Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

436

Where did the initial push to put this in front of the court come from? I've done a little searching but admit not much - there's just too much REEE out there right now and I can't seem to find the answer I'm looking for.

Where did the initial push to put this in front of the court come from? I've done a little searching but admit not much - there's just too much REEE out there right now and I can't seem to find the answer I'm looking for.

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] • 3 pts

Dobbs vs Jackson. A case out of Mississippi.

[–] • 3 pts

Thank you, that's what I was looking for.

Interesting that the court decided to rule on this case, it would have been easy to just toss it aside.

[–] [deleted] • 4 pts

You're welcome.

They didn't have to stir the pot but they did. Between this and the NY ruling, an alignment with the constitution is happening.

[–] • 1 pt

What's hilarious is the Mississippi law was only to prevent abortions after 15 weeks.

Dems were greedy for later baby murdering..... and look where it got them.

[–] • 1 pt

Oy Vey , killing babies saves lives, goyim

[–] • 1 pt

As does taking the vaxxeses! Take more!

[–] • 0 pt

So they could have an excuse for rigging the midterms.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Who decides which cases the court takes and how is it decided?

[–] • 1 pt

The justices vote on which cases they "accept" or grant a writ of certiorari to.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Wikipedia says the chief justice (Roberts) has disproportionate say in which cases to accept.

[–] • 0 pt

From a strictly legal standpoint the principle of "substantive due process", which the Roe and Casey courts used to justify legal protections has very little basis in law or tradition. The concept is basically that the court can use substantive due process to protect a right that is not specifically enumerated by the constitution. In practice, it's some left wing bullshit to justify the Court making up new rights out of whole cloth. It has also been popular when the SCOTUS feels like playing JV legislature and decides a political question that should be decided by Congress. It gets trotted out when they can't shoe horn a decision into some other constitutional provision like equal protection.

[–] • 1 pt

Correct. That's why Thomas is being celebrated for trying to get this principle thrown out. Then other cases can be looked at and possibly overturned.

SCOTUS was never meant to be another legislative body. Only an enforcer of what's constitutional or not.

[–] • 0 pt

Where this came about is gone over in the first 2 pages of the opinion. Read it. It says where it starts, how it starts and the path through various levels of courts before it got to SCOTUS. This is how SCOTUS cases happen. The opinion always tells the history of the case.

[–] • -1 pt

Democrats know that they are going to have to cheat harder this November and are stirring up their base.