Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ancianita

(35,812 posts)
Thu Dec 2, 2021, 07:30 AM Dec 2021

The Judge Who Told the Truth About the Mississippi Abortion Ban

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/supreme-court-mississippi-abortion-ban/620833/

...Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, likely the most consequential abortion case in three decades. The case began as a challenge to the Mississippi abortion ban, and in 2018 landed before Carlton Reeves, an African American judge whose legal opinions—especially this one—are rich in history and disarmingly honest. Reeves struck down the law, as precedents like the 1973 landmark abortion decision, Roe v. Wade, compelled him to do, but then lambasted the Mississippi legislature for trying to justify the ban with reasons that he believed were transparently dishonest.

“Its leaders are proud to challenge Roe,” he wrote, “but choose not to lift a finger to address the tragedies lurking on the other side of the delivery room.” I spoke with Reeves recently, and his opinions out of court are as candid as the ones he delivers from chambers and the bench. “Judges are heroes,” he told me. “But for them I would not be in the position that I am or had the experiences that I did. They have the capacity to breathe life into our rights.”

Under current law, Dobbs is an easy case. In Roe and, almost two decades later, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court ruled that states cannot ban abortions before “viability” of the fetus—about 23 to 24 weeks—making Mississippi’s 15-week cutoff clearly unconstitutional. Reeves ruled as much and then asked an obvious question: “So, why are we here?”

Rejecting sophistry from the state’s legislators that the ban wasn’t really a “ban,” Reeves revealed the truth as he saw it: The state passed a law “it knew was unconstitutional to endorse a decades-long campaign … to ask the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.” He then scolded the lawmakers for pretending to care about women’s health and the well-being of the unborn and people of color while having the nation’s highest infant-mortality rate, tolerating “alarming” poverty and maternal-death rates, and curtailing health-care programs such as Medicaid. He accused legislators of perpetuating “the old Mississippi,” the one that didn’t allow women to serve on juries until 1968, the one that systematically sterilized Black women—getting a “Mississippi appendectomy,” it was called—and the one that, in 1984, became the last state to guarantee women the right to vote. He recounted Mississippi’s long history of denying its citizens’ constitutional rights with segregated schools, prohibitions on same-sex marriage, and a “secret intelligence arm” that enforced racial discrimination. Far from helping women and minorities, Reeves wrote, the state still seemed “bent on controlling” them.



Judge Carlton W. Reeves


More from Reeves in
"US District Judge Carlton Reeves calls out Trump – urges other judges to “defend our bench”

Think of the pattern of judicial nominees refusing to admit, like generations of nominees before them have, that Brown v. Boardwas correctly decided. That same Brown which led to Alexander v. Holmes County, which breathed justice into the segregated streets of my Yazoo City. As if equality was a mere political position.


https://yallpolitics.com/2019/04/16/us-district-judge-carlton-reeves-calls-out-trump-urges-other-judges-to-defend-our-bench/

20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Judge Who Told the Truth About the Mississippi Abortion Ban (Original Post) ancianita Dec 2021 OP
K&R Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Dec 2021 #1
K&R brer cat Dec 2021 #2
K & R Arkansas Granny Dec 2021 #3
I trust the current lawyers will quote him. Karadeniz Dec 2021 #4
Why would they. That sounds like they have some jurisprudence legacy to defend. ancianita Dec 2021 #6
K&R and bookmarked... WOW secondwind Dec 2021 #5
Sounds like he would make a great SC pick 70sEraVet Dec 2021 #7
Agree! ancianita Dec 2021 #8
Exactly. Expanding the court right now notinkansas Dec 2021 #9
Exactly! usaf-vet Dec 2021 #12
I would whole heartly agree with my fellow veteran IF the judge is young enough to hold the.... usaf-vet Dec 2021 #11
My first thought as well, 70sEraVet. crickets Dec 2021 #17
Good choice SunImp Dec 2021 #18
K&R Solly Mack Dec 2021 #10
That's what we want in judges: clear-seeing wisdom. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2021 #13
Infant mortality Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2021 #14
Thank you. We shouldn't be surprised if red, orange and yellow rates spread. ancianita Dec 2021 #15
KnR Hekate Dec 2021 #16
K & R Stuart G Dec 2021 #19
K/R Thank you! appalachiablue Dec 2021 #20

ancianita

(35,812 posts)
6. Why would they. That sounds like they have some jurisprudence legacy to defend.
Thu Dec 2, 2021, 08:26 AM
Dec 2021

That they would even entertain the specious pseudo legal/ pseudo religious arguments presented is ridiculous. This case should never have made it past Judge Reeves.

70sEraVet

(3,430 posts)
7. Sounds like he would make a great SC pick
Thu Dec 2, 2021, 09:37 AM
Dec 2021

Just as soon as an opening gets created by proving that the last couple of Justices lied during their confirmation hearings.

ancianita

(35,812 posts)
8. Agree!
Thu Dec 2, 2021, 09:42 AM
Dec 2021

To go after lying justices now would ruin any attempt at much needed judicial reform by Congress.

A good strategy is to a) keep both houses in 2022, b) fill out SCOTUS with the thirteen justices this nation needs (to properly represent its thirteen federal districts) and c) then go after them.

notinkansas

(1,095 posts)
9. Exactly. Expanding the court right now
Thu Dec 2, 2021, 09:53 AM
Dec 2021

and eliminating or carving out exceptions to the filibuster and then modifying the procedure to return to a talking filibuster are the only tools we have to keep this experiment in democracy going.

usaf-vet

(6,094 posts)
11. I would whole heartly agree with my fellow veteran IF the judge is young enough to hold the....
Thu Dec 2, 2021, 10:17 AM
Dec 2021

.... seat for years to come.

The repugs are appointing young judges to potentially hold the seats for 30 years.

We need to fight fire with fire.

USAF-Vet 65-69 Proud to have served before you 70sEraVet

crickets

(25,896 posts)
17. My first thought as well, 70sEraVet.
Thu Dec 2, 2021, 04:34 PM
Dec 2021
This is the type of clear thinking judge we should have sitting on the Supreme Court, not the political baggage we're currently saddled with.

ancianita

(35,812 posts)
15. Thank you. We shouldn't be surprised if red, orange and yellow rates spread.
Thu Dec 2, 2021, 10:36 AM
Dec 2021

There will be less "investment" in female based infrastructure. The Manchin and Mississippi models will drag down the overall national public health. Making women pay more for basic services will also inure them to further pay inequity and the increased costs of impoverishment and criminalizing.

This ruling will be become the road to unfreedom.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Judge Who Told the Tr...