All eyes on Roberts ahead of Supreme Court's abortion ruling

[mystery-ak]

All eyes on Roberts ahead of Supreme Court's abortion ruling
By John Kruzel - 06/21/20 06:00 PM EDT

Chief Justice John Roberts is under the microscope as the Supreme Court prepares to issue its first major ruling on abortion rights in the Trump era, which will give the clearest indication yet of the court’s willingness to revisit protections that were first granted in Roe v. Wade.

The tie-breaking vote may rest with Roberts, and the case stands to test his role as the court’s new ideological center as well as his allegiance to past rulings.

A decision could come as early as Monday, following a blockbuster week at the court. Roberts joined narrow majorities last week to extend civil rights protections to gay and transgender people, and block the Trump administration’s plan to end a deportation shield for young undocumented immigrants under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy.

more
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/503645-all-eyes-on-roberts-ahead-of-supreme-courts-abortion-ruling

[sneakypete]

Not to worry! He was nominated by that stalwart of conservatism,Boy Jorge Bush,and had the backing of none other than the groupies at Freak Republic.

What could possibly go wrong?

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm not watching, I already know what he's going to do.  So does everybody else here.

[dfwgator]

Roberts is a flat-out lib.

Dumbya screwed us over, big time.

[libertybele]

I'm not watching, I already know what he's going to do.  So does everybody else here.

Exactly we know how he's going to vote, after all he wouldn't want to ruin his reputation.

..."What complicates matters is the fact that the Texas law that the court struck down in Hellerstedt is nearly identical to the Louisiana law now under review.

Roberts’s reputation would suffer if the court uses the Louisiana case to overturn its 2016 decision in Hellerstedt, legal analysts say....."

[libertybele]

Roberts is a flat-out lib.

Dumbya screwed us over, big time.

He screwed us over in more ways than just one.

[sneakypete]

Roberts is a flat-out lib.

Dumbya screwed us over, big time.

@dfwgator

Of course he did. Dumbya is an alcoholic homosexual mama's boy,so he identifies with Roberts.

Hell,he probably dated him a time or two.

[Quix]

I PRAY that whatever Roberts is disqualifyingly, criminally guilty of--that he will be arrested & removed ASAP. ENOUGH OF THIS HYPOCRITICAL TREASONOUS BS. GRRR

[Quix]

I'm not watching, I already know what he's going to do.  So does everybody else here.

I'm slightly torn.

Would like a very enormously solid margin of conservatives in the Senate . . . before another Supreme Court vacancy.

[Applewood]

I'm slightly torn.

Would like a very enormously solid margin of conservatives in the Senate . . . before another Supreme Court vacancy.

Hate to break it to you, but there aren't any real conservatives in the senate and I don't see any conservative candidates on the horizon. 

[Jazzhead]

So the issue is to what extent a state can place an arbitrary burden on a Constitutional right.   

Folks here will predictably howl when the SCOTUS finds that such arbitrary burden is un-Constitutional.  But if the SCOTUS were to apply similar thinking to the gun right,  folks here would predictably applaud. 

So its just the same old story -  both right and left support "rights for me but not for thee".       

[sneakypete]

So the issue is to what extent a state can place an arbitrary burden on a Constitutional right.   

Folks here will predictably howl when the SCOTUS finds that such arbitrary burden is un-Constitutional.  But if the SCOTUS were to apply similar thinking to the gun right,  folks here would predictably applaud. 

So its just the same old story -  both right and left support "rights for me but not for thee".     

@Jazzhead

Excuse me,but can you please point out to me WHERE in the Bill of Rights that the "right to have an abortion" is specifically mentioned?

[Smokin Joe]

I PRAY that whatever Roberts is disqualifyingly, criminally guilty of--that he will be arrested & removed ASAP. ENOUGH OF THIS HYPOCRITICAL TREASONOUS BS. GRRR

I agree. If it's bad enough to coerce him to trash the Constitution by the egregious rewriting of statute in defiance of clear intent, even as contemporaneously stated, then he needs to find new employment, if not answer for his crimes.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Jazzhead

Excuse me,but can you please point out to me WHERE in the Bill of Rights that the "right to have an abortion" is specifically mentioned?

It's in an emanation of a penumbra.  You just ain't book-smart enough to see that, @sneakypete.  Neither am I, I guess.   

The formula, I get:  1 Emanation + 1 Penumbra = an Inviolable God-given right, like self defense.

[Smokin Joe]

So the issue is to what extent a state can place an arbitrary burden on a Constitutional right.   

Folks here will predictably howl when the SCOTUS finds that such arbitrary burden is un-Constitutional.  But if the SCOTUS were to apply similar thinking to the gun right,  folks here would predictably applaud. 

So its just the same old story -  both right and left support "rights for me but not for thee".     

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Life was mentioned first, because without it all else is moot. That primacy is for a reason.

When the rights of one overturn the rights of another, we truly have "Rights for me, but not for thee", as you state, but when the lives of the mother and child (even still in the womb) are held equally sacrosanct, then there is equality.
The mother's situation is temporary, limited by natural gestation. Motherhood need not follow; there are plenty willing to love and raise a child. The remedy you propose, while more immediate in its result for the mother, has permanent and detrimental results for the baby. This is a disparity in effect that should not be allowed,the permanent removal of the unalienable rights of the one for the temporary inconvenience of the other is not a balance any jurist should condone.

[libertybele]

@Jazzhead

Excuse me,but can you please point out to me WHERE in the Bill of Rights that the "right to have an abortion" is specifically mentioned?

Roe v Wade made it a Constitutional right for women to have an abortion - a right to personal privacy. There however, is nothing specifically in the Constitution that mentions the word abortion.

[Cyber Liberty]

Roe v Wade made it a Constitutional right for women to have an abortion - a right to personal privacy. There however, is nothing specifically in the Constitution that mentions the word abortion.

That's the problem with "rights" that are created by a Court.  Black robed tyrants can giveth, they can taketh away.

[Smokin Joe]

That's the problem with "rights" that are created by a Court.  Black robed tyrants can giveth, they can taketh away.

Well, they taketh'd 61,628,584 lives just through 2017. There's more blood on the Black Robes than Mao's hands, and that makes them the number one murderers of humans in history.

[Cyber Liberty]

Well, they taketh'd 61,628,584 lives just through 2017. There's more blood on the Black Robes than Mao's hands, and that makes them the number one murderers of humans in history.

Yet we get glowing tributes to how wonderful the Constitution guarantees this right to kill babies, we should STFU about it and let the taxpayers pay for free abortions to hood rats.

[sneakypete]

Roe v Wade made it a Constitutional right for women to have an abortion - a right to personal privacy. There however, is nothing specifically in the Constitution that mentions the word abortion.

@libertybele

Do you think the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are the same thing? The BoR sets forth the INALIENABLE RIGHTS that are the bedrock of our legal system.

The US Constitution is flexable,and AS LONG AS ADDITIONS ADHERE TO THE BASIC PRINCIPLES SET OUT IN THE BILL of Rights,these additions are legal and acceptable.

PLEASE point out to me where Abortion is mentioned in the BoR.

[sneakypete]

That's the problem with "rights" that are created by a Court.  Black robed tyrants can giveth, they can taketh away.

@Cyber Liberty


"Rights" created by courts can be modified or even done away with if found to be un-Constitutional.

The Bill of Rights is carved in stone and not subject to judicial appeal or popular opinion.

 And THAT is why the BoR are at the beginning,and establish the base that everything else flows from,

[Jazzhead]

Roe v Wade made it a Constitutional right for women to have an abortion - a right to personal privacy. There however, is nothing specifically in the Constitution that mentions the word abortion.

That's right.  It is up to the woman to decide for herself.    That does not mean that abortion is not a profound moral matter.   It is just that the decider must ultimately be the woman and the counsel she keeps, not the State.

[Smokin Joe]

Roe v Wade made it a Constitutional right for women to have an abortion - a right to personal privacy. There however, is nothing specifically in the Constitution that mentions the word abortion.

And that flies in the face of enumerated Rights: 

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment XIV


Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 

And this might even be brought to bear, considering the way those innocents are dispatched.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

In all things, in the original Founding documents, and even in the Amendments thereto, the unalienable Right to Life is assumed, the taking of an innocent life is to be avoided, and none can argue that those not yet born have committed any crime.

Yet nowhere in any of those documents do I see a Right to slaughter the unborn at a rate beyond that of the most despotic rulers of the last 100 years.

[Hoodat]

So the issue is to what extent a state can place an arbitrary burden on a Constitutional right.

The only Constitutional right at play here is the Constitutional right of Louisiana to establish its own health care laws.

Folks here will predictably howl when the SCOTUS finds that such arbitrary burden is un-Constitutional.

The only "burden" here is on clinics - not women.  The Louisiana law places zero restriction on the right of a woman to get an abortion.  None.  Zip. Nada.

[Hoodat]

That's right.  It is up to the woman to decide for herself.    That does not mean that abortion is not a profound moral matter.   It is just that the decider must ultimately be the woman and the counsel she keeps, not the State.

Again, there is absolutely NOTHING about this Louisiana law that infringes on that.  This law is about doctors and clinics only.

And no, there is nothing in Roe that addresses this either.