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. 

[Jazzhead]

It amuses me to hear folks who usually decry "judicial activism"  insist the Supreme Court deny the legal rights of 150 million American women.     Whatever one may think of the original Roe decision, it is one thing to recognize new rights, and quite another to take rights away.   

A woman's right to decide for herself whether to bear a child has been the law of the land for three generations of American women.   What @Bill Cipher is simply saying is that SCOTUS is not the one to put that genie back in the bottle.    If an established right is to be no longer protected by the Constitution,  it must be done by the peoples' elected representatives, by means of a Constitutional amendment.    But that's not going to happen,  because the people generally support a middle ground regarding abortion.   Safe, legal and rare.   

[Bigun]

It amuses me to hear people talk about court created rights!

[thackney]

It amuses me to hear folks who usually decry "judicial activism"  insist the Supreme Court deny the legal rights of 150 million American women.     Whatever one may think of the original Roe decision, it is one thing to recognize new rights, and quite another to take rights away.   

A woman's right to decide for herself whether to bear a child has been the law of the land for three generations of American women.   What @Bill Cipher is simply saying is that SCOTUS is not the one to put that genie back in the bottle.    If an established right is to be no longer protected by the Constitution,  it must be done by the peoples' elected representatives, by means of a Constitutional amendment.    But that's not going to happen,  because the people generally support a middle ground regarding abortion.   Safe, legal and rare.   

Right to life should have more power than a right for convenience.

[Jazzhead]

It amuses me to hear people talk about court created rights!

Your individual right to defend your home and family with a firearm,  without regard to your membership in a citizen militia,  is a court-created right.   Do you support liberal efforts to overturn that court-created right?   

Didn't think so.  Rights for me but not for thee.   

[Jazzhead]

Right to life should have more power than a right for convenience.

A pre-viable fetus has, vis a vis its own mother,  no right to life under the U.S. Constitution.   And there is no political will to create such a right by means of a Constitutional amendment.  Seems like you are counting on judicial activism to impose your view of morality.   

[jmyrlefuller]

Your individual right to defend your home and family with a firearm,  without regard to your membership in a citizen militia,  is a court-created right.

Wrong.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is clearly written in the Constitution in plain language. The first half, being grammatically incorrect, was never valid.

In contrast, any perceived right to kill a child in the womb is in direct contradiction of the explicit Fifth Amendment right to not be denied life without due process.

[thackney]

A pre-viable fetus has, vis a vis its own mother,  no right to life under the U.S. Constitution.   And there is no political will to create such a right by means of a Constitutional amendment.  Seems like you are counting on judicial activism to impose your view of morality.   

Interesting it is a homicide to kill it outside of an abortion clinic in many states, if it has no right to life.

[Bill Cipher]

Wrong.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is clearly written in the Constitution in plain language. The first half, being grammatically incorrect, was never valid.

In contrast, any perceived right to kill a child in the womb is in direct contradiction of the explicit Fifth Amendment right to not be denied life without due process.

“Never valid” - more liberal words were ne’er heard on this subject. 

[Bigun]

Your individual right to defend your home and family with a firearm,  without regard to your membership in a citizen militia,  is a court-created right.   Do you support liberal efforts to overturn that court-created right?   

Didn't think so.  Rights for me but not for thee.

BUZZZZZZ Wrong again!  On all counts!

[aligncare]

@Jazzhead

A woman's right to decide for herself whether to bear a child by killing the baby is a bit like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

“Her right” is actually a misnomer. What’s central to the issue is her “responsibility” to abstain or use birth control when she is fertile, and to acknowledge the unique individual life inside her should those methods fail.

Abortion, at its core, is a human rights issue. Not the mother’s, but the baby’s God given human rights.

[thackney]

A pre-viable fetus has, vis a vis its own mother,  no right to life under the U.S. Constitution.   And there is no political will to create such a right by means of a Constitutional amendment.  Seems like you are counting on judicial activism to impose your view of morality.   

Looks like US law takes a similar stance but give an exception to abortion.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

[Jazzhead]

Wrong.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is clearly written in the Constitution in plain language. The first half, being grammatically incorrect, was never valid.

In contrast, any perceived right to kill a child in the womb is in direct contradiction of the explicit Fifth Amendment right to not be denied life without due process.

Believe what you want.  You're wrong.   The predicate clause of the 2A can't simply be read out of the right because you claim it was "never valid".    The individual right was recognizedby a court decision - Scalia's majority opinion in Heller  - just as the individual right to abortion was recognized by the Court.    The two rights hang by the same thread.    If you insist that the Court overturn the right you oppose, then know that liberals are working just as hard to overturn the right you support.   

Hopefully the Court will stand firm and recognize each of these important rights, as well as the rights of the states to reasonably regulate their exercise.   

[Jazzhead]

Looks like US law takes a similar stance but give an exception to abortion.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

Yup.   A pre-viable fetus has no rights vis a vis its own mother.    The law you cite is directed toward the acts of third parties.    Which makes sense, since a woman has dominion over her own body.   THAT is the important natural right that must be protected.     

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead

A woman's right to decide for herself whether to bear a child by killing the baby is a bit like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

“Her right” is actually a misnomer. What’s central to the issue is her “responsibility” to abstain or use birth control when she is fertile, and to acknowledge the unique individual life inside her should those methods fail.

Abortion, at its core, is a human rights issue. Not the mother’s, but the baby’s God given human rights.

You are stating your moral view of the matter.   I don't necessarily disagree with it.   Where we disagree is the enlistment of the State to impose your morality on others.   What I support  - consistent with my conservative view of the role of the State  - is the woman's fundamental LIBERTY. 

The solution to the problem you cite is prevention, support and persuasion.   Not coercion.   

[txradioguy]

What I support  - consistent with my conservative view of the role of the State  - is the woman's fundamental LIBERTY. 
   

Because that child is a human being with rights. He or she deserves to be protected just by virtue of being human. And that woman’s “Liberty” to kill her child is not a justified liberty at all. Rather, she now has the responsibility to protect her child’s life.

And your role of the state is the exact opposite of "Conservative".  You're the only one here that believes that your view is the conservative one..

You're perfectly happy with the state mandating what people can and can't do if it supports one of your favorite Liberal pet causes.

The abortion issue is a perfect case in point of your hypocrisy.  IF you truly were for the State having a minimal role in peoples lives, you'd be against the Federal Government imposing a trash ruling like Roe on every state whether they agree with it or not.

But instead you falsely claim to be Conservative...all the while quite happy to have the Federal government impose it's version of morality on everyone whether they want it imposed on them or not.

[Hoodat]

Roe is not going anywhere.

They said the same thing about Plessy.

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.

Facts?  Facts?  The FACT here is that Plessy was overturned.  So was Furman.  Thus, Roe can be overturned, too.  I understand that critical thinking is not your strong suit, but it is clear based on FACTS that Supreme Court decisions can indeed be overturned.  So all it takes is for a majority of Supreme Court Justices to side with what the Constitution actually says instead of siding with what makes them feel good, just as they did with Brown.  And every day that decision is delayed, we live under tyranny just as we lived under tyranny for half a century under Plessy.

One thing is clear, I choose to live on the foundation of the Constitution of the United States of America and place my trust in my fellow citizens in shaping our society as we see fit.  And you choose to impose your will on everyone else outside the confines of that same Constitution.  It really shouldn't matter to you what laws we the people of Georgia decide to implement.   Yet for some reason it does.  You simply can't help yourself from imposing your moral code (at the point of a gun) on people who live in different States than you.

Roe is here to stay.

They said the same thing about Plessy.

Enjoy your fantasies and delusions.

We'll see, big boy.  We'll see.  I have the Constitution of the United States of America on my side.  What do you have?

[Bill Cipher]

They said the same thing about Plessy.


Facts?  Facts?  The FACT here is that Plessy was overturned.  So was Furman.  Thus, Roe can be overturned, too.  I understand that critical thinking is not your strong suit, but it is clear based on FACTS that Supreme Court decisions can indeed be overturned.  So all it takes is for a majority of Supreme Court Justices to side with what the Constitution actually says instead of siding with what makes them feel good, just as they did with Brown.  And every day that decision is delayed, we live under tyranny just as we lived under tyranny for half a century under Plessy.

One thing is clear, I choose to live on the foundation of the Constitution of the United States of America and place my trust in my fellow citizens in shaping our society as we see fit.  And you choose to impose your will on everyone else outside the confines of that same Constitution.  It really shouldn't matter to you what laws we the people of Georgia decide to implement.   Yet for some reason it does.  You simply can't help yourself from imposing your moral code (at the point of a gun) on people who live in different States than you.


They said the same thing about Plessy.


We'll see, big boy.  We'll see.  I have the Constitution of the United States of America on my side.  What do you have?

You have nothing more than your own delusions of grandeur.

Roe is not going anywhere, and Plessy is easily distinguished.

And Dickerson is strong authority for why that is so. 

Maybe you should go back to law school?

[Hoodat]

You have nothing more than your own delusions of grandeur.

I have Amendment X.  What do you have?

Roe is not going anywhere

See:  Logical fallacies - Begging the question

. . . and Plessy is easily distinguished.

If it is so easily distinguished, then why have you utterly failed at distinguishing it?  (Hint:  It requires the ability to think critically)

And Dickerson is strong authority for why that is so.

Horsesh!t.  Dickerson is about Congress overruling the Supreme Court.  There is no such Congressional action with either Roe or Plessy.  But then you knew that already.

Maybe you should go back to law school?

Maybe you should go back to fifth grade.  Because even a fifth grader can figure this one out.

Plessy v. Furgeson was overturned by the Supreme Court.
Furman v. Georgia was overturned by the Supreme Court.
Durham v. United States was overturned by the Supreme Court.
McConnell v. FEC was overturned by the Supreme Court (post Dickerson).
Aguilar v. Texas was overturned by the Supreme Court.
Olmstead v. United States was overturned by the Supreme Court.

And so on, and so on, and so on.  Like I said, even a fifth grader can figure that out.  But not you.

[Jazzhead]

Because that child is a human being with rights. He or she deserves to be protected just by virtue of being human.

Then pass a constitutional amendment.  Until then, it's a fetus that, until viability, is part of the woman's body and within her sole dominion and control as a matter of law.   

Liberty sometimes means the freedom to make choices that moral zealots like yourself oppose.   If you were a conservative, you'd understand that,  and turn to prevention, support and persuasion rather then enlist the State to deny my daughter's liberty. 

[Hoodat]

Then pass a constitutional amendment.

There already is one.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[Hoodat]

It amuses me to hear folks who usually decry "judicial activism"  insist the Supreme Court deny the legal rights of 150 million American women.

Judicial activists are the ones who ignore the Constitution as they impose their will on the rest of us.  You know the ones, they are the ones who say funny things like "abortion must remain legal" while at the same time completely fail at providing a legal basis for that claim.

What @Bill Cipher is simply saying is that SCOTUS is not the one to put that genie back in the bottle.    If an established right is to be no longer protected by the Constitution,  it must be done by the peoples' elected representatives, by means of a Constitutional amendment.

How was Plessy overturned?  Berger?

[Hoodat]

Your individual right to defend your home and family with a firearm,  without regard to your membership in a citizen militia,  is a court-created right.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[jmyrlefuller]

“Never valid” - more liberal words were ne’er heard on this subject.

Basic coherence is a requirement of any law's enforceability. If the text makes no sense, how can it be taken seriously? The sentence fragment lacks a verb.

[Hoodat]

A pre-viable fetus has, vis a vis its own mother,  no right to life under the U.S. Constitution.

Under the Constitution, the State of Georgia has the right to establish its own abortion laws.

Seems like you are counting on judicial activism to impose your view of morality.   

This coming from the person who says "abortion must remain legal" and demands that morality be imposed on States other than the one where he resides.  Contrast that with those on this side who make zero demands on what the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does.  Judicial activism?  Imposing your morality on others?  That is you all the way.

[thackney]

Then pass a constitutional amendment.  Until then, it's a fetus that, until viability, is part of the woman's body and within her sole dominion and control as a matter of law.

It is an interesting concept that the right to live is a function of technology.  That means ~24 weeks at the present time but used to mean 28 weeks and in the future may be 12 weeks or less.  Artificial wombs have already been developed and used with sheep.  It is only a matter of time until for humans.

Would the same concept apply at the other end of life?  No murder charge for those terminally if sufficiently near death?  A topic for another thread...