What is your opinion about the Anti-abortion Laws being forced through the supreme court?

[Hxxmx]

The anti-abortion movement in the US has been emboldened after the supreme court announced it would hear a direct challenge to laws underpinning the right to abortion in the US, and Texas enacted a law intended to ban abortion after six weeks.
What are your thoughts on this? Are you pro-life or pro-choice?

[abc3643]

Despite the new conservative majority on the US Supreme Court thanks to the unconstitutional GOP obstruction in 2016 and then Trump, I do not think "Roe v. Wade" will be significantly altered.

For one reason, I don't think Chief Justice John Roberts will deviate from that because, despite his conservatism, he strongly advocates for consistency on the Supreme Court and a policy known as "Stare Decisis" (Stare decisis is Latin for “to stand by things decided.” ) so he'd need a very strong reason to deviate from Roe and other decisions.

The big case that the US Supreme Court said it would hear is "Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization" which is a challenge to the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that (with limited exceptions) bars abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy. That case will be heard and decided next year.

[ Dobbs is Thomas Dobbs who is the State Health Officer for the Mississippi State Department of Health. I will call him "Mississippi" since it is really the State of Mississippi in this case.
Jackson Women's Health Organization operates the only abortion clinic in Mississippi. I will call them "The clinic".]

Mississippi will likely lose because the 15th week of pregnancy is not viable for a fetus - that is, a fetus that is born at 15 weeks cannot survive. The earliest a fetus can survive is usually about 24 weeks. Mississippi should lose because the US Supreme Court has been consistent in both "Roe v. Wade" and "Planned Parenthood v. Casey" that the Constitution protects the right to have an abortion before a fetus becomes viable.

The only reason why Mississippi's law might stand would be if the new Conservative justices - primarily Amy Coney Barrett - would find the law Constitutional. Regardless of Justices Alito and Thomas who might vote for Mississippi, I suspect that Justices Kavanagh and Gorsuch may not. Whatever religious ethics judges have, they are usually pretty good at their job regarding the law even if it is inconsistent with their religious beliefs. Gorsuch, in particular, is a very interesting man and a little hard to predict.

That said, the US District Court ruled that the Mississippi law was unconstitutional based on those US Supreme Court precedents that I discussed above. The appellate court (5th Circuit Court of Appeals) upheld that ruling for the same reasons: US Supreme Court says that women have a right to an abortion if the fetus is not viable.

(more)

[abc3643]

So, unless there's a fundamental flaw in the logic of both courts and the US Supreme Court wishes to look like hypocrites and lose credibility, this case should again be ruled in favor of the clinic. Roberts especially is finding it troubling that the Court is being politicized like this. He wants the Supreme Court to remain a respected institution and, right now in our hyperpartisan environment, that is becoming difficult.

I predict this to be the outcome:
The Clinic wins with Mississippi's law being considered unconstitutional. (Formally, the legal term would be that the judgment of the 5th Circuit is affirmed/upheld. If it was the opposite - that the US Supreme Court thinks the 5th Circuit decided incorrectly, then we'd say their judgment/ruling is reversed.)
I think the vote will be (in order of seniority; CJ = Chief Justice, AJ = Associate Justice):
1. CJ Roberts: Affirmed
2. AJ Thomas: Reversed
3. AJ Breyer: Affirmed
4. AJ Alito: Reversed
5. AJ Sotomajor: Affirmed
6. AJ Kagan: Affirmed
7. AJ Gorsuch: Affirmed
8. AJ Kavanagh: Affirmed
9. AJ Barrett: Affirmed

(more)

[abc3643]

Yes, believe it or not, while Amy Coney Barrett is against abortion, the principle of stare decisis here is pretty strong to continue Roe. Mississippi presents nothing Earth-shattering that should cause Roe to be overturned.

So, that's a 7-2 ruling to Affirm meaning Mississippi's law is unconstitutional and Roe is safe.

I could be wrong though and if the 3 newest AJs (all Trump pics) vote to reverse, then the ruling will be 5-4 in favor of Mississippi and Roe would be out the window.

If that happens, the GOP is in deep shit - deeper than now - because that will energize women to vote against them.

This is the last thing Roberts wants - not because of his conservative nature, but because he just doesn't want the US Supreme Court to become a symbol of political drama and lose respect as an institution in the eyes of the public.

[madgoat]

Nice to see a very reasoned, thoughtful, and well researched answer every now and again.
Looks like nightdrot had some competition :-)

[abc3643]

@madgoat Yeah, well, I am not so sure about the ruling vote.
Mississippi petitioned for a "cert" of the 5th Circuit's ruling... that means that Mississippi is asserting that the 5th Circuit decided incorrectly and so they filed a Writ of Certiorari, which is the writ requesting to have the case reviewed and, hopefully, reversed.

Now, the way the US Supreme Court works is that, before they decide to hear a case, they have a behind-closed-doors vote on whether to take it or not.

The Supreme Court decided to take a case if only 4 of the justices decide to hear it. A majority is not necessary here.

Also, I believe (but could be wrong) that the Supreme Court assigns each justice with a sort of governance for each appellate circuit. So, when a party in an appellate case files a cert writ, they submit it to that justice who is in charge of that circuit. For the 5th Circuit, it is Samuel Alito who would be happy to take up an abortion case.

Anyway, let's pretend we are in the room where the vote is held on this case...
I would assume that Alito and Thomas and Barrett all decide to hear it.
That's 3, so we need a 4th.
And that's where it is disturbing...
This case is clear under stare decisis that it should not have been heard with the Mississippi US District Court and the 5th Circuit deciding correctly, so, really, this writ should have been rejected.
... but it wasn't, which means another justice wanted to hear it. This is the justice whose vote may affect the outcome of the case. I suspect it's either Kavanaugh or Gorsuch and possibly both.

This is why this case is a bit scary and that, while it should be a clear victory to support Roe, Roe may get overturned and the Conservatives will have won their long-sought-after victory via court-packing with Conservatives justices. The shit will hit the fan then.

[abc3643]

For the record...

myattorneyusa.com/supreme-court-circuit-justice-assignments

Each of the thirteen federal circuit courts is assigned one Supreme Court Justice who then considers certain appeals (e. g., emergency requests and other matters) from his or her assigned circuit while other aspects of the case are still pending. The Chief Justice of the United States is responsible, under 28 U. S. C. 42, for allotting circuit justices “in vacation.”

Per US Code, 28 U. S. C. 42 (Title 28 United States Code Section 42)


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/42

(more)

[abc3643]

Per the US Supreme Court's website:
www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitassignments.aspx

Circuit Assignments

It is ordered that the following allotment be made of The Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of this Court among the circuits, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 42 and that such allotment be entered of record, effective November 20, 2020.

For the District of Columbia Circuit - John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice

For the First Circuit - Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice
(Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island)

For the Second Circuit - Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice
(Connecticut, New York, Vermont)

For the Third Circuit - Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice
(Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virgin Islands)

For the Fourth Circuit - John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice
(Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Virginia)

For the Fifth Circuit - Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice
(Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas)

For the Sixth Circuit - Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice
(Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee)

For the Seventh Circuit - Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice
(Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin)

For the Eighth Circuit - Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice
(Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota)

For the Ninth Circuit - Elena Kagan, Associate Justice
(Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Washington)

For the Tenth Circuit - Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice
(Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming)

For the Eleventh Circuit - Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice
(Alabama, Florida, Georgia)

For the Federal Circuit - John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice.

[abc3643]

@Hxxmx

You asked:
"What is your opinion about the Anti-abortion Laws being forced through the supreme court?"

Just to be clear, nothing is "forced through the Supreme Court". It chooses to take cases.

The only exceptions where it is "forced" to hear a case are those which, under Article III of the US Constitution, requires the Supreme Court to have "original jurisdiction".

Per Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2:

===

"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

===

No abortion case falls under the original jurisdiction paragraph of Article III, but they would fall under the Supreme Courts appellate jurisdiction. No appellate case is formally required to be taken up by the Supreme Court although, de facto, the Supreme Court is obligated to get involved when there is a "circuit split" - the rulings in the US Courts of Appeal from two or more different circuits differ in opinion. That's what happened in same-sex marriage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_split

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Supremacists. And surely they wouldn't like it if the court makes law for people having to decide and force the girl to stay pregnant and give birth. I'm a pro choice because i support choice not abortion.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't worry. I dont see the supreme court overturning abortion. If they do it will give biden the excuse to pack the courts, which he is already studying. If that happens civil war will follow and abortion will be the least of the concerns of the country.

[abc3643]

There's not going to be any civil war over abortion... Yeah, that's really pro-life.

That said, I don't think the Democrats will pack the US Supreme Court. HOWEVER, what they SHOULD do is create a law that a Presidential pick for a US Supreme Court justice appointment MUST be voted on by the full Senate and not held up in committee. The Obama Administration should have filed a case in the US District Court in DC that McConnell holding up the vote on Merrick Garland was unconstitutional because Article II Section 2 Paragraph 2 says:

"[The President] shall... nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate..., judges of the Supreme Court..."

A Senate committee is not the Senate.

Had Obama won that case - which is definitely not certain - he still probably would have lost Merrick Garland's appointment because the GOP Senate majority would have voted against him and kept voting against Obama picks until Trump lost the election in 2016 or came to power (which he did).

[Opinion Owner]

@abc3643 Civil war will come. Not because of abortion but because the democrats are taking away the power of our vote by changing the rules. They are trying to change the form of government to one that is a single party system, like communism. I would rather die fighting for the preservation of my government than give in to the tyranny of the left.

Get a gun and stock up on ammo, just to protect your family and your possessions

[abc3643]

I wouldn't worry about it.
There are a lot more important things to worry about.

By the way, I hate telling people this, but any civil war in the USA will last less than 1 week.
I worked in a defense think tank. Your Federal Government has been working on weapons systems for over 230 years since the passage of the Second Amendment. Its defense is designed to ward off nations that possess nuclear weapons. The US military has nothing to fear from Billy Joe Jim Bob and his AR-15s. Worse, America hasn't signed any weapons treaties with rebels like it has with foreign powers. This means that the full might of the US military is available to take out rebels. So, in the spirit of Sherman, do not be surprised if chemical, biological, and radiological lethal and non-lethal weapons are used... Meanwhile, the AI systems will be able to find and track the rebels. They'd all be dead before they new it. Guys in Syracuse can fly their drones, take out Clem and Bubba, and be home in time for pot roast with the family.

Bottom-line: Fuck not with the US Military. If it wants to take you out, it will. Ask Osama.

[Opinion Owner]

@abc3643 i doubt you had anything to do with a think tank. Even I know the following

1. The US military can't be used against US civilians
2. The civil war won't be state against state it will be hit and run attacks across the country. Groups will target politicians, celebrities, news personalities, college personnel
3. There will be bombings and assassinations, executions and kidnappings
4. it won't be about winning, it will be about purging and murder and revenge.

[Opinion Owner]

And it will go on indefinitely

[abc3643]

I worked for The Aerospace Corporation in the early 1990s.
https://aerospace.org/

https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ffrdclist/

Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers

Information on this list is current as of March 2021. Changes from the previous edition are noted below; decertified, closed, or renamed FFRDCs are listed in "Historical Notes."

Aerospace Federally Funded Research and Development Center
Administrator: The Aerospace Corporation
Location: El Segundo, CA
Sponsor: Department of Defense, Department of the Air Force
...

[abc3643]

This:

"1. The US military can't be used against US civilians"

You may want to study history...
1. Whiskey Rebellion
2. Shay's Rebellion
3. US Civil War
4. Little Rock
5. Insurrection Act of 1807

[Opinion Owner]

@abc3643 I guess that we will see, won't we

[abc3643]

I want to be clear that I don't exactly disagree with you. It'd basically be guerilla warfare.
The problem is that, if the US government gets serious about warfare, they do NOT fuck around and citizen casualties are acceptable. Lincoln fired McClellan because he fucked around. Once he hired Grant and Sherman, that was it; the Confederacy was doomed. They are lucky that the Union showed any mercy. To Southerners, Sherman is their Hitler to their being Jews. Sherman used the scorched earth strategy - destroy everything so the enemy has no ability to make war. It's called "Total War" in which a nation will do whatever it needs to do to win. WW2 was a good example... firebombings of Dresden, Great Tokyo Air Raid, the A-Bombs...

Try to imagine you are in charge of the US military during a time of civil rebellion. What would you do to suppress it? My question is rhetorical, but I want you to think about the long-term feasibility of guerilla warfare against an organization like the US Military (the Constitutionally-mandated and largest socialist program in human history) - especially if they enter total warfare mode.

By the way, you might just be interested in this 1991 article in the Washington Post.
This was about a year before I joined The Aerospace Corporation which is mentioned in this article.

REINING IN PENTAGON'S THINK TANKS

www.washingtonpost.com/.../

=
At these think tanks, they often have two groups of people:
The first group tries to come up with new and improved ways of attacking the USA.
The second group tries to come up with new and improved ways of defeating what that first group came up with.

It's scary, but fascinating shit.

[Opinion Owner]

@abc3643 Let me be clear. The civil war that everyone is discussing will not be organized groups trying to overthrow the gubbermint. The "war" will be groups of people attacking other groups of people because of the divisive hatred sewed by those in power today.

Whole towns might exist one day and be wiped out the next. government officials might be attacked and targeted. New personalities, etc etc etc it won't be a matter of army reservists from NYC attacking Texas. How do you think that the predominantly conservative white male armed forces are going to handle hunting down their fellow amrericans? I doubt that will go smoothly.

I see this as lasting for years and possibly decades. The news channels will try to portray one side as racist terrorists and many will simply believe them but a huge number of people are already aware of the bias and lies coming out of the MSM.

The economy will be destroyed and the government will not be able to borrow money any more to give away to buy votes. It is get real ugly when their is no more money for them to redistribute.

[Leavesbound]

A woman should have the right to abortion during the first trimester. After than the baby is a person and killing them constitutes murder from an ethical standpoint and no one has the right to kill a person even people living inside their bodies.

[BeMuse]

I think you should worry about your state and leave Texas alone.

[NightHawk99]

Folks who claim they're pro-life aren't pro life for shit. Mothers deserve a safe and healthy pregnancy and delivery. Why only have one of the two if having both isn't possible? Religion NEVER applied here. Never has, never will, and never should.

[jasco]

Well my opinion is this. I am half/half when it comes to abortions for rape/incest. pro for it if the baby is dying or the mother is dying. Anti against it as a birth control so I don't know

[Anonymous]

I will be pro choice when that choice applies to both men and women, which is to say women have the right to choose an abortion and men have the legal right to choose to not be a father. Until then, I support the new law.

[Rangers]

Push it through and make it a felony in all 50 states and terroritories to seek out an abortion and perform one. This is long overdue

[OddBeMe]

I’m hoping they’ll galvanize the left. We need to wake the fuck up.

[KrakenAttackin]

Pro life and I love the change in legislation.

[anylolone]

Next time remember to not set a precedent.

[nawtee_me]

prolife

[JesseJayNeak]

I'm pro-life