NightTrain
12-01-2021, 02:54 PM
Hard to say how this will shake out, but man! It's really looking like this abomination is about to get reigned in. Alito appears to be siding with the conservatives... maybe a 7-2? That would be stunning and a great defeat for liberals anxious to murder more babies.
This is behind a paywall that I have access to, so I'll paste a few paragraphs.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case that will decide the constitutionality of a 2018 Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks gestation.
The state of Mississippi is asking the Supreme Court to strike down a lower court’s decision blocking its 15-week abortion ban from taking effect.
This outcome of the case would not lead to the full abolition of Roe v. Wade, but is a first step in sending the issue back to the states. Even if Roe were overturned tomorrow, abortion would still be legal — at least for a while — in all 50 states. But at least the issue would be restored to the legislative process, rather than judicial, and residents of the several states would once again be free to choose.
What makes Dobbs worrisome to the left is that it could be the first time the Court has banned abortion before fetal viability outside the womb, which abortion advocates see as a slippery slope that could eventually lead to the end of legalized abortion — at least nationally.
Justice Clarence Thomas, now the Court’s senior justice, has in some ways been anticipating this case since he was appointed three decades ago. He has long been an outspoken opponent of Roe: “Our abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled,” he wrote just last year. “The Constitution does not constrain the States’ ability to regulate or even prohibit abortion.”
Instead of covering the arguments objectively on their live blog, the New York Times is already bashing Thomas.
With the Court theoretically split 6-3 in favor of conservatives, the chances the Mississippi law will be upheld appear strong. Another abortion case, Texas’ SB 8, which blocks abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, already awaits a decision; the number of abortions in the state immediately fell sharply by half in its aftermath.
“I think the Texas law, which tries to evade the requirements of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey by using private lawsuits for enforcement, is vulnerable to obvious critiques and liable to be abused. It’s not a model I would ever cite for pro-life legislation,” columnist Ross Douthat wrote in a lengthy Tuesday New York Times piece, before adding, “There is no way to seriously deny that abortion is a form of killing. At a less advanced stage of scientific understanding, it was possible to believe that the embryo or fetus was somehow inert or vegetative until so-called quickening, months into pregnancy. But we now know the embryo is not merely a cell with potential, like a sperm or ovum, or a constituent part of human tissue, like a skin cell. Rather, a distinct human organism comes into existence at conception, and every stage of your biological life, from infancy and childhood to middle age and beyond, is part of a single continuous process that began when you were just a zygote.”
One need not be religious to understand that edicts against the slaughter of innocents go back thousands of years. No previous society has adopted abortion as a moral good, as American “progressives” have.
Yet Democrat Sen. Jeanne Shaheen released a cliche-laden statement about a “revolution” if the left doesn’t get their way.
“I’ve lived the consequences of the pre-Roe era – I had friends in college who were forced to seek dangerous back-alley abortions because women across the country were denied access to critical family planning services,” she claimed. “We cannot allow Republican lawmakers to turn back the clock on women’s reproductive health and rights, which is precisely what the Mississippi case seeks to do. It is time to sound the alarm.”
Undoubtedly the left, which depends on narrowly-decided court decisions to get what it cannot achieve via congressional legislation or at the voting booth, will “sound the alarm hard,” no matter how many unborn children must be murdered.
Meanwhile, Wednesday morning, Justice Sandra Sotomayor — the most radical and least impressive justice — is already clashing with Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart, bashing religion, declaring that three-quarters of women in America are poor, denying that science has changed over the last few decades, and playing politics.
When Chief Justice John Roberts questioned Center for Reproductive Rights lawyer Julie Rikelman about why a ban on abortion after 15 weeks doesn’t give women enough time to choose to terminate a pregnancy — and the U.S. is in the company of North Korea and China in allowing late-term abortions — Rikleman argued that “states will rush to ban abortion at virtually any point in pregnancy” and abortion is critical for a woman’s rights and participation in society.
Justice Samuel Alito tangled with Rikleman and explained that women have the same interest in ending a pregnancy after the viability line is crossed, and “the fetus has an interest in having a life,” both before and after viability.
Another good article :
Perhaps I should revisit my earlier skepticism about oral arguments on Dobbs v Jackson Womens Health. Chief Justice John Roberts will hold the key as to whether the Supreme Court reverses nearly 50 years of precedent in Roe and Casey, and he seems focused in part on the politics as well as the law and Constitution. In this case, though, that may be bad news for the abortion industry:
...
As always, one has to bear in mind that oral arguments are designed to be Socratic. The questions are crafted to test and probe, not necessarily reveal the position of the questioner, although they certainly can. Roberts’ question might be Socratic in nature, but its departure from legal/constitutional or practical enforcement matters certainly seems like a signal that the Main Decider has deep concerns over the extreme manner in which abortion has proliferated in the US.
One interesting development so far from listening to argument and reading the indirect reading of reactions is that the justices appear to have largely dispensed with the narrower question under which cert was granted. The debate has turned into an all-or-nothing over Roe as well as Casey, mostly. However, Philip Klein thinks Roberts may still be looking for a middle ground:
As Ramesh notes, both sides seem to agree that the only way that Mississippi law can be upheld is to overturn Roe/Casey. But Roberts seems to at least be entertaining some middle ground. His questions about whether Mississippi’s 15-week ban still offers women a sufficient period of choosing, and citing similar international laws, suggest that he’s at least exploring possibility of some sort of standard that would shorten the time frame from viability, while drawing a new line. Obvious disclaimers apply about reading too much into oral arguments, especially given Roberts’ history.
Interestingly, the abortion clinic’s attorney Julie Rikelman apparently wants to leave no middle ground to find, Dan McLaughlin believes:
Rikelman tells Gorsuch, with a specific nod to Roberts, that a standard other than the current one would not work. That is a maximalist position that gives any on-the-fence Justices no room but to embrace or overturn Roe. Now she is digging in, at Alito’s invitation, on “no half measures.” This seems to me like terrible strategy for where she needs to end up.
This looks ominous for Rikelman, too. The court’s other clear establishmentarian seems intent on getting this question out of the courts altogether. Or did Brett Kavanaugh merely summarize the pro-life argument?
Much more : https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2021/12/01/roberts-wonders-is-it-a-good-thing-that-our-abortion-laws-are-closest-to-north-korea-and-china-n432490
This is behind a paywall that I have access to, so I'll paste a few paragraphs.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case that will decide the constitutionality of a 2018 Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks gestation.
The state of Mississippi is asking the Supreme Court to strike down a lower court’s decision blocking its 15-week abortion ban from taking effect.
This outcome of the case would not lead to the full abolition of Roe v. Wade, but is a first step in sending the issue back to the states. Even if Roe were overturned tomorrow, abortion would still be legal — at least for a while — in all 50 states. But at least the issue would be restored to the legislative process, rather than judicial, and residents of the several states would once again be free to choose.
What makes Dobbs worrisome to the left is that it could be the first time the Court has banned abortion before fetal viability outside the womb, which abortion advocates see as a slippery slope that could eventually lead to the end of legalized abortion — at least nationally.
Justice Clarence Thomas, now the Court’s senior justice, has in some ways been anticipating this case since he was appointed three decades ago. He has long been an outspoken opponent of Roe: “Our abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled,” he wrote just last year. “The Constitution does not constrain the States’ ability to regulate or even prohibit abortion.”
Instead of covering the arguments objectively on their live blog, the New York Times is already bashing Thomas.
With the Court theoretically split 6-3 in favor of conservatives, the chances the Mississippi law will be upheld appear strong. Another abortion case, Texas’ SB 8, which blocks abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, already awaits a decision; the number of abortions in the state immediately fell sharply by half in its aftermath.
“I think the Texas law, which tries to evade the requirements of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey by using private lawsuits for enforcement, is vulnerable to obvious critiques and liable to be abused. It’s not a model I would ever cite for pro-life legislation,” columnist Ross Douthat wrote in a lengthy Tuesday New York Times piece, before adding, “There is no way to seriously deny that abortion is a form of killing. At a less advanced stage of scientific understanding, it was possible to believe that the embryo or fetus was somehow inert or vegetative until so-called quickening, months into pregnancy. But we now know the embryo is not merely a cell with potential, like a sperm or ovum, or a constituent part of human tissue, like a skin cell. Rather, a distinct human organism comes into existence at conception, and every stage of your biological life, from infancy and childhood to middle age and beyond, is part of a single continuous process that began when you were just a zygote.”
One need not be religious to understand that edicts against the slaughter of innocents go back thousands of years. No previous society has adopted abortion as a moral good, as American “progressives” have.
Yet Democrat Sen. Jeanne Shaheen released a cliche-laden statement about a “revolution” if the left doesn’t get their way.
“I’ve lived the consequences of the pre-Roe era – I had friends in college who were forced to seek dangerous back-alley abortions because women across the country were denied access to critical family planning services,” she claimed. “We cannot allow Republican lawmakers to turn back the clock on women’s reproductive health and rights, which is precisely what the Mississippi case seeks to do. It is time to sound the alarm.”
Undoubtedly the left, which depends on narrowly-decided court decisions to get what it cannot achieve via congressional legislation or at the voting booth, will “sound the alarm hard,” no matter how many unborn children must be murdered.
Meanwhile, Wednesday morning, Justice Sandra Sotomayor — the most radical and least impressive justice — is already clashing with Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart, bashing religion, declaring that three-quarters of women in America are poor, denying that science has changed over the last few decades, and playing politics.
When Chief Justice John Roberts questioned Center for Reproductive Rights lawyer Julie Rikelman about why a ban on abortion after 15 weeks doesn’t give women enough time to choose to terminate a pregnancy — and the U.S. is in the company of North Korea and China in allowing late-term abortions — Rikleman argued that “states will rush to ban abortion at virtually any point in pregnancy” and abortion is critical for a woman’s rights and participation in society.
Justice Samuel Alito tangled with Rikleman and explained that women have the same interest in ending a pregnancy after the viability line is crossed, and “the fetus has an interest in having a life,” both before and after viability.
Another good article :
Perhaps I should revisit my earlier skepticism about oral arguments on Dobbs v Jackson Womens Health. Chief Justice John Roberts will hold the key as to whether the Supreme Court reverses nearly 50 years of precedent in Roe and Casey, and he seems focused in part on the politics as well as the law and Constitution. In this case, though, that may be bad news for the abortion industry:
...
As always, one has to bear in mind that oral arguments are designed to be Socratic. The questions are crafted to test and probe, not necessarily reveal the position of the questioner, although they certainly can. Roberts’ question might be Socratic in nature, but its departure from legal/constitutional or practical enforcement matters certainly seems like a signal that the Main Decider has deep concerns over the extreme manner in which abortion has proliferated in the US.
One interesting development so far from listening to argument and reading the indirect reading of reactions is that the justices appear to have largely dispensed with the narrower question under which cert was granted. The debate has turned into an all-or-nothing over Roe as well as Casey, mostly. However, Philip Klein thinks Roberts may still be looking for a middle ground:
As Ramesh notes, both sides seem to agree that the only way that Mississippi law can be upheld is to overturn Roe/Casey. But Roberts seems to at least be entertaining some middle ground. His questions about whether Mississippi’s 15-week ban still offers women a sufficient period of choosing, and citing similar international laws, suggest that he’s at least exploring possibility of some sort of standard that would shorten the time frame from viability, while drawing a new line. Obvious disclaimers apply about reading too much into oral arguments, especially given Roberts’ history.
Interestingly, the abortion clinic’s attorney Julie Rikelman apparently wants to leave no middle ground to find, Dan McLaughlin believes:
Rikelman tells Gorsuch, with a specific nod to Roberts, that a standard other than the current one would not work. That is a maximalist position that gives any on-the-fence Justices no room but to embrace or overturn Roe. Now she is digging in, at Alito’s invitation, on “no half measures.” This seems to me like terrible strategy for where she needs to end up.
This looks ominous for Rikelman, too. The court’s other clear establishmentarian seems intent on getting this question out of the courts altogether. Or did Brett Kavanaugh merely summarize the pro-life argument?
Much more : https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2021/12/01/roberts-wonders-is-it-a-good-thing-that-our-abortion-laws-are-closest-to-north-korea-and-china-n432490