SCOTUS Patrol: What's Going On

We know that human life begins at least at the 21st week of pregnancy so drawing the line at least there should be easy.

A boy in US state of Alabama, who was born at 21 weeks of pregnancy, has created a world record for being the earliest premature baby to survive.

Born in Birmingham, Alabama, Curtis Means was 132 days premature on July 5, 2020. He weighed only 14.8 ounces, reported the Associated Press.

This anecdote proves all that? Seems that the argument that modern medical science can artificially maintain a preemies life until it can live on its own can also be made. :idunno:

And this:

Overall, perspectives on abortion tend to fall into three main camps. The first camp is a relatively small chunk of Americans (about 10 to 15 percent) who think abortion should be illegal in all cases. The second camp is a larger minority (about 25 to 30 percent) who want abortion to be legal in all cases. And the third camp is the majority of Americans (about 55 to 65 percent), who fall into a gray area, telling pollsters that they want abortion to be legal in some or most cases.

That third group, as defined there, is kind of useless, as it lumps most people together in the middle group, but that lumps people on relatively 3xyreme sides of the spectrum together (“That final category is all over the place, as it includes both people who think abortion should be legal only in cases of rape, incest and when the mother’s life is at risk, as well as people who think abortion should be legal with only limited restrictions, perhaps for minors or for abortions in later stages of pregnancy”).

Taking out the mushy middle option where relatively extremes are lumped together, having a binary choice instead, pew has 59% believing abortion should be legal in all or most cases and 39% thinking it should be illegal in all or most cases.

I don’t think you can make a great argument that because something living can be sustained means that’s where “life” begins, in the way that I think that most people would think of the term (totally unsupportable of course).

Science didn’t give Curtis Means life. It just preserved it. Just as an adult in a coma whose life is being preserved by science is still fully human. Unless you’re saying that Curtis Means wasn’t fully human when he was born.

No idea who that is.

And this, from a Harvard law professor.

Now I wanted to read the whole thing. Some of it seemed to make sense.

the three liberal Justices often seemed to be delivering dirges, as though they had accepted a loss and were speaking for posterity. Mississippi’s ban on abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy, which boldly flouts the Court’s precedents setting the line at around twenty-four weeks, is likely to be upheld by the conservative Justices.

Now, I disagree. The science has changed. The time should reflect what we now know. I don’t buy the science of the biblical times. We’ve enjoyed a nice tech run up since Roe, so, let’s get Roe 2.0, right?

Sadly, here is where I stopped reading:

The open challenge to the Court’s authority perhaps broadly reflects a spirit of legal self-help that is running through the land. For instance, we normally think that the role of law enforcement belongs to the states, not to random neighbors, but two recent homicide cases appeared to put vigilantism on trial. On November 19th, in Kenosha, Wisconsin, Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges for shooting three people, two fatally, during racial-justice protests in August, 2020. Rittenhouse, who was then seventeen, had travelled to Kenosha from his home in Illinois with a semi-automatic weapon,


1 Like

I’m going to be a little pedantic here, and say that we already have Roe 2.0…it’s called Casey v Planned Parenthood and that’s where the court through away the trimester framework and went with viability.

I think we’re likely to get rid of the Casey standard but keep the super secret never mentioned right to privacy which somehow also includes abortion part of Roe…especially if Roberts gets his way.

There’s no majority that wants Roe v Wade overturned, either.

There are a lot of people who want clarity though.

Democratic majorities are irrelevant to Roe v Wade. A majority of nine created Roe and only five unelected public officials have any say over whether it stays or goes today.

If you keep losing just change the rules of the game.

To be fair, changing the number of justices would be more legit and have more precedent than not considering a nominee for a year.

The problem with making Court packing precedent for political purposes is both sides will start playing by the new rules then.

No, I’m not prepared to go on and try to pack the court, because we’ll live to rue that day. We add three justices. Next time around, we lose control, they add three justices. We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all.
– Joe Biden, 2020

Yea courts are already political as hell. Why didn’t the constitution set a limit to number of justices?

Maybe we’ll have 200 justices.

That wouldn’t be a precedent or new rules - been there, done that, the number of justices is set by law (which can, and has been changed in the past), not the constitution.

Considering that justices are confirmed by an act of congress, having the number of justice set by law is meaningless.

What do you mean?

What do I mean?

Congress decides how many seats in the supreme court. They also decides who goes in.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that this is designed for court packing.

If they wanted to make supreme court nonpolitical they should have limited the seats in the constitution. Then court packing would not work.

It never got past the talking point:

On February 5, 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt shocked America by introducing a plan to expand the Supreme Court, to gain favorable votes. FDR’s war on the court was short-lived, and it was defeated by a crafty Chief Justice and Roosevelt’s party members.