burn it all down

[solarbird]

POLITICO - @politico · 5:39 PM · May 2, 2022
The Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade, according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito and obtained by POLITICO.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Alito writes.

Assuming this is accurate, this fuck-the-9th BS will return when they overturn Lawrence v. Texas (2003) to make LGBT people like me illegal again, like we were until then in 13 states.

The @GOP packed the court to get this. PACK IT BACK, @POTUS @SenatorCantwell @PattyMurray

Y'have to understand, they see Roe as the foundation for EVERYTHING that's come after that they hate.

(Well, some go back to Griswald v. Connecticut. They will make a run at contraception, but probably by getting it declared an abortifacient, rather than going at the decision.)

That'll include marriage equality, they're quite open about that. They'll go after that soon enough - it's in the last platform they bothered posting before declaring that Donkeyballs Donald _was_ the platform, just like Hitler declared he _was_ the NSDAP platform.

But the Federalist Society doesn't come _close_ to stopping there, and they've been packed onto the Supreme Court. It's _their_ court now.

And they're _very_ clear that Lawrence v. Texas (2003) is just as wrong as Roe v. Wade.

That states _should_ be able to make us illegal.

And when they do get here - which they will without a court pack - states _will_ do it.

The @GOP of today will make me and mine illegal again in a heartbeat, and have a brofest beer party while they're doing it.

And they WILL NOT stop at the state level. They've SAID so.

They're already working on federalising abortion bans, just like they're already working on federalising voter suppression. They'll do the same with everything else.

They intend to take power, and _never_ give it up.

Everything that relies in any way on Roe, or that _they see_ as relying on Roe, is a direct target.

That includes _everything_ that considers privacy a right. _Everything_.

They've been very explicit about that, historically, amongst themselves. "There is no right to privacy in the Constitution" was once a louder slogan than it is now, but it hasn't gone anywhere.

And if this part of this decision is accurate, and if it publishes like this, this is their statement that the majority not just agrees, but will be moving forward on that basis.

Sure, they make a nod towards "implicit," but I think we all know that their idea of "implicit" will be very, very, very narrow, particularly where women, queers, ethnic minorities and other riff-raff are concerned.

And this isn't me reading their minds or extrapolating wildly.

This is just me remembering what they've already said, over and over and over and over again.

They packed the court to get this.

Pack it back, @POTUS @SenatorCantwell @PattyMurray. Get it _fucking_ done.

(added later)

Page 14, B(1) is all 100% going to be used in overturning Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

Though fair's fair, I've got to page 32 and he's denying that this overturning Roe v. Wade undermines Obergfell or Lawrence v. Texas - and a fleet of other decisions.

But somehow so many of the arguments are the same. So we'll see. But I suspect it's deflection.

P. 62 is going into it again - "Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion."

Yeah, tell that to the 9th Amendment, motherfuckers. (And Bush v. Gore (2000).)

Fuck you and your ass-covering, it will be, and you know it.

Those aren't the only two places, those are just where Alito goes into it particularly strongly.

I don't believe him. Or, I mean, maybe he means it? I doubt it, but maybe he does? But the rest of the Federalist Society goons won't.

Comments

[ckd]

Alito voted to strike down portions of the Voting Rights Act despite the clear words of the Fifteenth Amendment Section 2 ("The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."), during the same term in which he wrote a dissent saying that Congress did have the right to regulate marriage (a word which appears nowhere in the Constitution). "Originalism" my ass. (Same goes for Scalia.)

[gingicat]

Yeah, page 32 gives me a small amount of hope in an otherwise terrifying document.

[solarbird]

Oh absolutely. It's all about finding the justification for what they already want to do.

[solarbird]

Yeah, but it's bullshit, and I think he knows it.

[gwydion]

Republicans are also talking about using this to ban interracial marriage again.

They are nullifying the 9th and the 14th amendments with this. All bets are off.

[solarbird]

Link me that. I need verification.

[gwydion]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/25/opinion/mike-braun-loving-virginia.html

[solarbird]

Thanks.

I do remember this, I even talked about it at the time. But since it predates the (draft) Roe decision, I didn't think of that as being in the context of using the overturning of Roe to advance that particular evil.

I mean, that idea has been floating around since the Roe leak, but ... yeah. But yeah.

Of course, the whole debate is bullshit, they'll federalise every piece of their agenda in a heartbeat and they know it.

[gwydion]

I know I've read other instances, but I don't always remember where I read things. Sorry I'm so scattered lately. I really don't sleep well and won't until after the surgery.

[solarbird]

Not at all, and good luck. Still early June?

[gwydion]

Still early June, unless i get a last minute call. I'm doing semi isolation from the 26th on to prevent last minute infection.