Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, February 08, 2019

Although the court by most measures has become more conservative, the justices today granted a request from abortion providers to block a similar Louisiana law from going into effect while the providers appeal a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, in a dispute that some court-watchers regarded as a bellwether for the court's possible direction in future abortion cases.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Can't believe I am saying this. "Thank you Justice Roberts!"

#1 | Posted by danni at 2019-02-08 09:31 AM | Reply

So now the sky isn't falling?

#2 | Posted by Spork at 2019-02-08 09:59 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

sssshhhhh!!

we have to have folks believing abortion rights are in jeopardy...all of the time.

#3 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-08 10:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 8

"we have to have folks believing abortion rights are in jeopardy...all of the time."

That this case made it to the SC sort of proves that they are in jeopardy all the time.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2019-02-08 10:04 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 4

Roberts voted in favor of a similar Texas law in 2016, and with 4 Republican ideologue justices already signaling they will vote in favor of this one, it remains to be seen how Roberts will rule when they hear the full case. This was only a stay application.

#5 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-08 10:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Wouldn't it be nice if "pro-life" meant health care and feeding children?

#6 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-02-08 10:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 8

"So now the sky isn't falling?"

Still too soon to tell:

Thursday night's ruling would not prevent the court from eventually agreeing to take up the case and uphold the law in the future. Supporters of abortion rights fear that the court's conservative majority -- solidified by the addition of Donald Trump's nominees Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh -- will move to chip away at abortion rights if not eventually all but overturn the landmark Supreme Court opinions of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

www.cnn.com

The court's brief order gave no reasons, and its action -- a temporary stay -- did not end the case. The court is likely to hear a challenge to the law on the merits in its next term, which starts in October.

www.nytimes.com

#7 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-02-08 10:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"sssshhhhh!!
we have to have folks believing abortion rights are in jeopardy...all of the time."

Yesterday at the National Prayer Breakfast Trump told the group of Evangelicals gathered there: "I won't let you down." Since the number one reason most of them supported him is because he pledged to appoint judges who will eliminate abortion in this country, it is safe to assume abortion rights are indeed in jeopardy.

#8 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-02-08 10:14 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

-Wouldn't it be nice if "pro-life" meant health care and feeding children?

To some it does.

#9 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-08 10:27 AM | Reply

So now the sky isn't falling?

#2 | POSTED BY SPORK AT 2019-02-08 09:59 AM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 1

sssshhhhh!!
we have to have folks believing abortion rights are in jeopardy...all of the time.

#3 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2019-02-08 10:01 AM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 4

Read "Kav's" dissenting opinion. Only an idiot would pretend cons aren't trying to take away our rights.

#10 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-08 10:29 AM | Reply

Wouldn't it be nice if "pro-life" meant health care and feeding children?

Lets make sure we can get them out of the womb first.

#11 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-08 10:30 AM | Reply

"The court's brief order gave no reasons, and its action -- a temporary stay -- did not end the case. The court is likely to hear a challenge to the law on the merits in its next term, which starts in October."

And who knows what the composition of the court will be then. If Trump gets to appoint another SC justice, then Roberts won't be able to be the swing vote in such cases, assuming that he wanted to, which as Joe points out, isn't a given based on Roberts' past voting record.

#12 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-02-08 10:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

sssshhhhh!!
we have to have folks believing abortion rights are in jeopardy...all of the time.

#3 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2019-02-08 10:01 AM | REPLY |

We have other folks believing that since one attempt to curtail abortion rights failed that the other bazillion attempts in the pipeline pose no threat.

About the equivalent to believing that since one missile was diverted by chaff we can ignore the other 50 inbound missiles

#13 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-02-08 10:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Lets make sure we can get them out of the womb first."

Then we can forget about them.

Anyone who claims to be pro-life but ignores the seperation of children from their parents because these people had the audacity to request asylum is just a hypocrite.
Ongoing crime against humanity and too many just don't care. "Good Germans?"
In the human rights trials at the Hague I expect to hear many of them claiming "we didn't know." Intentional ignorance is not an excuse.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2019-02-08 10:34 AM | Reply

Read "Kav's" dissenting opinion. Only an idiot would pretend cons aren't trying to take away our rights.
#10 |

But didn't Susan Collins assure us that Kav wouldn't do that?

#15 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2019-02-08 10:36 AM | Reply

"we have to have folks believing abortion rights are in jeopardy."

We may have a definitional problem.

Tell us: When this Louisiana law eventually passes, doctors must have admitting privileges within 30 miles. Are women' abortion rights in jeopardy?

#16 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-02-08 10:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Wouldn't it be nice if "pro-life" meant health care and feeding children?
Lets make sure we can get them out of the womb first.

#11 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2019-02-08 10:30 AM | FLAG:

The problem with that is that a great number of the "pro-life" crowd will let the children born suffer with illnesses or hunger or homelessness because its "not their responsibility".

They only care about children until they are born.

Just like they only care about soldiers while they serve.

#17 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-02-08 10:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Wouldn't it be nice if "pro-life" meant health care and feeding children?

#6 | Posted by Nixon at 2019

You spoil children by spending money on food and medicine.

#18 | Posted by Zed at 2019-02-08 10:38 AM | Reply

"Only an idiot would pretend cons aren't trying to take away our rights."

As it was illustrated in this case, Roberts changed his position. I knew he would.

The court will remain 5-4 on this cases....worry about it if you need to.

I could say that only an idiot would worry about this issue....but that's rude.

#19 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-08 10:38 AM | Reply

If the doctors cannot obtain admitting privileges, Kavanaugh stressed, they can return to court. But if they can, and they can continue to perform abortions, he suggested, the law would not impose an undue burden.

IOW, Kavanaugh wants to pretend this is about doctors.

#20 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-02-08 10:38 AM | Reply

But didn't Susan Collins assure us that Kav wouldn't do that?

#15 | POSTED BY SCHIFFERBRAINS AT 2019-02-08 10:36 AM | FLAG:

She must've meant PJ or Boof or Squi.

Does she even have a calendar?

#21 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-02-08 10:39 AM | Reply

"The court will remain 5-4 on this cases"

Why will Roberts change his 2016 vote?

#22 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-02-08 10:39 AM | Reply

-Are women' abortion rights in jeopardy?

not yet.

#23 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-08 10:39 AM | Reply

we have to have folks believing abortion rights are in jeopardy...all of the time.

#3 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Are you really that ignorant??

You are either a fool or a liar.

Abortion rights are threatened nearly everywhere.

Would you like me to google up a list of all the places it is threatened?

Tough.

Do it yourself you lying POS.

#24 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-02-08 10:39 AM | Reply

Lets make sure we can get them out of the womb first.

#11 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2019-02-08 10:30 AM |

Getting them in and out of the womb is the easy part... happens all the time... like millions of times a day every day everywhere all around us.

its what goes on afterwards where the pedal hits the metal... in 15 years there are going to be 9 billion former fetuses gonna need to be fed and clothed etc... and that it the point where the clown brigade and right to lifers start whining about "who we gonna need to kill next".

#25 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-02-08 10:40 AM | Reply

"not yet."

Then that's jeopardy. If they can lose even more access at any moment, that's the effing definition of "in jeopardy".

#26 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-02-08 10:43 AM | Reply

"Once you leave the womb, conservatives don't care about you until you reach military age. Then you're just what they're looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."

George Carlin

#27 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2019-02-08 10:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"As it was illustrated in this case, Roberts changed his position. I knew he would.
The court will remain 5-4 on this cases....worry about it if you need to.
I could say that only an idiot would worry about this issue....but that's rude."

This court as long as Ginsburg and the other left-leaning judges stay in place, but the challenge won't be heard until next year (after October) when no one knows what the court's composition will be. Like I said, if Trump gets another SC appointment, Roberts changing his position to be the swing voter will be meaningless.

#28 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-02-08 10:45 AM | Reply

"-Are women' abortion rights in jeopardy?
not yet."

They are in jeopardy, they just haven't totally elinated them yet but they have severely made it more difficult for women in many states. This is a women's rights issue and that is how it should be viewed. There are powerful forces determined to limit women's rights in this country. Ironic. Ireland finally grants women the right to abortion and the U.S., supposed bastion of freedom, is on the verge of limiting those rights.

#29 | Posted by danni at 2019-02-08 10:45 AM | Reply

I guess you libs were crying wolf too soon.

#30 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-02-08 10:51 AM | Reply

its what goes on afterwards where the pedal hits the metal... in 15 years there are going to be 9 billion former fetuses gonna need to be fed and clothed etc

Yea, it's called a responsible adult to take care of the child so society doesnt have to.

But since liberals want responsibility free sex, they have destroyed the nuclear family and latched on to this no-responsibility living our young adults are mired in. Our kids just dont want to grow up.

#31 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-08 10:54 AM | Reply | Funny: 3

And that needs to be "Responsible ADULTS" as in two parents as the recent study alluded to in another thread.

#32 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-08 10:56 AM | Reply

"But since liberals want responsibility free sex, they have destroyed the nuclear family and latched on to this no-responsibility living our young adults are mired in."

We destroyed the nuclear family and don't take responsibility for the results of sexual behavior?

Trump
Giuliani
Gingrich
the list goes on.
Makes your post just a word salad, meaningless.

#33 | Posted by danni at 2019-02-08 10:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"I guess you libs were crying wolf too soon."

Generally speaking, it is best to cry wolf before the wolf is at your throat. But hey, if you prefer to wait that's fine too.

#34 | Posted by danni at 2019-02-08 10:58 AM | Reply

"I guess you libs were crying wolf too soon."

I guess you can't read:

Roberts voted in favor of a similar Texas law in 2016, and with 4 Republican ideologue justices already signaling they will vote in favor of this one, it remains to be seen how Roberts will rule when they hear the full case. This was only a stay application.
#5 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-08 10:05 AM | Rep

#35 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-02-08 10:59 AM | Reply

"not yet."
Then that's jeopardy. If they can lose even more access at any moment, that's the effing definition of "in jeopardy".
#26 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-02-08 10:43 AM

When our sun begins becoming a red giant and expands to encompass the earth, people may be unable to obtain abortions OR firearms. Therefore both are constantly in jeopardy.

#36 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-02-08 11:05 AM | Reply

"We have other folks believing that since one attempt to curtail abortion rights failed that the other bazillion attempts in the pipeline pose no threat.
About the equivalent to believing that since one missile was diverted by chaff we can ignore the other 50 inbound missiles"

The case(s) that could determine the next SCOTUS abortion ruling

The Supreme Court convened last week at the same time as the March for Life and ERLC's Evangelicals for Life 2019. There continued to be significant buzz about whether Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey could be overturned in the near future by the next abortion-related case to reach the Supreme Court. If Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, then it would be up to state governments to determine the legality and regulations on abortion throughout our country.

This context is important because it is state-level legislation on common-sense abortion regulations that make up the dozens of cases winding their way through our federal and state courts. One of these cases (or a collection of these cases) could determine the next Supreme Court case on abortion.

Mary E. Harned, J.D., at the Charlotte Lozier Institute put together an excellent legal analysis of all of these cases last fall, their current status, and what comes next. Here's what you need to know about these state laws and these cases:

erlc.com

#37 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-02-08 11:07 AM | Reply

When our sun begins becoming a red giant and expands to encompass the earth, people may be unable to obtain abortions OR firearms. Therefore both are constantly in jeopardy.

#36 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019

Cosmically stupid.

Do you, personally, want abortion rights to exist at all?

#38 | Posted by Zed at 2019-02-08 11:08 AM | Reply

liberals want responsibility free sex, they have destroyed the nuclear family

Says the ------- idiot who elected president a twice-divorced serial pilanderer who sexually assaults women and cheats on his pregnant wife with pornstars. You are beyond belief.

#39 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-08 11:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

#37 This article is from The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention, so these are the cases Evangelicals are hoping lay the groundwork for eliminating abortion.

#40 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-02-08 11:10 AM | Reply

"We have other folks believing that since one attempt to curtail abortion rights failed that the other bazillion attempts in the pipeline pose no threat.

Same way with the 2nd Amendment. You think if you liberals had the court you wouldnt "change" it or overturn it? I say we need to leave these two hot button issues alone for the sanity of our nation.

We agree not to overturn Roe and you leave the 2nd alone.

#41 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-08 11:16 AM | Reply

of course kavanaugh dissented.

what a shock.

#42 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-02-08 11:20 AM | Reply

"We agree not to overturn Roe and you leave the 2nd alone."

It isn't a transaction. We are talking about making laws. We don't make deals.

#43 | Posted by danni at 2019-02-08 11:23 AM | Reply

We don't make deals.

Then YOU are the problem. You touch the 2nd Amendment and in any way limit rights, I would go full hardy for banning abortions in all cases.

#44 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-08 11:29 AM | Reply

Yea, it's called a responsible adult to take care of the child so society doesnt have to.

#31 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2019-02-08 10:54 AM | FLAG:WELLLLLLLLLL

There you go attacking the former fetuses... just as I knew you would.

Boazo you are so predictable...

#45 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-02-08 11:36 AM | Reply

In case nobody noted it, Kavanaugh's opinion indicated a new tactic at allowing these types of laws.

The law required admitting privileges at a hospital - which is stupid to begin with but a GOP tactic - and there are ONLY 4 doctors in the entire state of Louisiana that perform abortions to begin with. 1 has admitting privileges and 3 do not. He argues that the 3 could have sought those privileges during the 45 day period before enforcement was to begin. If the received them - there would have been no undue burden. Which is BS because it is a burden on any future doctor wishing to practice and if nobody were to give said privileges in an area the burden remains.

#46 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-02-08 11:38 AM | Reply

I guess you libs were crying wolf too soon.

#30 | Posted by Sniper

My guess is you are either a Fool or a Liar, too.

#47 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-02-08 11:44 AM | Reply

This is the sign of the court actually working and should be applauded. When you know exactly how each justice will vote (like we do on the Dem side) before even knowing the specifics of the case, the court has become politicized to the point it should be disbanded.

#48 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-02-08 11:50 AM | Reply

we have to have folks believing abortion rights are in jeopardy...all of the time.

#3 | POSTED BY EBERLY

we even have folks believing civil rights are in jeopardy... all the time.

we even have folks believing privacy rights are in jeopardy... all the time.

we even have folks believing voting rights are in jeopardy... all the time.

we even have folks believing Human rights are in jeopardy... all the time.

we even have folks believing gun rights are in jeopardy... all the time.

we even have folks believing Health Care rights are in jeopardy... all the time.

we even have folks believing animals rights are in jeopardy... all the time.

we even have folks believing environmental rights are in jeopardy... all the time.

we even have folks believing Religious rights are in jeopardy... all the time.

we even have folks believing genetic rights are in jeopardy... all the time.

we even have folks believing copy rights are in jeopardy... all the time.

we even have folks believing educational rights are in jeopardy... all the time.

We even have people believing that all these problems (and more) are just illusions.

#49 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-02-08 11:51 AM | Reply

"You touch the 2nd Amendment and in any way limit rights, I would go full hardy for banning abortions in all cases. "

Because, at heart, you are a petulant child who wants to punish ohers for disagreeing with them. You would punish some poor woman somewhere because Congress decided to make sure there were background checks before you can buy a gun. The two things are totally unrelated but that doesn't stop Boaz. Childish.

#50 | Posted by danni at 2019-02-08 11:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

As Et Al and I have said repeatedly, Chief Justice Roberts does not want his legacy to be the CJ of the Court that struck down Roe v. Wade, and this is more proof of that assertion.

You may now resume your incessant circle flapping over what may happen in the future...

#51 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-08 12:01 PM | Reply

You would punish some poor woman somewhere because Congress decided to make sure there were background checks before you can buy a gun.
#50 | POSTED BY DANNI

Punish her by inconveniencing her for 9 months as opposed to killing of a baby - and that is exactly what Government Coonman was saying. Viable babies that the mother would basically be allowed to smother after giving birth. You kooks have jumped the shark.

#52 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-02-08 12:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Punish her by inconveniencing her for 9 months as opposed to killing of a baby - and that is exactly what Government Coonman was saying."

Yeah, you should be in charge of her for those 9 months and then abandon her after the baby comes. Hey, what about those kids in cages seperated from their parents? Why don't you cafe about them?

#53 | Posted by danni at 2019-02-08 12:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There's an easy way to tell if abortion rights are still in jeopardy: Are the Christian right flipping out over this ruling? The anti-abortion folks on here don't seem too concerned. Tthey are more interested in mocking the left's concerns than they are outraged at Roberts for being a turncoat. That tells me they believe the outcome will be different when the case is revisited.

#54 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-02-08 12:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"You may now resume your incessant circle flapping over what may happen in the future..."

Has Ginsburg even been able to go to the SC yet? Incessant flapping? Hardly, real concerns that real adults have.

#55 | Posted by danni at 2019-02-08 12:14 PM | Reply

Hey, what about those kids in cages seperated from their parents? Why don't you cafe about them?
#53 | POSTED BY DANNI

The ones Obama put in cages? Why didn't you care until Trump did it? Also, do you think those kids would prefer to be put in cages or killed? Because you are on the side of just killing them.

#56 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-02-08 12:15 PM | Reply

If Roe v Wade is overturned women with money won't have to worry. They will fly to wherever they need to to get the services they want or need. It is the poor who won't be able to get those services and will sometimes access back alley abortions just like they did before Roe v Wade. There is a good reason that one of the most powerful symbols of the pro-choice movement is the coathanger. But hey, who cares, they're just poor people who don't matter anyway just like their kids will be five minutes after they are born.

#57 | Posted by danni at 2019-02-08 12:17 PM | Reply

"The ones Obama put in cages? Why didn't you care until Trump did it?"

That's just a lie, debunked over and over. Obama didn't seperate kids from their parents but he did hold unescorted minors until proper relatives or other caregivers could be found. IT was not punitive unlike the intent under Trump where it is entirely punitive and was spoken about in those exact terms by members of the administration.
But hey, I don't expect you to know or understand any of that.
Continue repeating talking points.

#58 | Posted by danni at 2019-02-08 12:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

#56 | POSTED BY BIASPOSTER101

Nicer cages and he did it to help the children, not so stephen miller could get an --------.

#59 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-08 12:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Also, do you think those kids would prefer to be put in cages or killed? Because you are on the side of just killing them.

#56 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-02-08 12:15 PM | Reply

When did the Right start seeing these as the only two options?

#60 | Posted by Zed at 2019-02-08 12:22 PM | Reply

"So now the sky isn't falling?"
"we have to have folks believing abortion rights are in jeopardy...all of the time."

It's best not to make this out to be more than it is. This was a procedural ruling that has no bearing on how Roberts or anyone else will rule when they hear arguments about the actual law.

#61 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-02-08 12:24 PM | Reply

No surprise the two russian appointees voted against the wishes of We the People.

#62 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-08 12:25 PM | Reply

56 | Posted by nobiasposter101

Your ideas are a stew. It's rhetorical to ask you where you get them because the precise edition of Hannity can be identified.

Little of what you and yours say is conservative or even Right-wing. Far Right-wing covers it, three steps over the line into authoritarianism. More when you think you can get away with it, which is a bit less since the House isn't controlled by the Russian Mob any longer.

#63 | Posted by Zed at 2019-02-08 12:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This from the Catholic World Report:

With the injunction, the Supreme Court will likely be forced to consider the law in an upcoming session.

In a statement, Louisiana's Attorney General Jeff Landry vowed to continue the legal fight, and pointed out that the law was passed nearly unanimously.

"Unfortunately, the supreme court today put enforcement of this pro-woman law on hold for the time being," said Landry.

"We remain hopeful that if the Supreme Court grants certiorari in this case, it will to be to re-affirm that courts rule in fact-specific cases; because the facts in our case show (the bill) is constitutional and consistent with our overall regulatory scheme for surgical procedures."

Landry said that his office "will not waver" in defense of the law, and will "continue to do all that we legally can to protect Louisiana women and the unborn."

www.catholicworldreport.com

#64 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-02-08 12:32 PM | Reply

This is what political debate is these days, a contest between American identity and hostile Russian assets.

#65 | Posted by Zed at 2019-02-08 12:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

we have to have folks believing abortion rights are in jeopardy...all of the time.

#3 | Posted by eberly

The recently added judges voted exactly as you'd expect.

Roberts seems to have become the wild card.

But don't act as if this 5-4 decision wasn't possible to go the other way.

#66 | Posted by jpw at 2019-02-08 12:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Lets make sure we can get them out of the womb first.

#11 | Posted by boaz

Then you can just forget about them, right?

#67 | Posted by jpw at 2019-02-08 12:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

""Unfortunately, the supreme court today put enforcement of this pro-woman law on hold for the time being," lied Landry."

FTFY

#68 | Posted by danni at 2019-02-08 12:38 PM | Reply

That's just a lie, debunked over and over.
#58 | POSTED BY DANNI

Debunked by who? Not the AP apparently.

www.apnews.com

#69 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-02-08 12:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

it's called a responsible adult to take care of the child so society doesnt have to.

That's what abortion is. A responsible adult taking care of a future child they can't, don't want to, or won't take care of.

#70 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-02-08 12:42 PM | Reply

It's my humble opinion that Donald Trump's attempt to steer the Court in a hard Right direction has lead Chief Justice Roberts to move toward the middle, if for no other reason then to protect the historical reputation of the "Roberts Court".

OCU

#71 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-02-08 12:45 PM | Reply

Lets make sure we can get them out of the womb first.

#11 | Posted by boaz

Then you can just forget about them, right?

#67 | Posted by jpw

Who is you? The parent?

#72 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-08 12:49 PM | Reply

That's what abortion is. A responsible adult taking care of a future child they can't, don't want to, or won't take care of.

#70 | Posted by ClownShack

Clownshack, I actually agree with you and this statement.

Up to and until 20 weeks.

#73 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-08 12:50 PM | Reply

#71

That is exactly correct, Roberts is now forced to step into Justice Kennedy's shoes as the swing vote.

The time to freak out is if RBG is no longer able to be on the bench and Trump appoints a pale and male anti-abortion justice, because at that point a swing vote will not matter.

#74 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-08 12:51 PM | Reply

"we have to have folks believing abortion rights are in jeopardy...all of the time.
#3 | POSTED BY EBERLY"

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

I'm not sure why you'd think to argue otherwise.

I guess you're too cool for vigilance school.

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-08 01:01 PM | Reply

Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck (Professor @UTexasLaw.)

The split between the 5-4 #SCOTUS vote in favor of a stay in the LA abortion case and the 5-4 vote to lift a stay in the AL death penalty case is a fascinating inflection point for the new Roberts Court -- a battle between the majority's conservatism & the Chief's institutionalism.

#76 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-02-08 01:06 PM | Reply

Who is you? The parent?

#72 | POSTED BY BOAZ

You is YOU and the other sanctimonious pro lifers who want to ban abortion but act like kids on WIC are crap to be kicked off your boot.

#77 | Posted by jpw at 2019-02-08 01:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Yea, it's called a responsible adult to take care of the child so society doesnt have to.

That's the attitude of conconconservatives whereby once they are in the world, ---- em they are on their own.

#78 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-02-08 01:25 PM | Reply

Wow, the drama ensues.......

I live in tornado alley. Is my house "in jeopardy"?

It's a matter of degrees.

I'm confident the SCOTUS will never criminalize abortion. That it will never reverse roe v wade.

I'm also confident legislators in states like Texas and Louisiana will chip away at it but the buck stops in the manner just like this did.

Now, get back under your beds and keep being afraid.

#79 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-08 01:27 PM | Reply

"But don't act as if this 5-4 decision wasn't possible to go the other way."

I'm not worried.

#80 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-08 01:28 PM | Reply

Donald Trump's attempt to steer the Court in a hard Right direction has lead Chief Justice Roberts to move toward the middle,

It is sure looking like that. Both here and with ACA. Though this is not a settled case just yet, just a stay.

Dotard knows his 1% buddies will still be able to get an abortion for their mistresses just like before Roe. The evangelicals are too stupid to see what this will really do to women and they don't care. By pushing ultra right wing judges onto the court Trump is betting that the "christians" will overlook his philandering, lying, treason and stealing. So far he is right.

#81 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-02-08 01:29 PM | Reply

"I'm confident the SCOTUS will never criminalize abortion. That it will never reverse roe v wade."

Even ROC admits all bets are off if Ginsburg leaves the court and Trump replaces her with one of his appointments:

#71
That is exactly correct, Roberts is now forced to step into Justice Kennedy's shoes as the swing vote.
The time to freak out is if RBG is no longer able to be on the bench and Trump appoints a pale and male anti-abortion justice, because at that point a swing vote will not matter.
#74 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-08 12:51 PM

#82 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-02-08 01:33 PM | Reply

Also keep in mind that as long as 'Roe v. Wade' remains the law of the land, the Republican party continues to have an issue upon which they can raise millions in donations, ostensibly to defeat it. However, once it is overturned, they will have effectively killed the Golden Goose.

OCU

#83 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-02-08 01:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If Boaz was raised by a "nuclear family," it's evidence that perhaps we should explore other ways to raise competent, emotionally stable human beings.

#84 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-08 01:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm confident the SCOTUS will never criminalize abortion. That it will never reverse roe v wade.

The problem is the lack of imagination such that people only envision a full frontal assault on Roe.

That hasn't been the trend and it won't be the tactic taken. They will ban it via backdoor mechanism that doesn't require violating established case law.

#85 | Posted by jpw at 2019-02-08 01:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Wouldn't it be nice if "pro-life" meant health care and feeding children?

To some it does.

#9 | POSTED BY comrade EBERLY

Not to your kind.

#86 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-02-08 01:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You is YOU and the other sanctimonious pro lifers who want to ban abortion but act like kids on WIC are crap to be kicked off your boot.

What? I didnt have those kids.. They arent MY responsibility. They are also not societies problem either. They are the problem of the people who had them. And if there is no one, then the state can step in make them a ward. Or family members can help.

But they are certainly not the governments problem.

And who is talking about getting rid of WIC?

I'm talking about men and women taking responsibility for the kids they make and making adult decisions to them. Why are you attacking me? You need to be attacking the irresponsible people having kids that cant take care of them.

But that's too hard, isnt it? You would be attacking half your voter base.

#87 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-08 01:54 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

What we do know is that the GOP political party are not afraid of alienating women... or minorities; they've proven that, and it's easy to see in who are their voters and representatives.

To them, what the SC does is seen more as whether they can keep the culture war divisive issue of abortion in play to keep current voters, rather than what they might gain in new voters by following legal precedent.

#88 | Posted by Corky at 2019-02-08 01:59 PM | Reply

Even ROC admits all bets are off if Ginsburg leaves the court and Trump replaces her with one of his appointments:

It depends on the appointment, obviously, hence the "male and pale" reference. He may surprise and appoint a moderate, but the pressure will be huge to appoint a female justice, which then brings a whole different calculus.

#89 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-08 02:00 PM | Reply

86

you poor thing. "my kind"? LOL

#90 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-08 02:02 PM | Reply

#85

Agreed, but even a "nibbled to death by squirrels" approach will be heavily scrutinized. I think that extremely late term abortions will be where the Court clamps down, but how far they go will obviously depend on who the next appointment is.

#91 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-08 02:03 PM | Reply

What? I didnt have those kids.. They arent MY responsibility. They are also not societies problem either. They are the problem of the people who had them. And if there is no one, then the state can step in make them a ward. Or family members can help.

But they are certainly not the governments problem.

And who is talking about getting rid of WIC?

LOL did you intentionally post to prove my assertion correct?

Because you did so wonderfully.

#92 | Posted by jpw at 2019-02-08 02:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

83

exactly. The GOP can't kill the goose. At least not at the Federal level.

#93 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-08 02:04 PM | Reply

"He may surprise and appoint a moderate, but the pressure will be huge to appoint a female justice, which then brings a whole different calculus."

I think it likely he would appoint a conservative woman, who has a record of opposing abortion rights. Why wouldn't he? He has control of the Senate and a history of playing to his base with judicial appointments.

#94 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-02-08 02:06 PM | Reply

He may surprise and appoint a moderate, but the pressure will be huge to appoint a female justice, which then brings a whole different calculus.

#89 | Posted by Rightocenter

LOL what evidence do you have that moderation is ever an option with the current GOP?

They've made it quite clear their current strategy is rule via the judiciary.

#95 | Posted by jpw at 2019-02-08 02:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- I didnt have those kids.. They arent MY responsibility

Romans 15:1-2 Paul

We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up.

Philippians 2:4 Paul

Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.

Mark 12:31 Jesus

The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

Hebrews 13:2

Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

Matthew 25:40

And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'

www.openbible.info

#96 | Posted by Corky at 2019-02-08 02:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Why wouldn't he? He has control of the Senate and a history of playing to his base with judicial appointments.

#94 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

And I'm sure it wouldn't be very hard to find a woman nominee who's just as anti-abortion as the old white guys they usually nominate.

#97 | Posted by jpw at 2019-02-08 02:08 PM | Reply

They arent MY responsibility. To the extent that they are not yours, this is correct.

They are also not societies problem either. The majority of Society disagrees with you. Your horrendous grammar aside (It's "Society's" as it is possessive of a proper noun as used in this case), the majority of Society has deemed through the laws passed by its elected officials that it is the duty of Society to ensure the welfare of children. This should strike a chord with you, as the majority of Society has ALSO deemed it is the duty of Society to ensure the welfare of its military (giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are being honest regarding your status, though some of us have doubts.)

#98 | Posted by RevDarko at 2019-02-08 02:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

"I live in tornado alley. Is my house "in jeopardy"?

Is your house insured?

Maybe you should start selling Accidental Baby Insurance for those worried they won't be able to get a wanted abortion, to pay the costs of raising the child.

I mean, since you're so sure abortion will always be available and affordable.

Of course, you never said you're sure abortion will always be available and affordable, which is really the issue here, not Roe v. Wade.

#99 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-08 02:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"I think that extremely late term abortions will be where the Court clamps down"

Let's unpack that.

Roe already gives States the right to criminalize late abortions, and most states already do.

So any cases that deal with late term abortions are the anti-abortionists trying to get the camel's nose under the Roe tent, to make it possible to criminalize abortion further.

See how that works?

#100 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-08 02:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Of course, a lot of people throw around language like "late term abortion" without knowing what it means. Here's a chance to find out...

www.drudge.com

#101 | Posted by Corky at 2019-02-08 02:15 PM | Reply

We have other folks believing that since one attempt to curtail abortion rights failed that the other bazillion attempts in the pipeline pose no threat.
About the equivalent to believing that since one missile was diverted by chaff we can ignore the other 50 inbound missiles

#13 | POSTED BY HATTER5183 AT 2019-02-08 10:34 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Absolutely spot on. POTUS just made anti abortion rhetoric part of the state of the union address!

It's a major issue for the cons

#102 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-08 02:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Bears repeating:

"Of course, you never said you're sure abortion will always be available and affordable, which is really the issue here, not Roe v. Wade."

#103 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-02-08 02:21 PM | Reply

#100

I don't disagree, thanks for restating my point.

#104 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-08 02:33 PM | Reply

You're welcome.
Has Eberly gone radio silent again?
We were just starting to get into it...

#105 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-08 02:36 PM | Reply

You would be attacking half your voter base.
#87 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Poor decisions in not using protection during sex is a bipartisan issue, you despicable hack. The difference being liberals making those poor decisions are not shunned into the darkness and allowed to choose what they want to do with their own bodies.

You say it's not your responsibility to take care of children that are not yours while simultaneously touting your responsibility to ensure people are held accountable for their poor decisions. BOAZ, always the policeman and never the saint. It would behoove you to study the bible just a tid-bit harder, Christian.

#106 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-02-08 02:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You say it's not your responsibility to take care of children that are not yours"

Yet he also supports putting them in cages, to protect them from being trafficked by their own asylum seeking parents

Boaz's entire political gestalt is an ostentatious display of right-wing situational moral relativism.

Same for all the Trumpers, actually.
Never Trumpers aren't looking much different.

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-08 02:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"We have other folks believing that since one attempt to curtail abortion rights failed that the other bazillion attempts in the pipeline pose no threat."

I'm sure have been more than one attempt to curtail abortion rights. It's dishonest to suggest this is the one attempt that failed, temporarily.

If I'm wrong and there is major "jeopardy" to abortion rights.....then so what?

I'm not attacking anybody for their beliefs. I see what a few states are doing to nibble around the edges of Roe v Wade....but I have faith in our govt and ultimately, abortion rights will remain in tact.

#108 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-08 03:13 PM | Reply

I believe people have to be allowed to make their own choices in life.

Stop worrying what people you don't know are doing.

If someone you love is going to do something, have a conversation with them. Try to persuade them to see your point of view.

But as Boaz says. You can't make laws in California for North Carolina. Just like we shouldn't be making laws on someone else's life when we haven't a clue why they're doing it.

#109 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-02-08 03:49 PM | Reply

"abortion rights will remain in tact"

Still dancing around I see.

What good is an abortion right if there's no abortion provider in your region?

#110 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-08 03:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's dishonest to suggest this is the one attempt that failed, temporarily.

But. That's exactly what happened.

Every time the anti choice lobby loses. They double their efforts for the next time.

Just because it was upheld this time, doesn't mean anti choice advocates have given up trying to control other people's choices.

#111 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-02-08 03:53 PM | Reply

I have faith

That's probably gas building up.

#112 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-02-08 03:53 PM | Reply

"If I'm wrong and there is major "jeopardy" to abortion rights.....then so what?"

Then America gets browner.

#113 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-08 09:13 PM | Reply

Susan Hennessey @Susan_Hennessey (Lawfare Executive Editor)

Susan Hennessey Retweeted Mike Sacks
For those celebrating the Roberts abortion ruling tonight, @MikeSacksEsq has some (likely right) rain for the parade.

Mike Sacks @MikeSacksEsq

This allows Roberts to shift the blame to the abortion providers for "letting" the law go into effect, while obtaining the same end-result as a merits ruling that would green-light other states to enact similar laws

twitter.com

#114 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-02-09 11:08 AM | Reply

"That's probably gas building up."

Well, maybe.....but I have faith in little except this issue.

#115 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-09 11:40 AM | Reply

The GOP would be screwed huge if roe v wade were reversed or if it's effectiveness was significantly harmed.

Millions and millions of single issue voters who've won.

No.......not gonna happen. There is no way the GOP would assault its single largest wedge issue. They need it way too bad.

#116 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-09 11:45 AM | Reply

So all the DemoKKKrat fear mongering was a lie.

#117 | Posted by sawdust at 2019-02-09 12:07 PM | Reply

Now, get back under your beds and keep being afraid.

#79 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Not gonna happen. In fact, just the opposite.

Did you see the all the "women in white" in the People's House?

Yeah. They have had enough of Republican BS.

Maybe it's you who should get under the "bed".

And hide and watch for the Times they are a Changing.

Lead, Follow or get the Hell out of the way (get back under your rocks).

#118 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-02-09 12:10 PM | Reply

-Maybe it's you who should get under the "bed".

Why? What do you think I'm afraid of?

It's obvious you're in fear of where we're headed. Just admit it.

#119 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-09 12:14 PM | Reply

So all the DemoKKKrat fear mongering was a lie.

#117 | POSTED BY SAWDUST AT 2019-02-09 12:07 PM | REPLY

except it wasn't. gorsuch and kavanaugh voted exactly as predicted.

and the "back door" approach to circumventing roe will continue. abortion is technically legal for unavailable for most, so it may as well be illegal.

#120 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-02-09 12:16 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort