Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Politico: SCOTUS Striking Down Roe v. Wade According to Leak
Do we trust Politico? Can we trust a leak from the most leak-free branch of the government? Here’s their breaking story:
The Supreme Court has voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by POLITICO.
The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision – Planned Parenthood v. Casey – that largely maintained the right. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito writes.
“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” he writes in the document, labeled as the “Opinion of the Court.” “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
This is all very, very odd. The Supreme Court is famed for not leaking decisions before they are officially announced. In the past, there hasn’t been even a hint of which way a pending case may break. If the leak is accurate, it violates a sacrosanct tradition which will damage the court’s reputation and congenial relations between the justices and their staff.
The 98-page draft allegedly came “from a person familiar with the court’s proceedings in the Mississippi case along with other details supporting the authenticity of the document.”
One Alito quote reads: “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.” The leaker claims Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett agree with Alito.
If the leak is genuine and Roe v. Wade will be overturned, I think this helps the conservative side, at least slightly. It lets some hot air out of the balloon before the official announcement, lessening any possible midterm blowback. Far, far more importantly, it will save babies’ lives.
Published in General
I heard that California was partnering with Disney to create an “Abortionland” theme park. Three days and two nights free with free airfare! As a bonus you can get a visit from a Disney character while you are in the stirrups!!
I actually considered the idea that people might scam this for vacations. I mean, you can’t expect the poor woman to go through this alone. Nope, she needs a support +1. Plus a few days after to recover before traveling home. And you have airfare and accommodations for two for several days in the resort town of your choice.
Scott Weiner is proposing making CA a sanctuary state for transgender “youth” who might be denied “gender affirming treatment” in their home states. IOW, if a state refused to let a minor cut off his healthy c**k, or her developing boobs, CA will accommodate him/her/it.
Same with insisting it’s just “women’s health care.” Right, and lethal injection is just prison health care…
Don’t give them any ideas.
The coat hanger threat was effective. Rather than succumb to it, maybe it is time to coldly respond that anyone who would do that deserves all the medical complications that will ensue, including sepsis and their own death. I have been treated so rudely over the years by these baby killers that I am done with them, we need to streamline adoptions and support pregnant young girls to deter this evil.
Disney and California can go to
They want the right to choose everything except personal responsibility. And we get to pay for their condoms.
This is an order by the only person empowered by the Constitution in the executive.
The President can, under his powers of office, suspend regulations written in his name. Period.
No, not at all.
Yeah, that worked so well for Trump, didn’t it?
KE, other than the tax cuts and Supreme Court nominees, cutting back the regs was one of his best accomplishments. Only a few million to go. Maybe 10 million after Biden.
But what I meant was, when Trump tried to undo Obama’s executive orders, courts said “no.”
Why do they think any woman today would be dumb enough to try a coat hanger, when they can buy abortion pills online or take a cheap Southwest flight to the nearest blue state? Seems like an insult to the intelligence of modern women.
What if they can’t afford even a cheap flight, but they have a coat hanger in the closet? It’s all about “poverty” and stuff, y’know.
If they can’t even afford a cheap flight, how are they going to afford a trip to Planned Parenthood? They turn quite a profit on killing babies.
Then come to California. Gov. French Laundry has enough of our taxes in his bank account to offer the chicks $4K for their experience. Might wind up at the Mark Hopkins. Right by the cable cars.
The Administrative Procedures Act is a law, passed by Congress and signed by the President, that says otherwise. There is a legal process that must be gone through to implement/change/eliminate regulations by Executive Agencies.
Ignore the courts and move on.
What are they going to do, Impeach him? Oh wait…
Seriously, the Problem with the Administrative state is that Congress has given away its power to legislate to the Executive. The Executive can reject it.
It is amazing to me that you so -called conservatives are siding with the progressives on this.
The President can send everyone home. Oh sure, they might still get paid, but no one can force the President to execute administrative law. It cannot be done. The President can suspend all operations he wants. No court order can “turn those machines” back on.
Not siding with anyone on this. That’s just the current state of the law. The APA gives agencies certain rule making and judicial power and once something is put in place there are specific procedures before those rules can be changed or undone.
It does not matter. The President can send all of them home and suspend the regulations. Nothing anyone can do can stop him from doing that. No Court order. Nothing.
I am not quite sure why you think this is not the case. I’d like you to explain to me how the APA can be enforced when the Chief Law Enforcement Officer declares it unconstitutional (which it is) and acts accordingly. The only Check is Impeachment and Removal from office. No party controls, or is likely to control, 2/3 of the Senate, and Impeachment has now turned into a tool of political theater anyway. Every President from now on will be impeached when his party loses the House.
Why would any woman today need an abortion when they can buy birth control pills online or get an implant that’s good for a decade?
I don’t disagree with the more “eugenicy” pro-abortion folks that women who get abortions aren’t capable of being parents. To need an abortion in this day and age without rape being involved, the woman in question has to be an idiot who can’t take basic precautions and/ or tell her lover no. Women who can’t figure out condoms won’t figure out diapers, and women who can’t say no to a lover won’t say no to a toddler, either.
There will be plenty of Democrat politicians ready to fund abortions the same way they fund bail money for burn-loot-murder. Kamala might even help out.
Classic signs of Alzheimers and Dementia. The Democrats (and our government) are being run by Draculas.
Well, it is accurate for many women.
Would seem the arguments the left are making have collateral damage by touting failures of planned parenthood. One argument is abortion is needed they say is because the poor have such bad prenatal health care and so many failed pregnancies.
Well, if you want to make things up, then sure, it’s fine. If you want to include martians and fairy dust, your opinion will work just great. However, the Supreme Court has ruled on the APA many times, often reluctantly, and has agreed that the APA is constitutional. The president can’t do what you say. There are procedures. If the president does what you say he might get away with it, but it would certainly be illegal.
No it would not.
It would be his interpretation of the US Constitution.
No where can anyone point to that document that stops him. It is not fantasy to follow the text. No branch of government has the power to set up an unaccountable Legislature.