The overturning of Roe v Wade

[Cloud Strife]

Alternatively, the Supreme Court are saying that the Environmental Protection Agency were exceeding the authority granted to them by Congress.

The problem is that it's clear that the ruling was partisan. The case was brought by Republican states, and now Republican judges have ruled against the EPA.

 

[najaB]

The problem is that it's clear that the ruling was partisan. The case was brought by Republican states, and now Republican judges have ruled against the EPA.

There's no doubt that the ruling was partisan, but unfortunately I have to say that on the face of it, there's nothing wrong with the logic used to arrive at it. The Clean Air Act gives the EPA the ability to regulate "toxic" gasses, and while carbon dioxide is harmful to the climate, it isn't listed as a priority pollutant substance in either the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act.

 

[brad465]

There are reports that the US Supreme Court will be going after elections next, with the Moore v Harper case involved and the SCOTUS could allow state legislatures to decide on the state results in Presidential elections, even if the popular vote disagrees:

US supreme court case could give state politicians huge power over elections

Nation’s highest court to hear North Carolina case seeking to remove state courts’ oversight of elections for federal office

www.theguardian.com

The US supreme court agreed on Thursday to hear a case that could dramatically upend the fight over voting in America and give state lawmakers enormous power in setting rules for elections to federal office.

The case, Moore v Harper, asks the supreme court to endorse the “independent state legislature theory” – the idea that state legislatures have exclusive authority to set the rules for federal elections. Republicans have complete control of government in 23 states, and have used redistricting to lock in their advantage for the next decade in many places.

The dispute involves a challenge to North Carolina’s congressional map. Earlier this year, the state supreme court struck down the map passed by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature for being so gerrymandered that it violated the state’s constitution. When the legislature did not come up with a constitutionally compliant new plan, the court imposed one drawn by a special master.

That was illegal, lawyers representing the general assembly argued in their petition to the US supreme court. The elections clause in the US constitution says that state legislatures shall set the “The Times, Places and Manner” for federal elections. The state supreme court, the lawyers said, does not have the power to set the rules for congressional elections.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/30/republican-recruit-poll-workers-election-integrity
“The question presented here goes to the very core of this nation’s democratic republic: what entity has the constitutional authority to set the rules of the road for federal elections, the means we use to 'exercise self-government’,” the lawyers wrote in their brief to the supreme court.

The case could have profound implications for voting rights. State courts in recent years have been increasingly active in disputes around partisan gerrymandering, the practice of distorting district lines to guarantee election outcomes. Courts in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio and New York have all played a key role in recent year in reining in excessive partisan gerrymandering. They have become increasingly active, in part, because the US supreme court said in 2019 that federal courts could not address partisan gerrymandering, but that state courts could use state constitutions to police it.


The impact could also extend far beyond gerrymandering. State supreme courts in recent years have been called on to weigh in on a range of rules for elections, such as mail-in voting laws and identification requirements.

A ruling in favor of state legislatures could also make it easier for officials to subvert an election and reject a result favoring the other party, Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote in a blogpost.

“Suppose a state agency interprets state rules to allow for the counting of certain ballots, and doing so favors one candidate,” he wrote. “If the leaders of the legislature are from the other party, and they say that the interpretation does not follow the views of the legislature, it’s impermissible and the results need to flip.”

Giving state lawmakers virtually uncheckable authority to set election rules would upend nearly a century of law, lawyers representing the challengers in the case wrote in a brief to the court.

“Applicants’ unsupported theory to the contrary – that the Elections Clause bars a state court from hearing a state constitutional challenge to any law regulating federal elections, including a congressional plan – runs headlong into at least half a dozen of this Court’s decisions, federal statutes, another provision of the US Constitution, and numerous North Carolina statutory and constitutional provisions,” they wrote.

“It is also repugnant to the sovereignty of states, the authority of state constitutions, and the independence of state courts, and would produce absurd consequences,” they added.

Allison Riggs, a lawyer at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice representing some of the challengers in the case said the independent state legislature theory was “a fringe, desperate and anti-democratic attack by a gerrymandered legislature”.

Even if the court is eager to weigh in on the doctrine, lawyers representing the challenger pointed out that the North Carolina case was a bad case on which to do so. State law explicitly lays out a process for state courts to review redistricting plans.

In 2015, the court considered a similar case, ruling 5-4 that the elections clause did not preclude voters from using a voter referendum in Arizona to create an independent commission with control over redistricting. Chief Justice John Roberts was in the minority in that case and wrote a sharply worded dissent.

But the composition of the court has changed significantly since then. Several of the conservative justices have already indicated they are eager to embrace the idea of limited court action.

“If the language of the Elections Clause is taken seriously, there must be some limit on the authority of state courts to countermand actions taken by state legislatures when they are prescribing rules for the conduct of federal elections,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote earlier this year, joined by Neil Gorsuch, dissenting from a procedural ruling not to block North Carolina’s map from going into effect. “I think it is likely that the applicants would succeed in showing that the North Carolina Supreme Court exceeded those limits.”

Justice Clarence Thomas had previously said the court’s refusal to consider the question was “baffling”. Justice Brett Kavanaugh called the independent state legislature question “extraordinarily important”.

 

[Basil Jet]

Vee had some interesting stuff to say on this.

 

[najaB]

Is this the first step the path to insanity?

Nadine Dorries’ call for the time limit for abortions to be reduced by four weeks has provoked outrage among health care professionals.

The culture secretary argued the legal cut-off point for pregnancy terminations in the UK - which is 24 weeks - should be reduced by a month.

Nadine Dorries’ call for abortion time limit to be reduced in UK sparks fury

Culture secretary argues UK’s abortion limit should be reduced by four weeks

www.independent.co.uk

 

[birchesgreen]

It is a worrying sign. Lets not forget a large number of Tory MPs are against abortion, and one of them is soon to be our new "boss".

 

[Cloud Strife]

Is this the first step the path to insanity?

More like the first step to completely irrelevance. She's clearly well aware that she's going to get the sack under a new PM, which means that she's desperately clutching onto something that might make her relevant enough to continue with a cabinet job.

 

[Strathclyder]

Is this the first step the path to insanity?

Nadine Dorries’ call for abortion time limit to be reduced in UK sparks fury

Culture secretary argues UK’s abortion limit should be reduced by four weeks

www.independent.co.uk

Either insanity or utter irrelevence as @Cloud Strife rightly notes. Regardless, what a utterly tone-deaf set of remarks.

 

[johncrossley]

Are certain Republicans and Tories also against contraception? What about married couples who don't copulate on a regular basis, or who prefer non-penetrative forms of sex? They are also preventing babies being born.

 

[najaB]

Are certain Republicans and Tories also against contraception? What about married couples who don't copulate on a regular basis, or who prefer non-penetrative forms of sex? They are also preventing babies being born.

Yes. Well, there are definitely those opposed to contraception - one of the cases mentioned by Clarence Thomas as "up for review" struck down laws giving access to contraceptives.

Another of them struck down sodomy laws which, though aimed at gay men, would also impact on the bedroom activities of heterosexual couples (at least once a year ).

 

[najaB]

The first major post-Roe state-wide vote gives some hope that sanity is starting to return to US politics:

The conservative US state of Kansas has decided in a referendum to protect abortion rights - in a major victory for pro-choice groups.
Voters overwhelmingly said they did not wish to amend the state constitution to assert there is no right to abortion.
It was the first electoral test of the issue since the US Supreme Court allowed states to ban the procedure.
If the ballot had gone the other way, lawmakers could have moved to further restrict or ban abortion in the state.

Kansas abortion vote: Major victory for pro-choice groups

In a major victory for pro-choice groups, the conservative state keeps abortion rights in place.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[ainsworth74]

The first major post-Roe state-wide vote gives some hope that sanity is starting to return to US politics:

Kansas abortion vote: Major victory for pro-choice groups

In a major victory for pro-choice groups, the conservative state keeps abortion rights in place.

www.bbc.co.uk

A proper Red State as well. Republican state legislature and voted Trump in the Presidential election and yet a comfortable, projected, victory for common sense.

It'll be fascinating to see how this plays out over the next few years electorally over the next few years. Roe v Wade has been a big rallying cry for the GOP historically.

 

[Strathclyder]

The first major post-Roe state-wide vote gives some hope that sanity is starting to return to US politics:

Kansas abortion vote: Major victory for pro-choice groups

In a major victory for pro-choice groups, the conservative state keeps abortion rights in place.

www.bbc.co.uk

A proper Red State as well. Republican state legislature and voted Trump in the Presidential election and yet a comfortable, projected, victory for common sense.

Was genuinely, but pleasantly, surprised to see this result. In spite of it being a Red State and the GOP pulling dirty tricks to try and dupe/force voters into voting the other way (including a misleading text message that's gone viral), a comfortable victory for common sense indeed.

It'll be fascinating to see how this plays out over the next few years electorally over the next few years. Roe v Wade has been a big rallying cry for the GOP historically.

Quite. In the short term though, they'll no doubt try and twist this into being the Democrats' fault despite the fact this is exactly what they wanted, fought and laid the groundwork for ever since Roe v. Wade was first decided.

 

[Gloster]

The Independent is reporting that they may have to do a hand recount of the Kansas vote as one woman has requested it, although she wouldn’t give reasons beyond that she had ‘seen data’. However, she will have to post a bond to cover the cost and she is apparently raising funds to this purpose. (The Independent via my yahoo news feed.)

 

[najaB]

The Independent is reporting that they may have to do a hand recount of the Kansas vote as one woman has requested it, although she wouldn’t give reasons beyond that she had ‘seen data’. However, she will have to post a bond to cover the cost and she is apparently raising funds to this purpose. (The Independent via my yahoo news feed.)

With a margin of 165,000 votes it is extremely unlikely to change anything. But if they want to waste their money it's better they waste it on this instead of trying to get stricter laws passed elsewhere.

 

[Strathclyder]

With a margin of 165,000 votes it is extremely unlikely to change anything. But if they want to waste their money it's better they waste it on this instead of trying to get stricter laws passed elsewhere.

Indeed. Waste their own money and make utter fools of themselves in the process. Not that it's likely to get them anywhere anyway given the size of the vote margin.

 

[Busaholic]

The Independent is reporting that they may have to do a hand recount of the Kansas vote as one woman has requested it, although she wouldn’t give reasons beyond that she had ‘seen data’. However, she will have to post a bond to cover the cost and she is apparently raising funds to this purpose. (The Independent via my yahoo news feed.)

'Seen data'? Perhaps she 'sees ghosts' and 'hears voices' too! One person can attempt to derail a democratic decision based on nothing to speak of? I know we have an increasingly maladjusted system of government here, but I do wonder sometimes if the whole of the USA has taken leave of its collective sanity. The more stupid they are, the more seriously they take themselves, and so many of them have guns to reinforce their idiot opinions.

 

[najaB]

One person can attempt to derail a democratic decision based on nothing to speak of? I know we have an increasingly maladjusted system of government here, but I do wonder sometimes if the whole of the USA has taken leave of its collective sanity.

I see it differently. This way there is complete transparency in the election process - anyone can request a recount, the only requirement being that it doesn't cost the state anything extra.

 

[TheEdge]

I see it differently. This way there is complete transparency in the election process - anyone can request a recount, the only requirement being that it doesn't cost the state anything extra.

If it was 65 votes, then maybe. But 165,000 it's an absolute waste of everyone's time.

Not sure if it's been mentioned here but did anyone else spot the Christian Legal Centre and Christian Concern making a song and dance about a "heartbeat" in the Archie Battersbee case? Maneuvering to try and make a similar move over here perhaps.

 

[dgl]

If it was 65 votes, then maybe. But 165,000 it's an absolute waste of everyone's time.

Not sure if it's been mentioned here but did anyone else spot the Christian Legal Centre and Christian Concern making a song and dance about a "heartbeat" in the Archie Battersbee case? Manoeuvring to try and make a similar move over here perhaps.

Thinking about it you can make a heart beat with external electrical stimulation, so a heart beat doesn't necessary mean the person is alive.
Also I wouldn't be surprised if these "Christian" charities only really care about getting themselves noticed and the money they can make from it, a caring organization does not prolong suffering.

 

[TheEdge]

Thinking about it you can make a heart beat with external electrical stimulation, so a heart beat doesn't necessary mean the person is alive.

That's what bothers me. Of all the organs to keep alive and functional the heart is probably the "easiest", it's a muscular pump, squeeze it with your hand and it'll "work", apply the right electric shocks to it and it'll work. Compared to the other organs that don't really do a physical thing but sit as a lump of immobile tissue doing complex chemical and electrical processes it's easy.

But these groups are latching onto heartbeat as the be all and end all.

 

[najaB]

If it was 65 votes, then maybe. But 165,000 it's an absolute waste of everyone's time.

Yup. It's a waste of time - the Secretary of State's spokesperson said as much - but the principle still applies: if someone wants a recount then they can get a recount, as long as it doesn't cost the state anything.

 

[birchesgreen]

But surely it always costs the state something even if the person funds it. The people doing the count arn't doing something else which is more useful.

 

[najaB]

But surely it always costs the state something even if the person funds it. The people doing the count arn't doing something else which is more useful.

I would hope that they would hire temporary workers to do the count, rather than taking other people away from their duties. If it was me in charge I definitely would.

 

[birchesgreen]

I would hope that they would hire temporary workers to do the count, rather than taking other people away from their duties. If it was me in charge I definitely would.

But someone official (and probably a fair number) will still have to spend some time on this even if the count is physically done by others.

 

[najaB]

But someone official (and probably a fair number) will still have to spend some time on this even if the count is physically done by others.

With their time costed in as well.

 

[Busaholic]

Yup. It's a waste of time - the Secretary of State's spokesperson said as much - but the principle still applies: if someone wants a recount then they can get a recount, as long as it doesn't cost the state anything.

Can't agree with you there at all. It would be like saying if one person thinks an MP should be recalled then the process should start there and then, whereas 10% of the electoral roll have to petition first. In any case it does cost the state - more than money is involved, or are you saying if you've got enough money you can demand anything? Hardly democratic, very Trumpian!

 

[Berliner]

If it was 65 votes, then maybe. But 165,000 it's an absolute waste of everyone's time.

Not sure if it's been mentioned here but did anyone else spot the Christian Legal Centre and Christian Concern making a song and dance about a "heartbeat" in the Archie Battersbee case? Maneuvering to try and make a similar move over here perhaps.

I think its clear that ever since RvsW was overturned, it's emboldened fringe groups with these similar beliefs to act in other countries. We shouldn't be complacent here. The likes of the CLC will jump on anything to promote their warped agenda and the more they are in the background of high profile stories such as Archie Battersby, the more exposure they get. This is especially the case when you have parents who have exhausted legal routes, lost, but still want to find a way to keep the story going. If the only people willing to help out are the likes of the CLC then they will just get more and more prominent and more people will come out in support of them without realising how dangerous these groups can be.

 

[AlterEgo]

If it was 65 votes, then maybe. But 165,000 it's an absolute waste of everyone's time.

Not sure if it's been mentioned here but did anyone else spot the Christian Legal Centre and Christian Concern making a song and dance about a "heartbeat" in the Archie Battersbee case? Maneuvering to try and make a similar move over here perhaps.

Who cares? Heartbeat laws aren’t going to be anywhere near a possibility in the UK. Abortion is a settled political issue and has been for a very long time. Importation of American hysteria has to stop within our political spaces. It happens on all sides.

I think its clear that ever since RvsW was overturned, it's emboldened fringe groups with these similar beliefs to act in other countries. We shouldn't be complacent here. The likes of the CLC will jump on anything to promote their warped agenda and the more they are in the background of high profile stories such as Archie Battersby, the more exposure they get. This is especially the case when you have parents who have exhausted legal routes, lost, but still want to find a way to keep the story going. If the only people willing to help out are the likes of the CLC then they will just get more and more prominent and more people will come out in support of them without realising how dangerous these groups can be.

Yes I forgot we lived in the 51st state of the USA (!)

 

[Gloster]

Who cares? Heartbeat laws aren’t going to be anywhere near a possibility in the UK. Abortion is a settled political issue and has been for a very long time. Importation of American hysteria has to stop within our political spaces. It happens on all sides.

They thought that in America until quite recently.