Posted on 12/01/2021 11:19:39 AM PST by servo1969
If you scan the internet, you'll see a number of headlines stating that the Supreme Court is hearing oral argument today in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the case out of Mississippi that challenges Roe v. Wade. I'm completely disinterested because I'm certain that the outcome is pre-determined: Roe v. Wade will be upheld.
Why do I say that? Certainly not because it rests on a firm legal principle. Penumbras of emanations or emanations of penumbras do not create a federal right to abortion. The Constitution and the history of abortion in America before Roe v. Wade make it unequivocally clear that abortion is not a constitutional right; it is, instead, a matter that belongs to the individual states. Roe v. Wade is horribly written, but its folding, spindling, and mutilating of constitutional concepts, especially the 10th Amendment, is patently clear. (And by the way, whenever you're reading a turgid, boring, complex, confusing, obfuscatory Supreme Court decision, it's dishonest.)
Of course, there's the scientific and moral argument to be made about life beginning at conception but Roe v. Wade's trimester template (which gives the mother total control in the beginning and the state total control in the end) is going to be hard to challenge, so the decision will work with it. Now, instead of trimesters, they'll dance around the fact that fetuses are now viable in the second trimester with luck and good neonatal care. Morality and science will not affect the outcome, no matter how much the decision discusses them. In any event, later Supreme Court decisions threw out the trimester concept a long time ago, essentially holding that the state has no interest at all in the fetus within a woman's body, even if it's completely viable.
So, back to my certainty that Roe v. Wade will stand. The reason I say this is twofold. First, there's my theory -- which is repeatedly borne out by the behavior of the Supreme Court justices involved -- that Robertson, Barrett, and Kavanaugh are all compromised. I have no proof whatsoever of this other than the fact that, on matters of minor importance, they're rather consistently conservative while, on matters of importance to the left, enough of them will side with the leftist justices to achieve the preferred leftist outcome. Robertson used to hold that role by himself. He now has a rotating group of people to help him by coming to the left's rescue if need be.
And on what grounds might they be compromised? I've assumed it revolves around their children. Rumor had it when Robertson was confirmed that his children's adoption might have been shady. As for Barrett and Kavanaugh, I keep imagining some deep state operative showing up at their doors with pictures of the kids in hand, saying something along the lines of "Nice little family you've got here. It would be a shame if something happened to it."
For that reason -- that is, the justices' pattern and practice, combined with my paranoid suspicions -- I'm pretty certain we'll get a 5-4 majority reaffirming Roe, with two of the "conservative" justices joining in.
Another reason for my certainty about the inevitable decision affirming Roe v. Wade is that I read somewhere (and I can't remember where), that there's a concern among the justices that, if Roe goes, then Obergefell (which found a constitutional basis for same-sex marriage) goes too. That's correct. Obergefell rests firmly on Roe.
The members of the Supreme Court know that, if Roe goes and Obergefell is threatened, the riots last year will look like picnics as Marxists and anarchists again take to the streets (because that's what they do), only this time they'll be joined by rampaging gays and suburban women. We know that the justices, rather than doing the right thing, will always do the preferred thing (a) to keep the peace and (b) to keep the Deep State and its voters happy. Heck, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D -- Violenceville) threatened a revolution if leftists don't get their preferred outcome.
That's the Democrat world. Conservatives "parade" through the Capitol and it's an insurrection requiring mass arrests, extreme penalities, and Maoist struggle sessions in the courtroom. A Democrat senator threatens a revolution and everyone nods sagely.
So yeah, I'll be beyond surprised if the Supreme Court lays a finger on Roe v. Wade.
This is one of those situations in which I hope I'm wrong. I seldom am, though, when I suspect the worst of our institutions.
“on matters of minor importance, they’re rather consistently conservative while, on matters of importance to the left, enough of them will side with the leftist justices to achieve the preferred leftist outcome.”
Yup. Compromised.
Women need to safely be able to hide cheating with the alphas from the beta bill paying husbands
-PJ
So true these days. I could give 100 examples.
Three times he refers to Roberts as Robertson. That costs him credibility.
SCOTUS is a complete joke.
Yeah, what a moron.
But, I’m afraid the end result is correct.
How can a woman have "the right to choose" homicide, but be required to take the jab ! ( and don't men have equal rights with women ? )
Yeah, kind of destroys credibility when you get the name of the chief justice wrong, while holding yourself out as an expert on the SC. Swing and a miss, but thanks for playing.
“Another reason for my certainty about the inevitable decision affirming Roe v. Wade is that I read somewhere (and I can’t remember where)”
LOL
Consistently got the name wrong.
Yeah, I stopped reading right there. If he can't get that right then he doesn't know what he's talking about.
As for Barrett, I have no doubt she will vote against Roe vs Wade. That is in her DNA. Kavanaugh? Well if he followed the tenents of his religion, he'd vote against Roe vs Wade too.
I think the Supreme Court will do the right thing.
Pelosi has nine mail in ballots ready for the 3am flip.
And why can't women have the right to be a prostitute, use illegal drugs, etc,etc.??
It is THEIR body isn't it? As usual, they want double standards.
Brandon, actually answering questions today, said when asked about the arguments today, that abortion was the only rational answer. So, killing babies is rational? May he rot in Hell.
Nonsense.
The Court will rule in favor of Mississippi. The only real question is whether that ruling will just be an OK to the reduction of the 23-24 week Roe v. Wade threshold to 15 weeks or an acknowledgment that abortion law should be under the jurisdiction of the individual states.
A 15 week ruling would infer the rights of individual states to legislate abortion law but, IMHO, would still fall short of a total rejection of Roe v. Wade. But a States Rights ruling, while much preferred, still seems like a long-shot to me.
Fingers crossed.
He is a she. Her blog is consistently excellent.
Her mistake about Roberts is just that — a mistake.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.