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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
