

 

[Deuce]

So...a draft of a decision has been leaked. Interesting.

I wonder...

Is there a "deep state" inside the Supreme Court? You know, like the deep state that leaked so much stuff from the Trump administration? Or, is the Supreme Court taking a page out of the political handbook by deliberately leaking this draft in order to gauge public reaction?

Oh...and lurchadams...I don't really care about RvW. That's why I'm not making a comment on the substance of this leak.

LOL "deep state" CT shit is everywhere these days.

Traffic on my morning commute? DEEP STAAAAATE

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The comment displays profound ignorance. Slavery and Jim Crow segregation were created and maintained by Democrats. The Confederacy was created in opposition to abolishinist President Lincoln founder of the Republican party. Democrats historically supported segregation.

For states courageous enough to ban abortion it will be life saving for unborn children. Without life there can be no freedom.

Slavery invented by Democrats....gosh, I had no idea Democrats existed prior to the founding of the USA.

For those who were asleep during History class or who had the misfortune of being educated in states where
the revisionist trope of "states rights" is the norm and the muting of the shift in influence during the 1940's to the 1960's isn't covered, the sea change in Democratic Party values from Jim Crow segregationism to civil rights triggers profound cognitive dissonance.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Returning abortion to state control triggers accusations of a "right wing thugfest" but it's Republicans that are over reacting. Please.

Radical Leftists have dominated the judiciary for decades as the so-called penumbral right to privacy upon which Roe is based shows.

Phrases like "so-called penumbral right to privacy" is a huge tell.

 

[weaver2]

This is factually wrong. This is also legally incorrect.

The Court in Roe relied upon the 14th amendment due process clause for its decision, not the 4th amendment. The rather obvious clue is when they said, “This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

I need not address the rest of your post “concerning sex, sexuality and reproduction. abortion bans, sodomy laws, contraception bans, gay marriage prohibitions, laws against homosexuality and miscegenation” as those subjects, where previously addressed by the Court, were not rooted in the 4th amendment. All of them, where previously addressed by the Court, were based in the 14th, including contraception bans, except the narrow contraception case involving married couples use of contraceptions which wasn’t rooted in the 4th but a myriad of amendments in the BOR by invoking the oh so poor logic it has never been used again “penumbra” derived from various amendments in the BOR.

This isn’t and never has been a 4th amendment issue.

You are right the 4th Amendment is not the basis for Roe. What I should have said is that the 4th Amendment is the backup for the the 14th Amendment decision of Roe. If you have a right to privacy about something personal the 4th guarantees that nobody will invade that privacy with searches or seizures. It would seem that without the 4th the 14th couldn't be guaranteed. I think that the 4th will be an element when Roe is overturned. But we will eventually find out.

 

[AZRWinger]

LOL, you people spout the same moronic, factless shit over and over. You are projecting again like every right wing terrorist

Kindly explain if the leaked document is accurate who would decide abortion law? The answer is the states. Hardly terroristic.

What's Bernie Sanders position on how Congress should react to the SCOTUS overturning Roe? Why the Senate should dump the filibuster and pass legislation legalizing abortion as Federal law.

Those are the 2 points I made in my earlier comment. Both are factual. Neither are examples of projection. Hold up a mirror in front of your face to see the moron in this discussion.

 

[AZRWinger]

You still haven't explained why it's ok to deny 70% of this nation the right to abortion if they want it. You're part of the 30% who's against it. Not only are you against it but you're for imposing your authoritarian, minority, "greater than thou" will on others.

In my opinion, you are part of the problem that might destroy this nation.

The leaked opinion doesn't deny anyone the right to an abortion. It returns authority to its rightful place the duly elected legislature. The SCOTUS is supposed to be immune to popular opinion.

Yes, I believe the life of the unborn child is worth imposing my opinion. As Justice Thomas pointed out there is a huge vein of eugenics driving the abortion industry.

Please provide a link for the 70% want abortion claim.

 

[lurchadams]

The leaked opinion doesn't deny anyone the right to an abortion. It returns authority to its rightful place the duly elected legislature. The SCOTUS is supposed to be immune to popular opinion.

Yes, I believe the life of the unborn child is worth imposing my opinion. As Justice Thomas pointed out there is a huge vein of eugenics driving the abortion industry.

Please provide a link for the 70% want abortion claim.

Tap dance all you want. This is tyranny over the majority. You know it. Stop gaslighting.

 

[AZRWinger]

Tap dance all you want. This is tyranny over the majority. You know it. Stop gaslighting.

Man, you just spout all kinds of word salad nonsense.

Again, where is the link showing this 70%?

 

[tosca1]

The decision has been leaked. This is the continuation of the authoritarian, Republican culture war. Elite Republicans against everyone else. I've said many times, Republican or Democrat, if you have the money and you want an abortion, you're going to get one.

Making little girls carry their incest and rape babies to term? Lets see how that goes. I believe this is the "push" Democrats need to maintain the houses. Women, even conservative women aren't going to put up with this, IMO.

Exclusive: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court.

www.politico.com

Get a grip! You're causing panic!
Your title isn't accurate!

My goodness hahahahaha- even CNN - everyone looked shell-shocked today!

SCOTUS has not struck down RvW! I'm hoping, though that it'll come to that!
That was just a................................. draft opinion.



The revelation of the draft opinion does not have an immediate effect on abortion access.
If the apparent majority willing to overturn Roe v. Wade stays firm, the precedent would not be overturned until the formal release of the court's ruling, which is likely to come in June.

What is a Supreme Court draft opinion? Here's what it could mean for abortion rights nationwide

What is a draft opinion and what does it mean immediately for abortion rights? Here's what you need to know.

www.wesh.com

 

[Rogue Valley]

I personally tend to think someone working in the court who is anti-abortion leaked the opinion to Politico.

It's no secret which 5 conservative justices want to overturn Roe. Leaking this now almost insures that none of the 5 will change their opinion and be accused of "caving".

Abortion rights now. Next is same-sex marriages. Then LGTBQ rights. Then the voting rights of African Americans. Then....

 

[tosca1]

I personally tend to think someone working in the court who is anti-abortion leaked the opinion to Politico.

It's no secret which 5 conservative justices want to overturn Roe. Leaking this now almost insures that none of the 5 will change their opinion and be accused of "caving".

CNN was talking about that. It could also be the other way around. To pressure anyone to change their mind.

Abortion rights now. Next is same-sex marriages. Then LGTBQ rights. Then the voting rights of African Americans. Then....

Now.....now......now. That's fear-mongering.

 

[lurchadams]

Get a grip! You're causing panic!
Your title isn't accurate!

My goodness hahahahaha- even CNN - everyone looked shell-shocked today!

SCOTUS has not struck down RvW! I'm hoping, though that it'll come to that!
That was just a................................. draft opinion.



The revelation of the draft opinion does not have an immediate effect on abortion access.
If the apparent majority willing to overturn Roe v. Wade stays firm, the precedent would not be overturned until the formal release of the court's ruling, which is likely to come in June.

What is a Supreme Court draft opinion? Here's what it could mean for abortion rights nationwide

What is a draft opinion and what does it mean immediately for abortion rights? Here's what you need to know.

www.wesh.com

This is hurting a lot of people, and in typical "punching down" fashion, you are gleeful. Says much about you.

 

[lurchadams]

Man, you just spout all kinds of word salad nonsense.

Again, where is the link showing this 70%?

At least I'm not supporting tyranny and do your own ****ing research. But even before you do, you know I'm right - it might be 66% or 69%, but it's a majority. Your on board with the tyrants. How proud you must be of yourself.

 

[tosca1]

This is hurting a lot of people, and in typical "punching down" fashion, you are gleeful. Says much about you.

Let it speak about me!


Millions had been killed - had died unnecessarily - and are still dying as we speak - because of that shallow, self-serving stupidity!
Of course, I welcome this news, and hopefully nobody among them change their minds!

This is why I've supported Trump all along!

 

[reinaert]

Conservatarians might just get their reaped whirlwind, when Alito's opinion goes live, though I have a hard time seeing it go the way they hope.

They are the minority school everywhere, and can only enact their vision by increasingly desperate efforts to contain the discontent their grievance politics churns up. Since they are universally bad at actually governing, and the problems they've created cannot be musked, thieled or bezosed out of existence, they're going to have to go the way of the South American junta states, with all the attendant consequences.

 

[reinaert]

This decision will effect more than just women. All law dealing with privacy could be up for review: gay marriage, sodomy laws, contraception, book censorship, medical records, personal writing and papers, religious and political criticism and action. The list could be very long.

...and this right here is the authoritarian part.