Joe Scarborough: 'I Know' Chief Justice Roberts Will Never Overturn Roe

[mystery-ak]

Joe Scarborough: 'I Know' Chief Justice Roberts Will Never Overturn Roe
By Mark Finkelstein | June 11, 2019 7:52 AM EDT

If Joe Scarborough is right, there is something seriously wrong with Chief Justice John Roberts and his Court. On today's Morning Joe, Scarborough claimed, "I know the Roberts Court is not going to overturn" Roe v. Wade because a recent poll shows only 13% of Americans want it overturned.   

Refusing to apply the Constitution, bowing instead to the public sentiment of the day, would represent an appalling abdication of the Court's duty. That is particularly so regarding Roe, a decision that even many supporters of abortion rights, and an MSNBC legal analyst, recognize was decided on dubious-at-best constitutional grounds.

more
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/mark-finkelstein/2019/06/11/scarborough-i-know-roberts-scotus-bowing-poll-wont-overturn-roe

[jpsb]

I can't wait for judge Amy Barrett to join the court. Hopefully to replace Ruth once she retires.

[mountaineer]

Joe doesn't "know" his butt from a hole in the ground.  Does anyone watch this dope's show?

[Bill Cipher]

Roe will never be overturned. 

[mountaineer]

 rrthreek

Roe will never be overturned.

Sad to say, I believe you're right. My comment was a general criticism of Joe, more than a response to what he said about Justice Roberts.

[Bill Cipher]

rrthreekSad to say, I believe you're right. My comment was a general criticism of Joe, more than a response to what he said about Justice Roberts.

Understood.   My comment wasn’t really addressed to anyone in particular, just to the article itself. 

[txradioguy]

Roe will never be overturned.

Someone needs to tell the DNC that.  They proclaim that every new Republican elected...every judge nominated to the bench puts America one step closer to Roe being overturned.

[Bill Cipher]

Someone needs to tell the DNC that.  They proclaim that every new Republican elected...every judge nominated to the bench puts America one step closer to Roe being overturned.

Of course they do; that’s how they get the rank-and-file all fired up. 

[txradioguy]

Of course they do; that’s how they get the rank-and-file all fired up.

True...but you can only cry wolf for so long.

[Bill Cipher]

True...but you can only cry wolf for so long.

One would think so, but that doesn’t seem to be the case in politics.

[thackney]

One would think so, but that doesn’t seem to be the case in politics.

Absolutely.  How many decades was drilling in ANWR a fundraising cause for both sides?

[txradioguy]

Absolutely.  How many decades was drilling in ANWR a fundraising cause for both sides?

Looked how well the "promise" of overturning Obamacare "root and branch" worked on firing up the Conservative base for a few elections.

[Hoodat]

I can't wait for judge Amy Barrett to join the court.

You and me both.

[Hoodat]

Roe will never be overturned.

They said the same thing about Plessy.

[Bill Cipher]

They said the same thing about Plessy.

Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000).  Plessy is easily distinguished. 

Roe isn’t going anywhere. 

[txradioguy]

You and me both.

Though it will be refreshing to have her on the Court...if and when she's appointed doesn't guarantee we've got a majority to overturn Roe.  Assuming Justice Thomas remains in good health it gives (probably) 4 solid votes to overturn.  I wouldn't count Kavanaugh in that group because he's not Conservative.  And Roberts is too squish these days to do the right thing either.

[Hoodat]

Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000).  Plessy is easily distinguished. 

Roe isn’t going anywhere.

Dickerson has zero to do with either Plessy or Roe.  No one is trying to federally legislate their way around either decision.

[Bill Cipher]

Dickerson has zero to do with either Plessy or Roe.  No one is trying to federally legislate their way around either decision.

Dickerson has everything to do with whether the Court would overrule Roe, even assuming arguendo that it wasn’t entirely constitutionally mandated.  Dickerson establishes criteria the Court would apply in those circumstances.  Plessy fails that test because it was unworkable in principle and had been undercut.  Roe passes that test because it is neither unworkable nor has it been undercut. 

Roe will not be overturned, no matter how badly you want it to be. 

[Hoodat]

Dickerson has everything to do with whether the Court would overrule Roe, even assuming arguendo that it wasn’t entirely constitutionally mandated.  Dickerson establishes criteria the Court would apply in those circumstances. 

This doesn't even make sense.  Dickerson has to do with Congress trying to circumvent Miranda through legislation.  Period.  Congress is not trying to circumvent Roe, nor did it try to circumvent Plessy.

Plessy fails that test because it was unworkable in principle and had been undercut.  Roe passes that test because it is neither unworkable nor has it been undercut.

Plessy was workable for over half a century until it was overturned.  Roe has been workable for 46 years.  But workability has zero to do with Dickerson, or the Constitution for that matter.  Both Plessy and Roe defied the Constitution.  Both can be overturned by any court willing to adhere to the wording of the Constitution.

Roe will not be overturned, no matter how badly you want it to be.

That's what they said about Plessy.

[Smokin Joe]

Though it will be refreshing to have her on the Court...if and when she's appointed doesn't guarantee we've got a majority to overturn Roe.  Assuming Justice Thomas remains in good health it gives (probably) 4 solid votes to overturn.  I wouldn't count Kavanaugh in that group because he's not Conservative.  And Roberts is too squish these days to do the right thing either.

I consider Roberts to be completely unreliable. For whatever reason he sold his soul over Obamacare. Rewriting a law in defiance of the Constitution to say what the progenitors repeatedly told the American People was emphatically NOT the case, and then proclaiming it to be "Constitutional". That sucker is compromised, and anything as dear to evil hearts as the fraud of Roe will summon up the threat of whatever dirt was used to push him over to the dark side last time.

[dfwgator]

"I know" Lori Klausutis will never comment on this story.

[Bill Cipher]

This doesn't even make sense.  Dickerson has to do with Congress trying to circumvent Miranda through legislation.  Period.  Congress is not trying to circumvent Roe, nor did it try to circumvent Plessy.


Plessy was workable for over half a century until it was overturned.  Roe has been workable for 46 years.  But workability has zero to do with Dickerson, or the Constitution for that matter.  Both Plessy and Roe defied the Constitution.  Both can be overturned by any court willing to adhere to the wording of the Constitution.


That's what they said about Plessy.

You clearly do not understand Dickerson then.  In Dickerson, the Court concluded that Congress could have overridden Miranda only if Miranda was not a constitutionally based decision.  The Court then concluded that even if Miranda went beyond the requirements of the Fifth, it was still a constitutional decision and, therefore, that Congress could not override it legislatively. 

The Court then considered whether to overturn Miranda given that it was not strictly based on the Constitution, and the Court decided that it would not overrule Miranda because it addressed a significant issue, it was workable, and the principles underpinning it had not been undone. 

The same would apply to Roe if we assume - plain logic to the contrary - that Roe is not constitutional, and Roe would pass that test because it is workable, and it’s essential principle - individual freedom and liberty - has not been undercut.   

Plessy would fail.  It was clear beyond any peradventure that separate was inherently not equal.  The essence of Plessy was fully undercut, and Plessy did nothing more than enable exactly the sorts of inequality it was supposed to mitigate; it was therefore unworkable. 

It’s a shame that you cannot come to grips with reality, but that is life.  Plenty of other people, flat-earthers come to mind - can’t deal with reality either. 

Roe is not going anywhere; it certainly isn’t going the way of Plessy. 

[Hoodat]

You clearly do not understand Dickerson then.  In Dickerson, the Court concluded that Congress could have overridden Miranda only if Miranda was not a constitutionally based decision.  The Court then concluded that even if Miranda went beyond the requirements of the Fifth, it was still a constitutional decision and, therefore, that Congress could not override it legislatively.

Which again is not applicable here since there is no corresponding Congressional attempt to override Roe or Plessy.

The Court then considered whether to overturn Miranda given that it was not strictly based on the Constitution, and the Court decided that it would not overrule Miranda because it addressed a significant issue, it was workable, and the principles underpinning it had not been undone.

This same argument, albeit ludicrous, also applies to Plessy.

The same would apply to Roe if we assume - plain logic to the contrary - that Roe is not constitutional, and Roe would pass that test because it is workable .  .  .

As was Plessy.

.  .  .  and it’s essential principle - individual freedom and liberty - has not been undercut. 

Ah, but that's where it all falls apart.  Roe explicitly denies the people of any State from formulating its own abortion laws, in direct violation of Amendment X.

Plessy would fail.

Plessy remained alive for over half a century.  It took another Supreme Court ruling to overrule it.  Without that ruling, segregation would remain the law of the land regardless of what the Constitution says.  It is no different from Roe.

It was clear beyond any peradventure that separate was inherently not equal.

Not to seven Supreme Court Justices.

The essence of Plessy was fully undercut, and Plessy did nothing more than enable exactly the sorts of inequality it was supposed to mitigate; it was therefore unworkable. 

Again, it 'worked' for over half a century.

It’s a shame that you cannot come to grips with reality, but that is life.  Plenty of other people, flat-earthers come to mind - can’t deal with reality either. 

See:  Logical Fallacies - Poisoning the Well

Roe is not going anywhere; it certainly isn’t going the way of Plessy.

Repetition of a false claim will not make it true.  The Supreme Court can overrule Roe at any time, just as it did with Plessy.  And there is absolutely nothing that you have presented that proves otherwise.

[jmyrlefuller]

I can't wait for judge Amy Barrett to join the court. Hopefully to replace Ruth once she retires.

Yet we got Brett Kavanaugh instead. Thanks, Christine...

[Bill Cipher]

Which again is not applicable here since there is no corresponding Congressional attempt to override Roe or Plessy.


This same argument, albeit ludicrous, also applies to Plessy.

 

As was Plessy.


Ah, but that's where it all falls apart.  Roe explicitly denies the people of any State from formulating its own abortion laws, in direct violation of Amendment X.


Plessy remained alive for over half a century.  It took another Supreme Court ruling to overrule it.  Without that ruling, segregation would remain the law of the land regardless of what the Constitution says.  It is no different from Roe.


Not to seven Supreme Court Justices.


Again, it 'worked' for over half a century.


See:  Logical Fallacies - Poisoning the Well


Repetition of a false claim will not make it true.  The Supreme Court can overrule Roe at any time, just as it did with Plessy.  And there is absolutely nothing that you have presented that proves otherwise.

Roe is not going anywhere.  You can spin as fine and dandy a tale as you like to salve your self-inflicted butt-hurt, but that doesn’t change facts. 

Roe is here to stay.

Enjoy your fantasies and delusions.