U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

The U.S. Supreme Court hears the oral argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case concerning the constitutionality of Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. www.c-span.org/video/?516168-...
00:51 - Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart begins argument.
45:11 -Julie Rikelman, Center for Reproductive Rights Senior Director, begins argument.
1:24:35 - U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar begins argument.
Download the FREE C-SPAN Now App. www.c-span.org/c-spanNow/
Discover the C-SPAN Video Library at www.c-span.org/quickguide/ Download our App www.c-span.org/special/?radioapp C-SPAN: Created by Cable in 1979. Offered as a public service. Subscribe to our KZbin channel: / cspan Follow us: Facebook: / cspan Twitter: / cspan Instagram: / cspan Subscribe: C-SPAN Podcasts: www.c-span.org/podcasts/ Newsletters: www.c-span.org/connect/ #cspan

[@agoniaXdunya]

Thank you for keeping the comment section open and allowing this marketplace of ideas to thrive.

[@TheReverendPaqo]

It's pretty generous to call it a "market place of ideas" when it's filled with minds that were already made up before the comment was ever written or the video ever watched. It's more accurate to call it an echo chamber of either disingenuous prejudices or espousing religious beliefs as if they are factually based arguments derived from law, all borne for the internet and youtube algorithm to witness.

[@foxhound6364]

@@TheReverendPaqo Bro, that's literally what the "marketplace of ideas" is about. The people who have their minds set can shout out their viewpoint while the people on the fence or somewhere in the middle can hear the different perspectives and see which ones, or which parts of each they agree with. Obviously the more neutral people in the middle aren't going to be commenting much, if they don't have a fully formed opinion yet.

[@choblgobblrr1074]

​@@foxhound6364 They're referring to the fact that it's hardly a marketplace of ideas if the only ideas present are on in the same. If there is no diversity of thought then you don't really have a marketplace of ideas. Without discourse there is no marketplace of ideas. Like they said... it is simply an echo chamber and they are right. You don't go to the figurative marketplace of ideas if the ideas have already been decided.

[@punapeter]

@@foxhound6364 If it were a "marketplace" and IF men could get pregnant there would be an abortion pill machine in every sports bar restroom,​ liquor store, McD's, Walmart​,​ train station,​ 7-11, gas station, uber back seat, airport or church.

[@monkfishkilla]

Marketplace of ideas? jesus

[@DonYutuc]

How awesome is this in 2024? Especially when you can only listen 🎶 without watching the video of the justices and lawyers. Thank you, C-Span.

[@MaHomeGurlShananay]

Six months later: "Held: The constitution does not confer a right to abortion."

[@scottcamuto8410]

@josh montana drinking water would be upheld as an unenumerated right

[@thisisanewusername4662]

@@scottcamuto8410 lol

[@wernerfoerster3666]

@@TechmoChamp You don't have a constitutional right to drink water. Why would you think everything under the sun, good and bad, is addressed by the constitution? It isn't.

[@scottcamuto8410]

The supreme court's line of thinking is that if something is not explicitly a right in the constitution it can be an unenumerated right but there better be irrefutable evidence that there is a history of it being recognized by legislative, scholarly and common perception at the time of bill of rights or before 14th ratification. Given that things as common as breathing drinking and eating are fundamental to human existance these would be examples of unenumerated. Abortion on the otherhand is not.

[@DCLayclerk]

@@TechmoChamp De minimis non curat lex. (The law does not concern itself with trivialities). Klondike can ax the Choco Taco and it isn't a constitutional issue. Not everything in life is in the Constitution.

[@bunny2032]

It is clear that Thomas, J. no longer has the ability to hear a clear answer when it is provided by counsel repeatedly. Barrett is dangerous as she has demonstrated that she cannot be impartial to any issue due to her religious beliefs.

[@tabramanti]

These justices seem to be very concerned with public opinion. Their entire concern should be the law.

[@dragonflarefrog1424]

John Roberts literally said public opinion wasn’t a factor

[@evelynmilne4683]

@@dragonflarefrog1424 Breyer is scared of the public outcry and possible violent repercussions if he votes against the pro=choice stance.

[@tubelarr]

@@evelynmilne4683 If there are violent repercussions, we now have a precedent to lock up those who protest violently indefinitely without bail.

[@johnsmith1474]

There in never one "entire concern" in something this complex.

[@johnsmith1474]

@@josephlupo8969 - Her arguments and questions were superb and illuminating.

[@robertkowallek8453]

So if a fetus isn't alive, then neither is an eagle's egg. Why do you go to jail for breaking a bald eagle's egg? It's not alive.

[@diannebaginski3255]

Sure put her in jail for 30 days for getting an abortion. Eagles were and endangered species.

[@lisandroge]

Bro this argument is way more complicated than that. Your ignoring the real human elemts that dictate the corse of the outcome of human abortion.

[@ellebrew719]

A fetus would not grow if it wasn't alive. 🤷🏼‍♀️

[@jasontaylor7954]

@@ellebrew719 viability of the life outside womb doesn’t make it not a human. 😳🤔

[@ellebrew719]

@@jasontaylor7954 huh? You're using double negatives so I cant tell what you're saying. Babies as early as 21 weeks have survived outside the womb if I'm not mistaken, but that's irrelevant because that is not what constitutes life. It's actually much simpler than that. The baby has it's own set of DNA that's seperate from her moms or dads. The baby is growing, as in it's advancing from one stage in life to another. This is life. The circle of life, if you will. Abortion ends that life. That is the only function of an abortion, and they take zero care to make sure the baby is even comfortable. They treat convicted murderers on death row more humanly during lethal injection than they do a 20 week old unborn baby.

[@daveverplank]

8:55 Precedents get overturned all of the time. Plessy v. Ferguson was the law of the land for 57 years before it was overturned by the Brown opinion.

[@MsBlushing24]

The difference is, as the Court held in Brown v. Board of Education, that American culture and society had intensely evolved from plessy precedent. In Dobbs, this Court made no reference to the historical evolution in American culture and society regarding abortion. Unlike in Plessy, a vast majority of Americans supported Roe precedent, unlike in the 50s when Plessy was overturned. Moreover, plessy directly violated multiple aspects of the Constitution in which Roe did not.

[@daveverplank]

@@MsBlushing24, where is abortion in the Constitution? The Supreme Court doesn't MAKE law; Congress or state legislatures do.

[@gopher7691]

@@MsBlushing24 Roe violated the constitution by rewriting it. There is nothing in the constitution about abortion so the court had no authority to write it in

[@moses4769]

@@daveverplank There are plenty of things that aren't in the constitution. Every single matter can't be in the constitution.

[@alex-brs]

​@@moses4769Things are implied or explicit. Abortion is neither.

[@Politicalfan17]

Beginning at 1:33:00 Jackson’s whole case came crashing to the ground like a demolished highrise.

[@entertainmentvending3325]

exactly. she was so full of it

[@aquariusrizing]

Thankyou C-Span!!!

[@jimmyjames9752]

CHINA 🇨🇳 PUPPET

[@marthaurquilla2172]

Good job! Thanks C-Span!

[@furorz]

Sotomayor comes off really in a bad light in these arguments

[@user-dy6bl5fh7v]

Thank you glad we still here.

[@Chach1132]

Just some great judicial minds sticking only to the matter at hand and not resorting to name calling or red herring. Amazing

[@TheMChiReview]

Some call this supreme court "The Trump court" I don't care whose court you call it, it is on the track to be the greatest supreme court in decades. This court is a judicial dream team with everyone raising valid points with the exception of Sotomayor who made the analogy about abortion being about religion even though I know pro life atheists so she's wrong to politicize these cases but aside from that this court really knows how to q&a during oral argument and review.

[@davfrui]

BS

[@animeguitarcovers3254]

Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist. Trump ally. USA has failed

[@cl8804]

@@TheMChiReview "pro life atheists exist so acknowledging the fact that religiosity is an extremely prevalent and relevant factor in this matter is invalid" you do realize that you are officially an idiot, don't you?

[@nouseforaname3345]

​@@TheMChiReview you know pro life atheists so that means the supreme court justices are not acting on their religious opinion? How do you know that? Being an atheist doesn't make someone automatically more reasonable or able to check their bias and unless they have studied law their opinion doesn't really matter, however I would love to have a conversation with all these atheists and hear from them why they think this should be overturned after 50 years.

[@adrianmcgilly6181]

Hey C-span, from 11:51 to 13:12 in your video you identify the speaker as Justice Kagan when in fact it's Justice Sotomayor making her highly publicized "will this institution survive the stench" remark. I'm really surprised you got that wrong. It's kind of insulting to both justices. I hope you can avoid this mistake in the future.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

She can't fathom contemplating the possibility that the court got it wrong due to political views in the first place.

[@RashidMBey]

And I guess Robert can't fathom contemplating the possibility that the court got it right, in spite of political views, in the first place, seeing that evangelicals articulated support of the court decision alongside many non-religious people.

[@samsca8529]

@@robertortiz-wilson1588 The court was far less politicized in 1973 than it is today.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

@@samsca8529 the nomination of Supreme Court Justices wasn't nearly as much of a televised circus for soundbites as it is now (it used to not be televised at all). However I can only assume that the idea that the court was less politicized in the 1970s is due to historical ignorance if anything. Definitely not like nowadays though, that much can be more or less fairly granted.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

@@RashidMBey spoiler: they didn't get it right. They made up a "right" that doesn't exist in the Constitution. If it can't be voted and agreed upon in Congress, any and all issues not already specified in the Constitution automatically belong to the states.

[@ArnoldTeras]

To be fair, American abortion laws were in fact VERY permissive compared to most other Western and European countries: "Meanwhile, the United States has, overall, more permissive abortion laws than almost anywhere else in the world. It is one of only seven countries - the others are Canada, China, the Netherlands, North Korea, Singapore and Vietnam - to allow elective abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, as The Washington Post’s Fact Checker column has confirmed."

[@Real_PlayerOne]

Oh to be in the rarest of rare air and be amongst the greats, in terms of laws, China and North Korea!

[@kirkvillalon2411]

The federal government lost this case at 1:33:21 the moment she argued Plessy could not immediately be overturned after it was decided

[@r.j.macready]

The government lost this case when Donald Trump bizarrely won the presidency with a minority of votes and proceeded to pack the court with reactionaries. That is absolutely not what was argued. She merely stated how the court has operated in the past.

[@carlosmcse]

They already won when we made Trump president.

[@entertainmentvending3325]

I think people will look back at how poorly she tried to defend a clearly erroneous decision

[@nouseforaname3345]

overturning Plessy was granting rights while overturning Roe is taking them away.

[@wednesdayschild3627]

@@nouseforaname3345 she has not proved that there was a right to abortion. Abortion existed but people did not believe it was a right. She has not proved that women benefited from Roe. The original suffragettes thought abortion was bad, because women were coerced. I want to see these studies she mentioned that say women better. What does better even mean?

[@Sirsk8ordie]

Sotomayor "75% of women in America are poor," where is that statistic from?

[@JDAfrica]

Depends what the definition of ‘poor’ is I suppose.

[@Sirsk8ordie]

@@JDAfrica that is correct but we would have to know where the statistic is from to find that out as well.

[@Marcelg13]

We are all poor compared to Bill Gates but not sure how she pulled this number out of her you know what.

[@ASDFUIL]

Her ass

[@shays7771]

Sotomayer constantly interrupted Mr. Stewart every time he spoke to answer her questions. Very obvious she is not interested in hearing any one else’s voice other than her own. I did not hear any other justices do this to the Pro abortion representatives.

[@dr.g9564]

It ist hard sometimes to stay silent when someone speaks utter nonsense for a certain amount of time. Some are more patient but I can understand her completely.

[@diannebaginski3255]

Stewart's arguements referring to a fetus as a life is ridiculous.. And his repeated calling the birth control horrendous or disaster is a personal attack based on religious preference. We a a country based on freedom of religion.. And freedom from religion. His arguements were not sufficiently countered by the defendant.

[@jonathanarmstrong4366]

Rikelman was interrupted much more by roberts… maybe it just seems impertinent to you when a woman is interrupting a man?

[@jamiecauldren7198]

@@diannebaginski3255 a fetus, even a zygote is alive. But not just "alive" living cell, like a cheek cell. It's a "living organism". The science of biology is quite clear on this. Further, all living organisms are classified. The zygote, the fetus are classified as homo sapien. This is not challenged in the court. Roe/Casey never addressed this science because it is already settled, they couldn't. Living organisms grow, they feed, they respond they reproduce (but not like skin cells regenerating an exact copy... the reproduce after mating with another living organism). This is what living organisms do. The zygote and fets and baby and child and adult are all human beings. They are not lumps of cells or a "parasite".

[@bigtime2838]

You nailed it.

[@venitadavis6308]

She's correct, I didn't know that I was pregnant until I was five months, and then, my grandmother was the one that knew first. I was 15, a rape victim.

[@deathtotruthers1]

First, there are ways to deal with that now - there are pills rape victims can, and should, take, to prevent pregnancy. Second, and more importantly, this is an edge case - we don't make laws for edge cases. We make them for the vast majority of cases.

[@alecbaldwinsnotpropgun]

@@deathtotruthers1 big facts, rape and incest are all you hear about from women, arguing the extremes because they can’t argue for the 85% of abortions performed because of “choice”

[@heyitsme881]

Rape doesn’t change the fact that a human being cannot be murdered.

[@emmittmatthews8636]

I'm sorry for what happened to you. Why weren't you checked out though?

[@joshez1]

​@@heyitsme881take it out the womb and it can't survive. It's not human yet

[@curleygurlie]

Also- props to Cspan for keeping the comments section open! Most msm and the WH channel could never..🙄

[@mobileasaurus]

The people to who cause problems on those channels can't focus on (or maybe understand) the stuff streamed on cspan.

[@AdamBechtol]

Ya

[@engledelaffety4380]

Abortion is never the desired outcome. It harms the mother and the fetus and disproportionately affects poor people. However, we live in an imperfect world and the law is designed to reflect the imperfection of our world, not morality. Women should not be burdened with dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. The same people that are against abortion, are they also happy to have their taxes dramatically increased to pay for care for those unwanted babies? Do they adopt? - Do you want the laws to be changed to reflect moral codes? Shall we criminalize divorce? Adultery? It's always 'easy' to sit on the sidelines and criticize women who have abortions. Women are not the enemy, stop treating them as such.

[@rosedrown4925]

People who don't want babies can skip sex.

[@engledelaffety4380]

@@rosedrown4925 Wow, how insightful you are. Moron.

[@thaddeuspawlicki4707]

Murdering babies is not the way to improve an imperfect world.

[@rosedrown4925]

Seems some people think intelligence is dumb.

[@engledelaffety4380]

@@thaddeuspawlicki4707 Are you trying to be stupid, or this is the limit of your critical thinking?

[@dissident_420]

Hard not feel that Casey and/or Roe are deeply in trouble after hearing the Justices' questions.

[@KFCezikiel]

bingo

[@taylorbarrett384]

If the court is supposed to apply the law rather than make the law, then the answer is undeniable. If the court is to make the law, well, then it's whatever the justices want it to be.

[@rhynosouris710]

The purpose of the courts is to make laws by judicial fiat, according to their personal feelings and opinions on a matter. Otherwise we might fall into that dangerous trap of having laws made by the elected representatives of the people.

[@ewanmccartney8469]

@@rhynosouris710 Completely incorrect.

[@grantpitt3040]

@@ewanmccartney8469 woooosh

[@waldodilone4516]

@@rhynosouris710 could not be wronger

[@lehman]

@@waldodilone4516 how wrong?

[@RJStockton]

Serious question: What kind of education/experience would I need to become the person who says all that at the intro?

[@bdavid19922]

Constitutional law

[@bearbait7405]

1:26:36 U S Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar states, “Baby.”

[@ChazWalkerWonders]

That's pretty damming.

[@ASDFUIL]

Nice to hear pro-choicers admit abortion is killing a baby.

[@treed6038]

Interesting that Justice Satomayor claimed that 48 years of water under the bridge lends illegitimacy to arguments today; however Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy V. Ferguson, which was 62 years earlier. We should be careful with stare decisis arguments. I'm sure she knew this when she asked, and maybe she was just asking the question to see what his answer was, but I do wonder.

[@Archangel251]

I don’t think the court when they decided the roe considered the fact that the fetus is a human being rather than a clump of cells. It’s new evidence like that that’s presented before the court that justifies reasonable departure from stare decisis

[@elizabethdillon4945]

Give me the basic tenants of plessy versus ferguson.

[@treed6038]

@@Archangel251 The key item in Roe was when Thurgood Marshall stated that they couldn't say the fetus was or was not a human and that the Court should take a look at it again if science ever figured it out. Then Casey really f-d things up. That one was a poor decision by all concerned.

[@treed6038]

@@elizabethdillon4945 Plessy v Ferguson was the ruling that allowed segregation by declaring that separate could be equal. Brown v Board of Education overturned it and outlawed segregation. Plessy was later pardoned by the President in the 1920's I think.

[@valvevac-systemchecker3773]

@@treed6038 I think this doesn’t necessarily make a difference the key issue at hand is that Roe v Wade created a constitutional right to privacy effectively out of thin air. The premise of “Liberty” enshrined in the constitution is not absolute, state governments can decide to limit certain liberties for the public good depending on their issues and core beliefs. I believe that Sotomayor is simply engaged in judicial activism by arguing Stare Decises for highly contentious judicial reasoning, especially one where there is not legal basis beyond case law in Roe v Wade.

[@jobroskull7623]

Moral of the story when it comes to controversial decisions a lot of times we don’t use facts and logic to make logical decisions, we use them to make decisions based on emotion or to justify how we feel morally on a topic

[@crysiscore2051]

That applies for both sides. There's no real reason we must assume that the Right-wing are the side with "facts and logic." Assuming someone like Stephen Breyer doesn't use "facts and logic" is pig-headed.

[@finnb2318]

​@@crysiscore2051 Scalia, however crudely, characterized it correctly when he accused evolutionists of staring at the ceiling or the navel, when, in his example, passing judgement on "cruel and unusual punishment" and the constitutionality of the death penalty. However many polls you consult, or census date, were it available, these ultimately, as does an evolutionist interpretation of the due-process clause, lack democratic legitimacy. In another, splendid interview he ridiculed evolutionists for having "no answers", as theirs change forevermore. Departing from the common law "age of reason", 12, to 16, again on the constitutionality of the death penalty, and incrementally up, first to 18, as the justice now deems that age to serve as guarantor for the punishment not being "cruel and unusual", ten years on to 21, and with the turning of the wheels of time, so shall it continue.

[@samuelhong4272]

@@crysiscore2051 it's funny cause you're the one politicizing it and Justice Breyer is never mentioned in this comment. Way to project buddy!

[@MrSeagoblin123]

How come some of the audio is cut?

[@dissident_420]

I'm glad Justice Breyer is leaving the court. What an insufferable windbag he is. He treats oral argument as if he is giving a law lecture at a university.

[@kylemohs8728]

I doubt his successor will be any better.

[@Anon54387]

@@kylemohs8728 Nope. Incredibly, it is looking like she'll be even worse.

[@Peter-ov6xh]

Jackson may not be perfect but ANYONE would be an improvement on that silly old coot Breyer.

[@michaelmcchesney6645]

I very much agree with the Supreme Court's decision NOT to allow televised arguments. But I think being able to listen to arguments in real time (or near real time) is a great way for the public to at least get a sense of those arguments. This video had 27,000 views when I started watching and I bet no more than 25,000 of those viewers were lawyers or law students. One question that was raised was whether there are non religious "philosophers" that were pro life. I am not sure what the significance of being a philosopher is, but I know there are pro-life atheists. I am one of those myself. The problem with the fetal viability line is, in my opinion, that it is completely dependent on the state of medical technology. Eventually, that line will be pushed back to conception. I just have a problem with the rights of an unborn child being dependent on technology. As a matter of constitutional law, I believe the Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion. I predict a 6 - 3 decision overturning Roe and Casey. I think the Chief is very reluctant to overturn those decisions and would have been unlikely to have been a 5th vote to do that out of fear of what the decision would do to the Court's public standing and the likelihood of a "successful" Court packing law. But if Justice Barrett is the 5th vote, he is likely to be a 6th under the theory that a 6 - 3 decision will get more respect than a 5 - 4 decision. Since I am in a prognosticating mood, I will also predict that if the Court is ever packed, within 30 years (50 at the outside) we will have more Supreme Court Justices than senators. That is the end of my prognosticating, since I have no idea what the effect of the Dobbs decision will have on the midterms. But a 6 - 3 decision might be the only way the Democrats can hold the Senate.

[@Archangel251]

I doubt it’ll be 6-3. The reason is because Chief Justice Roberts is a strict follower of stare decisis. In other words, despite his conservative judicial philosophy, he ISNT a fan of overturning precedent unless new evidence is presented that points to the erroneousness of the previous court decisions. Since Roe, plaintiffs haven’t presented new arguments besides an interest in protecting unborn human life. Medical technology has evolved to give us a more graphic understanding of fetal development, but you’re right: an unborn child’s rights shouldn’t be dependent on technology. I think the Supreme Court taking on Roe made it more political than it had ever been before. Despite public opinion, overturning Roe would be a step in the right direction to restoring neutrality and public confidence in the Supreme Court. The Constitution doesn’t explicit state that a woman has the right to an abortion. The right was abstractly decided. What I mean by that is that if you look at Roe’s history, cases like Griswald - which concerned birth control and contraception rights - developed a right to privacy under the 4th Amendment that was loosely applied to Roe. Blackmun wrote in his opinion that Roe relies on the deprivation of personhood from the fetus and how this is done is by calling the woman’s right to an abortion a “right to privacy.” In addition to protecting life, Roe should be overturned for those reasons.

[@databasedesignstar308]

I agree with your prediction.

[@amr8506]

the house will flip to R, no court packing lol

[@dr.g9564]

@@Archangel251 There is a lot of speculation going on and I would like to add another one: Roberts will convince Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to uphold Roe and Casey about the right to choose but limit it that states can issue statutes to protect the unborn as far as they don't take the right to choose completely. Roe talked about trimesters, Casey about viability, so the supreme court can even under the acceptance of stare decisis draw the line of "undue burden" differently. So the 15 weeks-law is pretty clever and completely in line with other countries of the western world, including mine. A 7:2 (kind of a classical result for abortion cases of this magnitude) would be a big signal for all citizens to finally stop the fight (Alito and Thomas should retire anyway).

[@Archangel251]

@@dr.g9564 Barrett and Gorsuch are Catholic and they’re originalists. Originalists aren’t fans of abortion because it wasn’t in the founding fathers minds when they wrote the Constitution. Moreover, Roe relies on a right established by substantive due process. Originalists dont believe in rights established that way. Even if Roe and Casey are both rewritten, I guarantee you it isn’t going to stop the fight. Even if They’re overturned entirely, pro life groups are gonna continue to pick off states that still have abortion legalized. Roe is the beginning, not the end

[@neonbible08]

Pro choice arguments are all very weak.

[@SpaceBethC131]

Because they can easily be reversed. That's why I'm pro life

[@bryanalexismoya397]

Saying that it is a weak argument for a woman, a person, another human, who is already alive and part of society- to have autonomy over her body when it only affects her directly, that is insane.

[@TomBarbashev]

​@@bryanalexismoya397The unborn human being has a right to life, at least at some point. 3 minutes before birth? 1 day? 1 week? 1 month? Viability? Before that? Idk the exact answer, but i do know there's absolutely nothing in the enumerated powers of the Federal government to decide this issue. Therefore it falls to the states and the people.

[@MegMcCormack]

Some of the issues Julie Rickelman was bringing up then ABSOLUTELY took place. The same day the opinion came down. Like states passing bills banning abortion. And it’s just so depressing to listen to this now

[@Mod0308]

That never happened. They banned ELECTIVE abortion, not Life saving ones. Now the people in those states vote. Keep in mind, they already chose those representatives. Look up the abortion rate in someplace like Utah…it’s around 4% vs somewhere like DC where it’s 30%+. There’s obviously less need in one place than another

[@skippyone2769]

Anyone thinking the Justice's have not already decided this case are fooling themselves. 50 years of comment and debate, there is not one argument not already raised and considered.

[@josephkerrigan733]

What's the result going to be then? If you know what they've all decided already then?

[@lazypops3117]

It was literally the criterion for which Coney Barrett was rush-nominated, against the express wishes of the outgoing judge...

[@yottachad5245]

@@lazypops3117 who cares what RBG wanted!? Are we a monarchy? Do officials get to choose their successors

[@wernerfoerster3666]

@@lazypops3117 the express wishes of the outgoing judge and $4 will get you a cup of coffee

[@lazypops3117]

@@wernerfoerster3666 and a sense of respectability for the institution with it. you do know how mcconnel denied obama's nominee for the SAME reason, don't you

[@kirkvillalon2411]

Sotomayor is really going to argue that there have been no medical advancements in the past 30 years? That’s ridiculous. And her argument that pain does not equal life is too rich coming from a Justice who argued the death penalty is unconstitutional because it possibly inflicts pain.

[@dudechill2]

She’s referring to the fact that there is no evidence that suggests that a fetus feels any pain before 24 weeks of gestation. Or at least no new evidence to shed on that. She’s not saying there’s hasn’t been any medical advancements. :p

[@namapalsu2364]

@@dudechill2 Yeah, but the medical advancement is not just about detecting pain early. Scientists have sucessfully grown animal outside of womb/egg (I think it's growing chick without eggs that they're working on. But I can be mistaken. Need to look it up). Soon, probably we could grow fetus outside of womb. The viability line would be on conception then.

[@namapalsu2364]

@D. That's irrelevant. Once the viability line is shortened to conception, then the mother has no right to terminate the pregnancy at anytime. So the baby doesn't have to live outside the womb.

[@Lottieloves287]

Exactly.

[@dr.debbiewilliams4263]

If it please The Court, I also asked whether I could be protected from harassment because I said I am not LGBTQIA, and have no plans of ever trying to have more children. Despite the fact that I am 54, I have been completely abstinent for well over seven years here in Philadelphia PA, and don't plan on getting remarried or dating any time in the foreseeable future. I also don't want to be a "Political Plaything".

[@ASDFUIL]

The state lost the case at 1:14:10. Justice Alito asks Julie Rikelman to cite her "best case" that establishes a precedent that abortion is a constitutional right. Rikelman cannot, and responds with boilerplate pro-choice slogans instead.

[@annparkin2709]

I was poor and had a baby in 1983 he was human and is human I did not listen to the doctor.

[@latoyarichards9507]

Yes that’s your choice, you have no right to tell another woman what to do with her body, this is akin to slavery.

[@FamilyMSV]

@@latoyarichards9507 killing children is WORSE than slavery.

[@kristopher_rand]

@@FamilyMSV A pre-viability fetus is NOT a child.

[@liemtran2402]

@@FamilyMSV you're a sick person for comparing aborting fetuses to slavery? welp as expected from a member of the terrorist republican party

[@thisisanewusername4662]

Thanks for overpopulating the planet!

[@b4u334]

This is a question for Congress and the respective state legislatures. Quit trying to legislate during judicial review processes.

[@quovadis9233]

@Eugene Abortion is not mentioned in the US Constitution.

[@b4u334]

@Eugene Abortion is not protected by the constitution no matter how erroneously the 1973 court ruled. Swing and a miss.

[@b4u334]

@Eugene No. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the constitution provides contextual basis for the right to travel: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Swing and a miss.

[@b4u334]

@Eugene You are the one being disingenuous. In Saenz v. Roe (1999), the Court noted that there are three components to the right to travel: (1) the right to enter and leave a state, (2) the right of visitors to a state to be treated like residents, (3) and the right of visitors wishing to become permanent residents to be treated like residents. The Court held that (2) was protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV and (3) was protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14A. The Court did not state the constitutional source of (1) of the right to travel because it was not implicated in that case.

[@b4u334]

@Eugene No, the SCOTUS explicitly stated the constitution protects at least 2/3 of these specific components relevant to the right to travel with a contextual basis. The third has not yet been defined because it has not yet needed to be defined. This is entirely different from a whole-cloth right to privacy because there is nothing outside of the 4A, protecting against unreasonable search and seizure, that has anything to do with privacy. Extending the 4A to include the right to "privacy" is pure fantasy. In Griswold v Connecticut, the Court ruled that a Connecticut state law prohibiting the use of contraception violated the “right to privacy” which was found in penumbras of the Constitution via the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Ie there is no contextual basis. The SCOTUS simply subjectively determined that the Bill of Rights should have included a right to privacy. However, it is nonetheless incorrect to suggest that if a word itself is left out of the constitution (just like how liberals say "gun" needs to be in the constitution even though "arms" is in the constitution) it means there is no right.

[@user-dy6bl5fh7v]

Thank you.

[@danielh1830]

Did Sotomayor just reject science?!

[@roselovecchio5420]

When life begins isnt a philosophical question, as she puts it. It is observable and confirmed by science to begin at conception.

[@texasbeast239]

But the Roe court pointedly refused to consider that science as to the question of when life begins, and only considered the science when it came to establishing suffering that pregnant women suffer. Selective censorship of science.

[@waytoohypernova]

viability*

[@lilyyy778]

@@texasbeast239 RIGHT!

[@torturedsoul8066]

Arguments seem to stray from the question. Do babies have a right to life at 15 wks. The viability, success or failure of the child is separate from the right to life. Will the child be successful is a question secondary to their right to life. Questions should be directed to addressing what happens if a woman is required to bring a child to term. Have they then become surrogates for the state? and what rights do they have if they are assigned that categorization? Is this viable? The viability of the Courts ruling must be a consideration to obtain a just result.

[@torturedsoul8066]

And I think that no one has an answer to a woman questions about what happens IF? EX: If in a rape does a woman have a right to compensation for being a state serrogate? This Q must be answered. It cannot be ignored. So I think the real question is if a woman can be forced to carry an unwanted child to term. A heartbeat determines life so I would say yes BUT in doing so would also invoke constitutional protections for the woman as well and mostly for some form of compensation for carrying the child. Then the Court will be placing a massive burden onto the legislature which has been dysfunctional since the clintons took office. I do not envy the Court in the least in ruling on this case.

[@torturedsoul8066]

In the end a babies life hangs in the balance and a core principle on which this nation was built is that "it is more important to protect the innocence in our communities than it is to punish guilt." This is an order of operations. I know of nothing more innocent than a Childs life. The Court knows what it must do.

[@JoeShapiro]

@@torturedsoul8066 embedded in your statement is that the fetus is a child. While it clearly will become a child if carried to term, it’s totally NOT clear that it’s a child at 15 weeks. Or even at viability for that matter.

[@wernerfoerster3666]

people, SCOTUS is not a legislature ... the sole issue is whether the right to abortion is contained in the constitution. It isn't.

[@hollyprice4351]

@@JoeShapiro That is why the people and their elected representatives in the States under the 10th Amendment should be the ones dealing with this, not SCOTUS.

[@cammstyle738]

One question if answered would have been incredibly helpful here is this: Generally how many abortions are being performed after 15 weeks in Mississippi? Also, this decision doesn’t take away a woman’s right to abortion. Constitutionally the right never existed. What I like about putting the question back on the states is the following: pro choice electorates will have to specify how much “choice” women will actually have on this issue. No more can they lean on Roe for precedent. They will have to affirm exactly how much choice women will have in their states. 15 weeks is not enough time well exactly how much is enough time? Can’t wait to see the answers.

[@SpazzHobo]

Exactly why I think it’s up for the states to decide. Thanks for writing this comment.

[@dionnefreelance]

Did you say due process?

[@colinpoling8011]

Supreme Court: were not going to overturn because it would be bowing to public opinion Also Supreme Court: we can't consider public opinion in making these decisions

[@johnsmith1474]

Yeah they never say that.

[@Hegemon54]

Thats not even inconsistent, what's your point?

[@TexGuvnah]

@@johnsmith1474 Yup. Indeed, they've said the opposite pretty often. See "evolving standards of decency" in Atkins v. Virginia where they decided that executing the mentally retarded was a violation of the 8th Amendment just 13 years after they said it was tickety-boo.

[@jonathanarmstrong4366]

Supreme Court: let’s not base our decision on public opinion Also Supreme Court: let’s not base our decision on public opinion

[@tcos332]

Wow people can be really obtuse about anything that was just stated compared to how they interpret it. Big words I guess?

[@gabrieliacoboni6951]

It is interesting how precedent and morals were so interweaved into these arguments.

[@thaddeuspawlicki4707]

All laws are expressions of morals.

[@gabrieliacoboni6951]

@@thaddeuspawlicki4707 True.

[@marg22az]

It is OK for teens to tote guns and kill and be killed by cops... but YOU CLAIM YOU ARE PRO LIFE.. zBS..You WILL NOT TELL WOMEN WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR BODY SIR. KEEP it in your pants.

[@marg22az]

Hang the cocktail. Too soon .Gotta Go Premature man

[@thaddeuspawlicki4707]

@@marg22az It's wrong to murder babies.

[@adh0522]

the inescapable irony of sotomayor invoking "brain death"

[@robertridley9279]

This is very interesting to listen to these judges and lawyers debate legal reasons for and against what is for the most part a moral issue. It's apparent from listening to them that there really is no neutral reason to pass or uphold a law for/against abortion.

[@djblock215]

Exactly. So it should go back to the states. Let the elected representatives of each state decide what their voters want.

[@andretheathlete]

I think this is what going to happen at the end. The court won’t rule anything significant and just like it allowed Texas to have the Heartbeat Act in place it will continue to make abortion an issue of cooperative federalism.

[@chadkeaton2765]

@@djblock215 it shouldn’t be up to the states either. God forbids murder period, and he considers hands that shed innocent blood an abomination. We do not get to decide what’s moral or immoral that is for God to determine and He has made it very clear that He does not condone murder.

[@johnsmith1474]

They aren't supposed to have a "neutral reason" whatever that means in your mind. They are supposed to have an honestly expressed legal reason, which they certainly will. The first factor is stare decisis, which by itself requires that the law as expressed in Roe be held as correct. There are other factors, but I'm not sure you get the process so I stop here.

[@johnsmith1474]

@@chadkeaton2765 - In our Western world, 4000 years of contentious wondering followed by 500 years of reasoning serve to make perfectly reasonable that; in the whole history of the universe not one supernatural event has ever happened. Not one, ever. That's where we are at as rational beings - rational beings dismiss the supernatural. In any case we have a nation where citizens own rights, guaranteed under due process of law. People who invoke gods are expressing emotionally immaturity and simple ignorance.

[@Here4Years]

Watching the justices go through the motions for a case all 9 have already decided was...interesting.

[@johnsmith1474]

5-4 they strike down the law under stare decisis.

[@josmeid4402]

I guess it isn't clear to me that they have all decided. Roberts sounded somewhat unsure about what the correct course of action was, and might be leaning to a modification of casey rather than an overturning of it. Additionally, while I would assume Breyer would side with Jackson Women's Health Organization, some of his questions seemed to express some uncertainty on some of the points.

[@johnsmith1474]

@@josmeid4402 - Of course it's unclear, you got it. H4Y is a crank, you should see that by how he proposed his unserious observation.

[@joshcameron6014]

​@@josmeid4402 It's common for the justices to play devil's advocate during arguments. I wouldn't infer much from their questioning.

[@zipity2782]

If that’s your view than this court has truly failed

[@jong3404]

It is wholly disingenuous to claim that abortion is a fundamental right. As Justice Thomas says from 1:26:57-1:27:02, “What specifically is the right here that we’re talking about?”

[@wernerfoerster3666]

Of course. It's made up. A fiction. You can even replace "fundamental" with "constitutional".

[@whiteandright1958]

Enduring v evolutionary. Is the Constitution ever evolving or is it a stable document to be interpreted as written? As the late Justice Scalia said, SCOTUS exists to do legal work, not to rule based on public opinion. That's for the legislature, federal or state should do. That's the basis for this. The viewpoint of those adhering to an Enduring viewpoint uses the 10thA for their case. The evolving side uses the 14thA as their legal viewpoint.

[@Sheila8574]

What WISDOM would I impart to the Supreme Court if I had a Blank Sheet...Deuteronomy 1.16-18✡Deuteronomy 28✡Deuteronomy 29.9-28✡Deuteronomy 30.1-20✡Deuteronomy 30 nv 15✡What you choose will be your Judgment! You are Standing before the G-d of Israel!✡Choose Life!

[@Ri5004]

1:22:00 barrett destroys her

[@lilianaprina5991]

It is not only a control of a woman's body we are searching, it is about autonomy, independence, freedom the main reason why we live in the United States of America. I don't want my life being rule or limited by someone who finds research statistics on The Economist.

[@adh0522]

the viability issue, as questioned, wasn't as a substantive issue, but directed to the basis to recede from stare decisis

[@imbonnie]

Is it a "religious belief" that Sotomeyer is alive?

[@shays7771]

Sotomayer constantly interrupted Mr. Stewart every time he spoke to answer her questions. Very obvious she is not interested in hearing any one else’s voice other than her own. I did not hear any other justices do this to the Pro abortion representatives.

[@dmephibosheth9765]

@@shays7771 I had to laugh because it seemed like she perfectly embodied the typical pro-choice rhetoric: ignoring answers, interrupting, constantly shifting her position, and using "aren't you just trying to codify a religious belief" as a tr*mp card.

[@freedomfighterletsgobrandon]

@@shays7771 Sotomayor does it all the time. She talks very slowly until she stops, only to start talking again when the attorneys have already started to answer. She clearly loves to interupt people and she clearly loves the sound of her own voice, the total opposite of the very modest and very polite Thomas.

[@violetlamptey9221]

No she thinks when her life begins is a religious belief not when her life has already began .

[@elealee3621]

“40 percent of dead people would recoil” at the answer Her gloss on the detriments of any given pregnancy...ended in pregnant ellipses

[@jeffreyd700]

It's a shame that Justice Alito interrupted Scott Stewart before he answered Sotomayor's question

[@rudycope1]

Someone had to interrupt her. She was absolutely monopolizing all of the questioning. It seems to me that, like Bill Clinton, she likes to hear her own voice.

[@-dash]

Lol I'm not sure if Justice Sotomayor's analogy of braindead people recoiling to stimuli works in her favor- one has to accept that the fetus is a person in order for the analogy to work at all.

[@evansjohnarek2271]

Justice Atito, is indeed a consummate Judge whose jurisprudence in pro toon of human life is indeed commendable.

[@thisisanewusername4662]

nop

[@davidwilliams4839]

Would someone be able to break this down into laymen terms? I am a Canadian whom is very interested in understanding the legal argument.

[@user-ci8qs2oc1b]

Mississippi argument basically is that nothing in the text of the Constitution or the history of the US supports a right to an abortion. Roe and Casey were wrongly decided, so they should be overruled. The left leaning justices believe that 1) a lot of rights that the SC has recognized have no clear textual basis, 2) Roe was a watershed decision that needs extraordinary circumstances to be overruled, and 3) the SC will not seem legitimate if people feel like they keep flip flopping in this issue depending on who is on the court.

[@wernerfoerster3666]

The right to an abortion is not in the US constitution. Period. End of Story. Dobbs corrects an error which was made in Roe

[@wither8121]

@@wernerfoerster3666 and they did it!

[@shgh2695]

@@wernerfoerster3666 the right to privacy has been heavily upheld in previous decisions by the court, the right for a woman to abort a fetus without any intrusion from the state is an example of privacy. Is there an explicit statement that privacy is a right in the constitution? No, but if we establish that privacy isn’t a right (which we just did) then so many other things are now in jeopardy. Contraception, sex, marriage, and guns. This is one of the worst decisions by the SCOTUS in recent history, may be the worst since Bush v Gore

[@wernerfoerster3666]

@@shgh2695 1. Yes, that is correct. Many other things are now in jeopardy as should be the case. Many other constitutional rights which do not appear in the constitution have been MADE UP by liberal activist judges starting with the Warren Court. Read Justice Thomas' concurrence. The concept of Substantive Due Process (which gives rise to all of these flavors of right) is simply patently ridiculous. Perverting the Constitution by reading things into it which don't exist is shameful. If you want gay marriage, contraception etc ... no problem ... contact your legislature, NOT SCOTUS. 2. I will remind you the key decision in Bush v Gore was 7-2 in favor of Bush. Also it was Gore who instituted legal challenges. 3. Dobbs is hopefully the first in a series of cases which will chip away at decades of judicial activism (via substantive due process) and the horrific notion of a "living constitution" effectively rendering SCOTUS a superlegislature as they can determine constitutional rights based on their own feel-good whims.

[@OmarOsman98]

The fact that Roe did not define whether a fetus is a person or not is severe. Congress has also failed in addressing this issue legislatively. It should be left to the states.

[@christianamericandominican2470]

Correct.

[@thisisanewusername4662]

Bodily autonomy is truly sacrosanct. If government can compel you to have a pregnancy or compel you to terminate your pregnancy or compel you to donate blood or organs - YOU WILL NEVER BE FREE.

[@SpaceBethC131]

Consent of sex is consent of pregnancy. Don't the consequences, don't start

[@evansjohnarek2271]

Justice Army, is not really bad a search, she is still learning the rules of the game, In future she projects to be the best Judge in their entire American Jurisprudence. Loon live Justice Barret

[@_GandalfTheGrey_]

Elizabeth Prelogar seems like she is very concerned with the choice of everyone except a child who didn’t ask to be made.

[@henrys7014]

That was Justice Sotomayor, not Justice Kagan at the beginning.

[@amoswollen3860]

Phew. I thought he'd be cancelled beyond cancelled for that one.

[@dragonflarefrog1424]

Yeah I noticed that too

[@user-dy6bl5fh7v]

Thank you. I'm a master Sargent in Army and USMC. I will to try to leave this web page alone thank you.

[@arunavadasgupta2147]

Never Stop question

[@emilymccray7198]

Response by Chief Justice John Roberts at 53:00 was an impactful response on the role of the Supreme Court to rule based solely on the US Constitution, not other international laws.

[@dr.g9564]

It was a reasonable question to sort out what timeframe could lead to an undue burden for the woman.

[@KingdomOfHeavenPictures]

Perhaps, but the Supreme Court is not governed by comments on KZbin, regardless of 17 up votes (at the time of this comment).

[@TheMChiReview]

Now 18 thanks to me and yes it is an impactful question.

[@TheMChiReview]

@Eugene Actually the case will be decided by the conservative majority which means the likelihood of the supreme court need to adhere to the us constitution and American law not international law will be applicable to this case. The reason it will be applicable is because that question gets to whether these state laws concerning Abortion acted within precedent or is consititonally and or statutorally unique (not done before and therefore questionable or unreasonable) the us law question is about whether or not to adhere to precedent and how those laws of the past can inform their decision about laws made in the new Era. Past is prologue, it informs the current law on how to function therefore past is key when considering a law's potential legality or lack thereof. As said this and the question of previlaiblity vs viability is the two questions that this case definitely rest on. As a human being who has studied and seen the realities of Roe's broad decision, I actually hoped in this case they wouldn't adhere to us precedent since its a been unclear than international law. If you based us abortion laws on international law, it would mean that Mississippi and Texas acted within the usual limits thst countries all over the world limit or ban abortion including Liberal France. We literally join China and North Korea in allowing abortion up until the last minute. 💀 At what point do the state has an interest (a right to limit or ban abortion) im not arguing for an all ban but my goodness abortion law in America has no grey area. It either completely disregard the woman or completely disregard the fetus. I say at the point in which a hearbeat is detected the state has interest until then the state doesn't have a right to an interest and the individual can exercise that right under federal statue. My problem with Democratic Administration is have a ❤ at what point do you believe a fetus is a person who should be protected because right now General Prelogar (Biden Attorney to SCOTUS) didn't put a line and thats because many democrats don't believe there is a line a point where the fetus has developed enough for this to be the taking of a life and thats sad! Signing off!

[@dragonflarefrog1424]

And Julie destroyed him with her response

[@rickybobby3536]

Clarence Thomas with the lady who ingested cocaine argument, lmao

[@evelynmilne4683]

She should have been jailed for attempted murder.

[@rickybobby3536]

@@evelynmilne4683 no doubt. Just dont see how it was relevant to the case lol seemed out of left field

[@NO-bw5dn]

@@rickybobby3536 he explained its relevance re: bodily autonomy

[@Archangel251]

@@rickybobby3536 he’s giving other examples of how states have an interest in regulating pre-viability pregnancies. If you agree that the state has the right to prosecute a woman who ingests cocaine while pregnant, how can you justify precluding the state from regulating a pre-viability abortion? That’s the point he’s trying to make

[@michaeltelder177]

@@Archangel251 Comparing cocaine to a medical procedure is complete nonsense and has nothing to do with the case. The state would prosecute a woman who wasn't pregnant for using cocaine and it ignores the intent and details of both situations.

[@danielh1830]

The court has never addressed viability cause to do so would be for them to determine what is and isn't a life - something the court his historically and cowardly avoided.

[@dionnefreelance]

Did you say states?

[@nickm1587]

There’s no way the failure rate of contraceptives is 10% when used properly

[@danielslonim4739]

If I recall right, the state's brief says that in order to get that stat, they had to include notoriously unreliable methods, like withdrawal, along with more effective ones.

[@rosedrown4925]

Pill and iud ARE abortion.Wondering why everyone wants to be a murderer.Is the Mafia having a hiring blitz.Sin costs you clear thinking.Doctors are forbidden by oath to do ANY harm to a patient.Has Auschwitz combined with Mafia and Planned Parenthood PROMISCUITY promotion to make sure everyone deserves a life sentence with no parole.Is murder and mutual masturbation the new thing taking the place of greatness of character and integrity.Has Hell become the most popular vacation destination?!

[@alejandrogonzales743]

@@rosedrown4925 the fuck you just say?

[@rosedrown4925]

Seems truth is not of interest.Lazy? Busy? Callous? Criminal? What is the problem.Lust turns a man or woman into an animal.Deprives them of right and clear thinking,Success,Stable wealth.Lust destroys life.Love creates life.Who chooses lust when love is the real and better choice.Who chooses curses when blessings are the better choice.Virtue blesses all.Lack of it, curses all.See Deuteronomy 30:19 til u get it.

[@rosedrown4925]

My people perish for lack of knowledge of My Word.

[@karenmainor4275]

I'm surprised that no one made a credible argument that a fetus, prior to viability, is not a "person" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, & that therefore the fetus' rights prior to viability, if any, are not equal to the right of the woman to decide what's in her own best physical & mental health interests.

[@jacksonstenhouse4429]

None of them made that argument due to the fact that it is not a credible argument

[@kimmiewise1044]

And black people use to be 3/5ths a person according to the constitution until a war broke out proving otherwise. This is why it needs to be substantiated into law based on legislative intervention instead of the Supreme Court. There is not affirmation or condemnation of abortion in the constitution and it therefore needs to go to the states and those who live in them to vote and discuss the issue. That’s all the overturning would do.

[@fingersmcoy]

mental health? if a woman doesnt want a baby, dont get pregnant.

[@THall-vi8cp]

The Constitution didn't say that black people were each 3/5ths of a person. The three-fifths compromise allowed for the counting of 3/5ths of the total number of "all other persons" for the purposes of congressional apportionment, and it was a compromise made to entice the slave states to ratify the new Constitution - it was well known at that time that if the newly formed United States (which were still under the Articles of Confederation) did not ratify the new Constitution, the country would be weaker and vulnerable to dissolution or invasion.

[@bakgatfromgb]

What is meant by the term “viability”?

[@usernotfound7531]

Two major non legal questions. 1) men are not held responsible or should they 2) do women actually have not only choice but means to exercise that choice. Choice of sex , choice of contraception and choice to carry a child to term?

[@heyitsme881]

You can choose whatever you want but you can’t choose to murder another human.

[@thurmanator2223]

Great video

[@JohnDawson]

15 weeks is nearly FOUR MONTHS! That's disgusting!

[@aabhasrai303]

Your comment doesn't make it clear, you are for it or against it?

[@JohnDawson]

Um, I want it to be illegal.

[@jerycaryy4342]

It should be 0 weeks.

[@EastBurningRed]

When abortions was illegal in the 1930s, 800,000 were still performed each year. Roe v. Wade was just a formality.

[@MLCoins]

@@EastBurningRed source?

[@kiddo4481]

Let’s all pray to the Lord that the Supreme Court saves his children

[@khlkl9111]

and then when some of those children are born poor or disabled or black or gay fuck em right? Republican logic lol

[@blackdahliastudios263]

@@khlkl9111 I don't think that's what he was going for there.

[@wheresmycar9559]

@@blackdahliastudios263 But that's the case. Many of these children who would be born as a result of a denied abortion would be put into an underfunded childcare system as their mothers simply aren't prepared to take care of them.

[@blackdahliastudios263]

@@wheresmycar9559 Some would argue that living in an underfunded childcare system is better than not living at all.

[@sharonbackforschool5145]

@@khlkl9111 do you notice how retarded your logic is? so it's better to kill a baby than to let a baby live in a poor family household. so I guess every single child that lives in a third world country needs to be assassinated and okay bro. libtard logic

[@helenbeam7586]

Mississippi as a state government history has shown it is biased against race, for many Africa Americans were murdered by lynching. This state prosecutor is now in bringing this case to end Roe for a rationale it is OK to cause a course of legal action to permit women's freedom to be denied them therefore endangering a woman's safety and life as pregnancy does. This state government represents an advancement of denying freedom, protection of the lives of autonomy a person should have over their body for their freedom is not given by this and other state governments that as history has shown makes laws against freedom.

[@6663000]

Fascinating

[@Ethan-sx6lg]

I predict a 6-3 decision overturning Roe and Casey, with Roberts reluctantly joining the 5 other conservatives. There just isn’t any *legal* basis for a middle ground, and that fact is what will prevent Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Roberts from being able to stake one out. I don’t think any of those three, based on what I know about their jurisprudence, are gung-ho about overturning but will likely do it reluctantly. I think that is why Kavanaugh made the specific point that really, it’s not rare for the Court to overturn precedent. Some key gay rights decisions did. So there you have it.

[@sapereaude6935]

You were right

[@r.j.macready]

@@sapereaude6935 not exactly but they were close. Roberts concured in part (upholding the 15 week ban) but did not join in overturning Roe and Casey.

[@gesheepistemology8050]

Buddhists 2500 years ago, with logic and ration deemed the moment of conception as the beginning of that life.

[@cwp2614]

Well, Buddhist’s got one thing right! They knew a long time ago. We are so proud of hanging in there with both China and India and keeping up with their abortions.

[@foundationforlife767]

Duh

[@albertmagician8613]

@Geshe Sperm and an egg are certainly alive. What are you blabbering about? What counts are the existence of an individual.

[@gesheepistemology8050]

@@albertmagician8613 moment of conception egg head!

[@danielh1830]

Sotomayer has no idea what she is talking about regarding what is and isn't brain dead.

[@glorywardlaw9014]

20 years ago To USA Supreme Court. When I went into the Hospital for help because I am Homeless no income; What was asked? When did your last period come?. Eyes and laws all on me. Asked because the church put me out on 4/23/2002. 3 days to change their minds by 4/26/2002. Now I applied and contacted the State of New York all this time for New York State Public Assistance. Can not say Disability. Social Worker Never came to hospital as many times in beginning dates 10/14/2002 to November 28, 2002 I wait for worker to come in morning.

[@sammarchant2703]

Just Soto Mayor literally just pointed to freedom of religion as something that is not listed in the constitution, but that the court deduced from it's structure. It wasn't "deduced from it's structure"

[@ladeacarr4245]

yep judicial review... grants the supreme court power to interpret the constitution to ensure it remains a living documemt

[@mobilizedpanda3795]

Wrong. 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" It is written very clearly in the first amendment that congress cannot make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. How is this "not listed" or "deduced from structure." It is true that the court has always had to interpret how religious freedom is protected (the same as any other right) but to claim the right itself came from judicial review is factually incorrect.

[@sammarchant2703]

@@ladeacarr4245 yeah how stupid can you get. It's explicitly written in the 1st amendment. That's the point.

[@derkaderkastan420]

@@mobilizedpanda3795 sotomayor is constantly incorrect. She’s the breathing form of “if diversity hire was a person “

[@STIKY55]

@@mobilizedpanda3795 I mean the form that "respecting an establishment of religion" literally could mean anything. without a court to interpret what that means you don't have a law you just have words..

[@penguin902]

I'm "pro choice" but I can understand the argument of leaving it up to the states. The fact that it's difficult in some states is just...the states fault. It's annoying. It's sad. But it's not really a legal issue. Making it a 'rights' issues seems to be the only argument to uphold Roe. It's definitely not as cut and dry and black and white as both the Left and Right make it seem. Imo

[@thunderthumbz3293]

I am against the choice to kill others. This needs to be in the states as it always should have been. If people understood how our republic was supposed to work they would realize the federal government was supposed to be involved in very little of our lives and we were to be free to resolve what freedoms we want in our states.

[@rosedrown4925]

Murder is not a right.Drs are forbidden by oath to do ANY harm to a patient.Murder has no statute of limitations.

[@priestessofcycles]

Making it a "rights" issue? Having certain "rights" is the basis of our whole government. That seems like a pretty important thing for our federal government to help secure.

[@rosedrown4925]

Crime is not a religious issue or tea topic.Crime is a safety issue.Sin/immorality/crime is evil.Evil unleashed demons and destroys intelligence,character,integrity...things that belong in parents if children are to be safe while blooming.Superficial look at anything doesn't consider all factors involved.Doctors free to murder patients is not progress of any kind..

[@ashleygheuxphukyorself7276]

@@thunderthumbz3293 well said. You're absolutely right!

[@paxdriver]

Wooooow absolutely nailed this line of questioning at~ 1:31:00 Elizabeth is so damn brilliant.

[@Yatlick]

It's embarrassing that Sotomayor only asks questions from the perspective of a policy maker, not as an interpreter of the law. She doesn't even know what her job is.

[@wernerfoerster3666]

That's nothing new. Liberal activist jusges who saw themselves as Kings and Super-legislatures started making up laws wholesale with the Warren court. Eg "sustantive due process". The result was predictable: the politicization of the Court.

[@Refresh5406]

Mr Stewart really should have argued that if Roe is upheld, all fetal homicide laws should be struck down. Really force them to confront the truth, that every single person on earth knows that a fetus is a living human worthy of protecting. There is not one single coherent argument in favor of abortion, period.

[@latoyarichards9507]

Well taxes need to be levied to take care of these unwanted beings. More money from the government to tackle the impending child abuse rates that will no doubt sky rocket. Housing, food and all other cost that will sky rocket will need to funded by the government that will cost tax payers ridiculous amounts. Do you propose a better solution?

[@jektonoporkins5025]

@@latoyarichards9507 You’re right, only the babies of rich people that can afford to keep them should be allowed to live. All the poor babies should be aborted. Think of all the money we could save!

[@themise1416]

Julie Rikelman on behalf of the Center for Reproductive Rights does a good job of defending her position that the viability test (ability to survive outside of womb) represents a good balance between right of foetus/unborn child and right of women to autonomy over their bodies. Not easy under intense questioning.

[@HitsTownUSA]

Viability is when the fetus develops a heartbeat can be argued as well. Just because a fetus cannot survive outside the womb at a certain point in the pregnancy does not mean it's not viable. This was a ruling that was made up out of thin air and was not backed by science. That is like saying a man punches a pregnant woman in the stomach and as long as it's prior to 22 weeks then the man cannot be charged with murder of the unborn fetus. Good luck beating that wrap in court.

[@johnlove2954]

No

[@kimmiewise1044]

The problem is that no where in the constitution does viability come up either implicitly or explicitly through common law or our tradition of ordered liberty. Viability was dreamed up whole cloth by Casey in a nasty split decision. It’s legislation being shrines as case law rather than as what it is, legislative language.

[@wednesdayschild3627]

What if it is one day and 20 weeks? What if viability is different for different babies? What if it is 22 weeks for some or 25? What if medical science progresses to the point where the child can be viable with medical help earlier? That is why a state should decide. The decisions should be closer to people and medical professionals.

[@johnyoung1761]

Well, on the first question, from Justice Thomas, she declined to answer or did not understand the question whether if it is okay to abort early it should also be okay to harm with drugs early. It's just as hard to answer at a state level but she did not suggest any constitutional basis for making a distinction . . . Also had a tough time with Alito's question of what in the unwanting mother's interest or in the creature-in-development at the point of viability. You COULD make an answer but she didn't.

[@user-cl9tm6cn9k]

Thank you

[@dionnefreelance]

Do they have a men's health organization

[@mizzyroro]

I haven't listened to the full oral arguments. I am at 33 minutes in. So far I am surprised how much it is less about arguing the law but more about ideological or perhaps I could say political arguements.

[@messybuttons7525]

I’m having the same reaction.

[@josh-mf7lt]

Yeah Sotomayor says she's worried about looking like a political actor for striking rvw down but she looks way worse here arguing and cutting off the man at every turn while clearly arguing for rvw rather than just calmly judging a single full sentence from the man.

[@avzeolla3960]

Great arguments on both sides and tough questions from the justices. Wow.

[@mirio-jk]

You rarely get to hear educated people arguing differently points of view respectfully these days

[@avzeolla3960]

Yes you are right

[@helenbeam7586]

This court has clearly sided with religious beliefs and are not logically coming to a conclusion based on false presentation of biological science due to the religious extreme beliefs which a religious belief is what is being used to end freedom of American citizens right to freedom choice and protection of privacy to decide the autonomy based on biased religious beliefs to end these rights to Constitutional protection under the law of a democracy not a theocracy. People have the right to freely worship, but to use religious beliefs to not protect freedom and autonomy. History has shown religious beliefs endanger freedom and protection of citizens. Religions endanger freedom. This should be backed by rule of law for religious beliefs are illogical therefore unconstitutional. The Constitution does not recognize the unborn as life.

[@rowell669]

What damage has roe caused this country? None! Absolutely none! One in four women will have an abortion, but the prolife people can’t name any names, can they? Because abortions haven’t affected them in any way whatsoever. In fact, if they’d mind their own damn business, they would never be aware of anyone having an abortion. But the health and well-being of the women who had abortions were at stake. I would be beside myself if I knew I had to give birth to an unplanned pregnancy. I do not want children at all! I don’t want to be pregnant, at all! It’s not hard at all to get pregnant accidentally.

[@thaddeuspawlicki4707]

I think Kavanaugh suggested a good idea in that the SCOTUS could remain "neutral" and let the states decide.

[@notnotrachel]

“if you remain neutral in situations of injustice, you are choosing the side of the oppressor” it’s just a cop out answer

[@thaddeuspawlicki4707]

@@notnotrachel That is bullshit. The injustice is being done against the babies who are being murdered. The SCOTUS taking a neutral stance will allow the states to work out and try different solutions - allowing the best to prosper. It's you who is denying the reality that you are advocating child abuse and murder of babies.

[@notnotrachel]

@@thaddeuspawlicki4707 overturning roe won’t stop abortions, it will just stop safe abortions and will mostly effect women of color and of lower socioeconomic status. the issue isn’t abortions, it’s unplanned pregnancies and bad sex education in schools. do you believe that comprehensive sex education should be required in public schools? do you believe that birth control should be made readily available to all who seek access? if you don’t, then you’re contributing to the problem you want to eradicate. virtually all other developed countries have reproductive laws on the federal level for clarity. if i, as a woman, am given liberty under the constitution, why shouldn’t i be able to exercise MY liberty by deciding what to do with MY body through a safe medical procedure? why does the government get to dictate that? should men be fined every time they masturbate because of all the potential loss of life? we’re talking about millions of babies in the making, even if they’re microscopic, they contain the DNA of life… surely someone that’s pro-life would agree with that

[@thaddeuspawlicki4707]

@@notnotrachel Your liberty does not give you the right to murder your child.

[@thaddeuspawlicki4707]

@@notnotrachel Overturning Roe would allow people in each state to structure the regulations the way that suits their consciences. You don't want people to dictate to you, but you want to dictate your views to others.

[@richardhunter1467]

Men and women are equal under the law but wildly different by nature and biology.

[@tonyoconnor1892]

What if you're transgender? lmao

[@johnsmith1474]

Such a Manichean review of humanity is old hat, full of holes, does not say anything & is thus not even interesting.

[@miguelvalencia4823]

@@tonyoconnor1892 Doesn’t make a difference. Your DNA can’t be manipulated so you’re stuck in it’s what you are born with.

[@undomiel152003]

@@miguelvalencia4823 Behavior is largely part by social conditioning though. If you are taught all subjects and are given the same level playing field. Both sexes can pick either same areas or completely different ones, based on personality and again social upbringing.

[@michaelcarter7079]

@@tonyoconnor1892, being transgender is a behavioral concern, its not based on science. A person is either born Male or female. This is established at the point of conception where DNA and all traits are what you are biologically. Same with homosexuality is based on behavior, not on true science. There is no such thing as I am aware of a transgender gene or a homosexual gene. What confuses us is that some people have more testosterone or estrogen than others giving us the characteristics of what we would say that's a boy or a girl. Giving a girl hormone therapy doesn't make a girl a boy, or a boy a girl. Going through puberty sometimes a rush of hormones might make us think differently, but after that rush slows down, a boy will become a man, and a girl becomes a woman.

[@aimsmallcq1218]

Many arguments hold that a young woman can't be held responsible for planning all pregnancies, I agree, but somehow a guy of a similar age can be held financially responsible for Eighteen years for it. A bit hypocritical.

[@helenbeam7586]

Previous Supreme Court justices who were religious followed the rule of law not the rule of religion. Religious reasons are based on beliefs not science and facts of rule of biological laws. The state governments are not expert in application for they are using religious reasons. This nation permits freedom to worship, not to freely use religious beliefs to limit freedom. The justices now are against freedom based on rule of religion not on rule of law. The majority of Americans are for Roe being upheld. This is a democratic republic not a theocratic republic. This is the wisdom of why the Founding Fathers thought one religion should not be on the foundation of this democratic republic. The Constitution permits freedom to worship, not to impose a religious belief as law. Religious beliefs limit freedom.

[@mariebeckshaw6306]

i took one look at the comments section and immediately scrolled back up. the stupidity made my brain hurt.