The beginning of the end?

[smokeshadow]

The US Supreme Court has accepted a case based a 2014 Louisiana law that requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital to be able to perform the procedure. Experts are stating that this will be the case, that at the very least, will begin the unraveling of rights for women that were established in the 46 year old ruling Roe vs. Wade.

https://www.thenewcivilrightsmoveme...y-its-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-roe-v-wade/

 

[KaraBulut]

Watch Roberts. It's the same case that went before the Court in 2016 in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. The decision was 5-4 in favor of Whole Woman's Health. Kennedy was the deciding vote.

If stare decisis has any meaning with SCOTUS, Roberts will follow the 2016 precedent. If he doesn't, it will set a precedent that will allow other conservative majority decisions (like Citizens United) to be overturned at the whim of a future liberal majority Court. Roberts will try to narrow this case as much as possible. The fact that they didn't allow the law to got into effect pending appeal (over Kavanaugh's drunken objections) is a sign.

 

[rareboy]

^ This is why I am conflicted about what happens with this case.

My immediate thought is that the conservative court overturning Roe will unfetter the Supreme Court and allow other decisions made by conservative courts to be overturned in the future.

Legal chaos, perhaps....but with a liberal court...it could undo a lot of harm done by the SC over the years.

 

[KaraBulut]

...My immediate thought is that the conservative court overturning Roe will unfetter the Supreme Court and allow other decisions made by conservative courts to be overturned in the future.

Something that I said in another thread is also worth mentioning: sodomy statutes are still on the books and in most states, marriage law has not been updated to allow same-sex marriage.

We have a bunch of wusses in our Legislative branch. They could fix the Voting Rights Act. They can pass legislation that decriminalizes marijuana. They could codify the decriminalization of sodomy. They could put the legal protections for women, gay people and minorities into statutes. They could repeal the Hyde Amendment and pass legislation that repeals and removes abortion restrictions. They could write laws that say, "yes, there is a right to privacy".

They don't. Instead, they sit on their hands and let the Courts do the work that the legislators won't. Because legislators are wusses.

Every candidate should be asked whether they will support legislation that stops government from micromanaging what adults do with their own body and whether they will repeal laws that allows government to micromanage what people do in their bedroom.

If lawmakers would stop wasting time trying to legislate the private behavior of citizens then maybe they could focus on big issues... like criminal justice reform, education reform, updating commerce and banking laws, cleaning up the defense budget, updating the nuclear weapons arsenal, repairing infrastructure, addressing the opioid crisis, funding a mental health system outside the criminal justice system - things that government is supposed to do. And if they would stop passing laws that regulate private behavior, maybe it would also free up the Courts to address the backlog of cases on their dockets?