Holy Courtroom! Sonja Sotomayor just brought up a chilling observation!

[Baitball Blogger]

The lawyer, Scott Stewart, argued a point about what is or isn't in the Constitution and Sotomayor pointed out that there was nothing in the Constitution that gave the Supreme Court the final word on determining the legal issues for this country.

Holy Moley! Is she giving us a hint, that the judgment of a politicized conservative court, doesn't have to be the last word?

Scott Stewart settled on history and tradition. Two issues that Conservatives do not have a strong foundation to work with, because they have been so wrong so many times, based on history. And since the nineties, they have been kicking our traditions in the nuts in order to get their way.

[Claustrum]

1. To me, that sounds like Sonja knows the Supreme Court will end up overturning Roe.

She knows how the other will vote already.

[Baitball Blogger]

4. I think you're right.

She is preparing us. She's saying, respect stare decisis, or the entire power of the Supreme Court is in question.

[msfiddlestix]

42. This 10,000 %

[ramapo]

44. Of course they are

It has been a 40-year effort by Republicans. Maybe the majority of Americans favor Roe but they do not vote like it.

I can’t tell you how many times over past decades that I’ve questioned women who were going to vote for a Republican because of the fact they want to take away abortion rights. The answer was always, “They would never do that”.

And here we are. Freedom in this country is not a birth right. It all depends on which state you live in.

[jaxexpat]

52. "Freedom in this country is not a birth right." Interesting. The terrorists were wrong?

You mean they spent all that hate for us on something we don't even have? Poor deluded terrorists.

Really a stupid, stupid state of affairs. And now one of "our" USSC justices is caught reading the writing plainly written on the wall, in front of everybody. The writing that says this country exists only if we share a common tricameral illusion. The illusion that our nationality is justified by a bunch of archaic words and trite phrases we call "the constitution". Folks, it gets dark real fast when they shut the "age of enlightenment" off.

[Sanity Claws]

2. It's true

Marbury v. Madison set the precedent but what would happen if the Executive or Legislative said that the Supreme Court is not the final word.
There is only one instance in which the Executive acted in defiance of the Supreme Court and nothing happened to him.

[Ocelot II]

3. She's right. The court gave itself that power in Marbury v. Madison.

[sl8]

5. Well, Marbury is the obvious rebuttal to the lawyer's point.

I'm not sure I'd read too much into J Sotomayor pointing it out.

[Baitball Blogger]

7. I think he was suggesting that a point that supports Roe v. Wade

is NOT in the Constitution. And Sotomayor pointed out that there were a lot of things that were NOT in the Constitution, like the power of the Supreme Court.

[sl8]

11. Yes, exactly.

And Marbury v Madison is the most obvious counterpoint.

I wouldn't read more than that into her comment.

[Historic NY]

35. Including a Senate Majority or Minority leader

and the filibuster that awards the minority with 60 votes. Founders never envision that either. When is a majority vote, not a majority vote when it happens in the US Senate

[BComplex]

37. Or when it involves the electoral college.

We've had too many republican presidents that weren't a majority of the popular vote.

[Irish_Dem]

6. So what is the final word on legal issues? The voters?

[Baitball Blogger]

8. It boggles the mind, doesn't it?

Especially since the Republicans are upturning the table with gerrymandering and Jim Crow style laws in order to win elections without one vote being cast.

[Irish_Dem]

9. Yep. Our democracy is slipping away.

[albacore]

10. Repubs do NOT want a vote of the people on this one. A very clear majority want abortion legal. nt

[Irish_Dem]

12. We are heading for minority rule. "We the people" is a fading concept.

[thesquanderer]

31. At the outset, "We the people" meant "We, the white, male land-owners"

and that's what the "originalists" are aiming for.

[Irish_Dem]

33. Yep, going back to the 1700's. All progress being wiped out.

[evolves]

39. "Heading for???"

We are unfortunately THERE.

[Irish_Dem]

40. Yep. You are right.

[Cosmocat]

55. right

We are in a death spiral ...

[rainin]

29. What the people want doesn't matter much if republicans get to overturn elections. n/t

[Irish_Dem]

45. The GOP doesn't care what the people want on any issue.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

13. Not always

See the Marshall-Newman Amendment.

2006 Virginia Question 1

2006 Virginia Question 1, the Marshall-Newman Amendment (also referred to as the Virginia Marriage Amendment) is an amendment to the Constitution of Virginia that defines marriage as solely between one man and one woman and bans recognition of any legal status "approximat[ing] the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage". The amendment was ratified by 57% of the voters on November 7, 2006.[2] It became part of the state Constitution as Section 15-A of Article 1. In 2014, the amendment was ruled unconstitutional in Bostic v. Schaefer.

{snip}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Virginia#cite_ref-33

{snip}

On November 7, 2006, Virginia voters ratified an amendment, previously approved by the General Assembly, prohibiting same-sex marriage, to be added to the Bill of Rights. This amendment also prohibits the recognition of any "union, partnership, or other legal status" between unmarried people that intends to approximate marriage or which confers the "rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage." The Virginia Attorney General issued an opinion stating that the amendment does not change the legal status of documents such as contracts, wills, or Advanced Medical Directives between unmarried people. The amendment was declared to be in violation the United States Constitution by a U.S. District Court Judge on February 13, 2014.[33] (In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that the failure to provide for same-sex marriage by any U.S. state had the effect of violating the rights of homosexuals to equal protection of law required under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.)

{snip}

[Irish_Dem]

14. Right, so we are back to the idea the Supreme Court is the final word.

[gab13by13]

15. Can a Supreme Court decision be appealed to Joe Manchin?

[Irish_Dem]

16. Yes it makes sense to let the ruler of the universe have the final word.

[Baitball Blogger]

23. LOL!

Yes, damn it. He has the spirit stick!

[MarcA]

34. The Chief Executive can enforce a SCOTUS decision as they see fit. n/t

[mahatmakanejeeves]

18. Speaking of voters:

David Weigel Retweeted

Arguments begin and Mississippi SG Scott Stewart goes straight at the SCOTUS abortion precedents: "Roe and Casey have failed." He says abortion law should be left to voters and not established as a right by the courts.

"This court should overrule Roe and Casey," he says.

Link to tweet

[Irish_Dem]

20. The GOP rigs the votes, so I guess the GOP has the final say in all matters.

[Volaris]

25. Dear god...

Now that someone was crazy enough to say it out loud in court, that's a terrifying sentence.

I feel like if that actually happens though, the gop is gonna be in for a whole new kind of electoral hurt...it will trigger the largest turnout in about a hundred years, and then their rigged maps wont be worth a damn.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

32. Scott Stewart, the lawyer representing Mississippi, was at the center of a 2017 abortion controversy

Scott Stewart, the lawyer representing Mississippi, was at the center of a 2017 abortion controversy.

Dec. 1, 2021, 8:45 a.m. ET 3 hours ago
3 hours ago
By Giulia Heyward

When a pregnant, undocumented 17-year-old staying in a federal refugee shelter in Texas sought an abortion in 2017, it was the job of Scott Stewart, then a Department of Justice lawyer, to help defend the ultimatum issued by the Trump administration: go through with the pregnancy — or leave the country.

The girl had obtained a court order allowing her to have the procedure, but the government was preventing her from leaving the shelter for the appointment. That decision, Mr. Stewart argued, did not create an undue burden on the minor. “She can get relief with voluntary departure,” he argued.

A federal judge, declaring herself “astounded” by the argument, disagreed and ordered the government to allow the minor to go through with the abortion.

Mr. Stewart now finds himself once again at the center of a high-profile abortion case, one that may lead to one of the most consequential rulings on reproductive rights in decades.

{snip}

Mr. Stewart graduated from Princeton University and studied law at Stanford. He clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court and Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He served in the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel and worked in private practice as a litigator. As deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Division of the Justice Department, he presented more than 40 oral arguments in the federal courts of appeals.

Giulia Heyward is a 2021-2022 reporting fellow for the National desk. @giuliaheyward

[ShazzieB]

49. OMG, I remember that case.

I did not, however, remember the name of the lawyer who argued against the girl being allowed to leave the shelter to have the procedure. Thanks for jogging all our memories.

[KPN]

36. Definitely the voters. But only if there is a secure and fair election process. Otherwise it is

those who are in and wield power. Which is why this administration needs to be more active on voter suppression and a Supreme Court that was formed by changing -- more like rigging -- traditional norms. We shouldn't even have at least two of the sitting members on the SCOTUS currently. If we don't deal with those things now while we have some power, I'm pretty sure we can count on the GQP to cement themselves in place.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

17. The Cons love "tradition" because it protects White Male privilege. . . . nt

[LizBeth]

22. I disagree. Kinda like they are the fiscal responsible or Christian, or pro life....

They are until they are not. Over the last two decades, especially the last five years, they have trampled all over traditional and procedure, and rules.... Because those did not work for their ass and they were allowed.

They get the credit for traditional, but are as piss poor with that as $, lives, caring, military, police. They fail them on and yet get credit.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

28. I don't see the Cons working to reduce White Male privilege or raise other other people. . . . nt

[LizBeth]

30. Nor do I. You said they like traditional and I disagree. They will use it for white and male and

privilege whenever they can, but if it does not serve them, they dump it. It means no more to them than anything else tied into integrity.

[Baitball Blogger]

24. That is an interesting statement.

Whatever traditions support their white male privilege, they support. It is, afterall, a patriarch system. This challenge against Roe v. Wade would be a huge success for them, if they win. It will mean that women will have to forgo education in order to raise babies that they are not financially able to support. So many will be forced into marriages that lack love. Marriage will be a financial decision. Which is what Patriarchs love to have, because they will always have the say, wherever they are the money-makers.

Aside from that, they have been steadily toppling any democratic American tradition that gets in the way of their dominance.
So, yes, they love traditions, but they have also been destroying American traditions.

It's a conundrum.

[slightlv]

41. I see so many knock-ons happening if Roe is invalidated.

We truly will be 3rd class citizens. We women are the canaries in the coal mines. They saw the "lasting" support for the "Me Too" movement. They saw what Trump could get away with and still have so much support. They saw what others could get away with in court and walk out all but Scott-free. Our rights, one by one, will be stripped from us. The right to hold credit in our own name is a late-comer, only available since the 1970's; it'll be stripped. The right to own property in our own name; again, a late comer. Kiss it goodbye. So many inroads we made since the 1970's and 1980's. All we marched and fought for from the 1960's and on will be gone. Back to the 1950's and prior, women!

And once they have done it to us women and seen that they have succeeded with so little effort, they will use the map for all the other marginalized groups. Like I said, we are but the canaries in the coalmines. We marched for everyone else to help everyone else, because we not only knew what it felt like to be on the margins, we didn't want *anyone* to BE on the margins. Call it empathy, call it our nurturing nature, call it our democratic proclivities. But what happens to one will happen to all of us once the least of us goes down.

Here I'm going to say something Non-PC. Women, amongst minorities, I'm afraid are the least of us. Why? Because we are not now, nor have we ever been united. We have too many among our ranks who are on the "other side." Who fight against women's rights. Who fight against the right to make their own decisions. Who fight against their right to their own lives. I can't begin to understand them, anymore than I can begin to understand the republican mind. But my opinion is that, in the whole of history, only those groups who are one - united against an opposing force can repel and defeat that opposing force. And women, that ain't us. And I say this with both anger and tears in my eyes.

I don't know if the tears are from anger or grief or if it really matters anymore. I'm 65. I can't get pregnant any longer. But all good credit we have is in my name. If they strip my credit from me and my husband, we're sunk. If they take away my SSA check and make us live on hubby's alone, as it used to be? We might as well either divorce (like it used to be done), or shuffle off this mortal coil together (also as it used to be done).

I'm not prone to hyperbole. There is a real roadmap here the Dominionists and other Republican extremists are looking to inflict on us. Forewarned is forearmed. I can only hope some country would offer refugee status to American women should this crap come to pass. It's not beyond thought, I hope. Just one generation less, and I could have had right to return to Ireland, drat it all!!!

[Cosmocat]

56. fine point - they DEFINE tradition

for their purposes ...

[Carlitos Brigante]

19. Sonia. nt

[bronxiteforever]

21. Kick and recommend.

[DallasNE]

26. Stewart Fell Into The Trap

He just argued for the legal principle of Stare Decisis. How can he then turn around and say Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided? She further cornered him by asking him how his view is not religious. She tied him up in his shorts. And this is blistering grounds her dissenting vote when SCOTUS upholds the Mississippi law.

[Baitball Blogger]

27. Masterful.

[lindysalsagal]

38. IMHO if abortion is ever prohibited, that will be the end of the GQP.

And I think they know it. Maybe the states want it prohibited, but the party doesn't because then they'll never win again.

[Captain Zero]

51. They have indeed run their campaigns on it as a

Wedge issue.

Now they just may be the dog who caught the car. Have you ever seen a dog catch a car?

I have. They get rolled under the rear wheel.

[lindysalsagal]

53. Exactly. The young vote will finally turnout against this religious minority.

[maxrandb]

54. I keep hearing this, but I am going to point out something unpopular

Banning abortion and overturning Roe is going to increase Retrumplican turnout.

I heard this same argument about Virginia.

"Oh, did you see what Texas did? This is going t doom Retrumplicans at the polls"

What happened? Well, Dem turnout was up in VA, but Reteumplican turnout was up even more. The result was 3 wingnuts elected to statewide office in VA.

My point being, Retrumplicans said they were going to overturn Roe, and that's exactly what will happen.

They will be rewarded for this.

Do you think they 30-40% of Americans that NEVER vote are going to come out and vote now?.

BTW - has congress raised taxes on the 1% yet?

[AverageOldGuy]

43. Roe is dead.

The only thing the liberals on the court can do is try to remind the rest of us about what a great nation we once had.

[bucolic_frolic]

46. Which gives us license, if we lose, to label the case "wrongly decided"

just as the other side has always done.

[Baitball Blogger]

47. +1

[LiberatedUSA]

48. I suppose blue states could ignore it...

…as a federal law not to do abortions, in the same way they ignore federal law as it pertains to marijuana. However, that straight up gives red states the permission to ignore any future gun bans; which may have already occurred with blue states saying they can ignore federal drug laws they don’t like by keeping those drugs legal in their state.

[Baitball Blogger]

57. If we forced them to tie federal funds to handle the childcare costs for women

who need it so they can hold down a job, it wouldn't be a non-starter.