Category: In the News

It got leaked that the Supreme Court is about to overrule Roe v Wade. Not that surprising given the Court’s current makeup: three liberals plus moderate Bush appointee, less moderate Bush appointee, Not Merrick Garland, sexual abuser who likes beer, sexual abuser who votes against youth at every possible opportunity, and woman who probably asks her husband’s permission before every ruling.

Anyway, the leaked opinion by Less Moderate Bush Appointee contains some choice passages worthy of an “is this dude serious?” glare, so let’s have a look…

We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision….

Okay, but does the constitution say anything about a dog playing basketball?

Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences.

I know, right?! It allowed people with uteruses to *gasp!* make decisions about their own bodies and lives!

And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.

Translation: “We refuse to accept the issue is settled, so we’re enflaming and dividing. LOOK WHAT YOU MADE US DO!”

It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.

Or, you know, to the people considering having abortions. Not sure anyone else has a stake.

In the years prior to [Roe v. Wade], about a third of the States had liberalized their laws, but Roe abruptly ended that political process.

Ended that political process by… settling it? Like the Court is supposed to?

It imposed the same highly restrictive regime on the entire Nation, and it effectively struck down the abortion laws of every single State.

Imposed a highly restrictive regime by… lifting restrictions? Seriously, does this guy speak English?

It represented the ‘exercise of raw judicial power’… and it sparked a national controversy that has embittered our political culture for a half-century.

Did this guy just suggest repealing Roe would end controversy and bitter political culture? Dude… look out the window!

The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions.

Sure it is. It’s been settled law for half a century.

An unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973.

Yeah, well, up until certain dates, no one other than land-owning white males could vote- Oh, wait, nevermind. You’re opposed to that change, too.

Voters may believe that the abortion right should be more even more [sic] extensive… Voters in other States may wish to impose tight restrictions based on their belief that abortion destroys an ‘unborn human being.’

Oh, were you saying something? I was just thinking about that time you ruled to gut the Voting Rights Act.

Our nation’s historical understanding of ordered liberty does not prevent the people’s elected representatives from deciding how abortion should be regulated.

How about, and hear me out, those who are pregnant deciding whether or not to get an abortion!

On many other occasions, this Court has overruled important constitutional decisions. … Without these decisions, American constitutional law as we know it would be unrecognizable, and this would be a different country.

Want to get started on overruling Citizens United then?

Casey described itself as calling both sides of the national controversy to resolve their debate, but in doing so, Casey necessarily declared a winning side.

Do you think your rulings don’t declare “winning sides”?

The Court short-circuited the democratic process by closing it to the large number of Americans who dissented in any respect from Roe. … Roe and Casey cannot be allowed to stand.

Most Americans want them to stand. Or does that “large number of Americans” not count?

Roe certainly did not succeed in ending division on the issue of abortion.

It wasn’t meant to. It was to allow people to get abortions if they want.

Roe ‘inflamed’ a national issue that has remained bitterly divisive for the past half-century.

No, more like the Court made a decision, and ever since the GOP, Catholics, and midwest pastors alike have been stirring their bases into a frenzy about it to get more votes, more asses in pews, and more born children to molest.

This Court cannot bring about the permanent resolution of a rancorous national controversy simply by dictating a settlement and telling the people to move on.

Could be describing literally any Supreme Court decision here.

Whatever influence the Court may have on public attitudes must stem from the strength of our opinions, not an attempt to exercise ‘raw judicial power.’

LOL

Just… LOL

We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today’s decision overruling Roe and Casey.

Seriously?

And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision.

Despite all the ink you spilled bemoaning Roe and Casey “enflaming debate” and “deepening division”. Funny how that suddenly doesn’t matter anymore.

We can only do our job, which is to interpret the law, apply longstanding principles of stare decisis, and decide this case accordingly.

Applying stare decisis would mean leaving Roe alone because it’s already correctly settled.

We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.

Translation: “Because I’ve already got Clarence, Amy, Brett, and Neil on board, so I can do what I want. Hell, I could have just recited The Cat In The Hat here for all that it matters.”

Roe and Casey must be overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives.

Yes, to the people. The people who are actually pregnant. Kind of need to leave Roe and Casey in place for that.

Originally tweeted here on May 4, 2022.