The Stupidity of the RvW Overturn Demonstrations

[DGS49]

I have heard and seen numerous reports and speculations about "demonstrations" in protest of the anticipated USSC decision that overturns RvW.

In the first place, there is nothing that can be done or said in a "demonstration" that will influence any of the Justices on the Supreme Court. Same for any appellate court. It's just stupid. Regardless of why the Justices are leaning they way that they are, public opinion is not a factor. It's like arguing to the Commissioner of Baseball that the team with fewer runs should occasionally win the game. Don't bother.

Second, if any of them had actually read the draft opinion, they would see that NONE of the justification for the decision is based on abortion policy - whether it is a good or bad idea for Government to prohibit or allow abortion under various circumstances. So any arguments on the wisdom or folly of abortion restrictions is falling on deaf ears. They DON'T CARE! The decision was based entirely on Constitutional analysis. (1) The Constitutional "right" on which RvW was based does not exist, and (2) This is a public policy matter that should be decided by the peoples' representatives in the legislatures, NOT in the courts.

The demonstrations are, and will continue to be, stupid and pointless.

 

[Moonglow]

The demonstrations are, and will continue to be, stupid and pointless.

The demonstrations are to let people know where they stand and are lobbying the justices.

 

[fncceo]

The demonstrations are to let people know where they stand and are lobbying the justices.

Threaten, Lobby ...

To-MAY-to, To-MAH-to.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The demonstrations are to let people know where they stand and are lobbying the justices.

Lobbying the Justices are not legal.

 

[White 6]

I have heard and seen numerous reports and speculations about "demonstrations" in protest of the anticipated USSC decision that overturns RvW.

In the first place, there is nothing that can be done or said in a "demonstration" that will influence any of the Justices on the Supreme Court. Same for any appellate court. It's just stupid. Regardless of why the Justices are leaning they way that they are, public opinion is not a factor. It's like arguing to the Commissioner of Baseball that the team with fewer runs should occasionally win the game. Don't bother.

Second, if any of them had actually read the draft opinion, they would see that NONE of the justification for the decision is based on abortion policy - whether it is a good or bad idea for Government to prohibit or allow abortion under various circumstances. So any arguments on the wisdom or folly of abortion restrictions is falling on deaf ears. They DON'T CARE! The decision was based entirely on Constitutional analysis. (1) The Constitutional "right" on which RvW was based does not exist, and (2) This is a public policy matter that should be decided by the peoples' representatives in the legislatures, NOT in the courts.

The demonstrations are, and will continue to be, stupid and pointless.

The real question is, if they demonstrate, what store do they break into after dark and what do they steal? Think they'll go for the Pampers and Huggies, baby food and formula?

 

[WelfareQueen]

The demonstrations are to let people know where they stand and are lobbying the justices.

It's an Insurrection!!!!!

 

[Pellinore]

1. They're allowed to protest, and they don't have to justify it.
2. Their protests are also sending a message to Congress, both Houses of which currently have Democratic majorities. They could draft and pass abortion legislation (carving out a filibuster exception or nixing it altogether; if the decision really is just all about giving it to elected officials, the Justices should let that just sail on through. Orrrrr ...
3. We're also less than six months from Election Day, and the protests are also a message to the voters to mobilize to defend Roe.
4. Also, remember it is just a draft. There is still plenty of time to pressure the Justices to soften or change their stances, or just set aside the whole issue.

 

[Pellinore]

The real question is, if they demonstrate, what store do they break into after dark and what do they steal? Think they'll go for the Pampers and Huggies, baby food and formula?

They'll be takin' these Huggies, and, uh, whatever cash you got.

 

[fncceo]

Lobbying the Justices are not legal.

It's not illegal to express your opinions to a SC Justice ... however ...

Unlike a legislator, the justice is not beholding to your feelings and opinions.

To the contrary, the justice is beholding to The Constitution, precedent of previous decisions, and his own interpretation of law.

He might find your emotional, uniformed opinion thrown into his (or her) face a bit impertinent and insulting.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It's not illegal to express your opinions to a SC Justice ... however ...

Unlike a legislator, the justice is not beholding to your feelings and opinions.

To the contrary, the justice is beholding to The Constitution, precedent of previous decisions, and his own interpretation of law.

He might find your emotional, uniformed opinion thrown into his (or her) face a bit impertinent and insulting.

Lobbying isn't the same as protesting.

 

[Manonthestreet]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have heard and seen numerous reports and speculations about "demonstrations" in protest of the anticipated USSC decision that overturns RvW.

In the first place, there is nothing that can be done or said in a "demonstration" that will influence any of the Justices on the Supreme Court. Same for any appellate court. It's just stupid. Regardless of why the Justices are leaning they way that they are, public opinion is not a factor. It's like arguing to the Commissioner of Baseball that the team with fewer runs should occasionally win the game. Don't bother.

Second, if any of them had actually read the draft opinion, they would see that NONE of the justification for the decision is based on abortion policy - whether it is a good or bad idea for Government to prohibit or allow abortion under various circumstances. So any arguments on the wisdom or folly of abortion restrictions is falling on deaf ears. They DON'T CARE! The decision was based entirely on Constitutional analysis. (1) The Constitutional "right" on which RvW was based does not exist, and (2) This is a public policy matter that should be decided by the peoples' representatives in the legislatures, NOT in the courts.

The demonstrations are, and will continue to be, stupid and pointless.

Americans demonstrating in opposition to the right to privacy being overturned is perfectly appropriate and warranted – nothing ‘stupid’ about it.

Unless of course conservatives are planning to also overturn the First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[foggedinn]

The abortion activists are talking about congress passing a law to make it legal nationwide.
If as I suspect, the decision is based on states rights, any law passed by congress would be unconstitutional on its face. The justices would be returning the decision to the various states.

 

[DGS49]

Demonstrating your unhappiness with the partial overturn of the "right to privacy" is indeed stupid, since that right has never actually existed. It is stupid because the Supreme Court has NO POWER to implement public policy - that being the province of the LEGISLATURES. Demonstrating to a Supreme Court Justice is stupid because those individuals are so much more knowledgeable of the issues than the demonstrators that it can accomplish nothing other than irritating them.

For the record, Conservatives have no desire or intention to "overturn" anything that is actually in the Constitution, as contrasted with the mythical "right" to privacy.

 

[White 6]

Demonstrating your unhappiness with the partial overturn of the "right to privacy" is indeed stupid, since that right has never actually existed. It is stupid because the Supreme Court has NO POWER to implement public policy - that being the province of the LEGISLATURES. Demonstrating to a Supreme Court Justice is stupid because those individuals are so much more knowledgeable of the issues than the demonstrators that it can accomplish nothing other than irritating them.

For the record, Conservatives have no desire or intention to "overturn" anything that is actually in the Constitution, as contrasted with the mythical "right" to privacy.

It should have no power to implement public policy, but there is no denying that it has, time and again, to the point some people think it normal or even should.

I agree, the Supremes are usually more knowledgeable. Though, I have no problem with people demonstrating to them and for their consumption. That is, as long as there are no acts of violence, destruction or threats of harm. That is the rub, though in these politically charged times. Violence is a mainstay of human nature, like it or not.

 

[d0gbreath]

Nine people pouring over a single page so that they can write a 100 page (leaked) document to explain why they think like they do?

Too much information.

 

[Zincwarrior]

They'll be takin' these Huggies, and, uh, whatever cash you got.

View attachment 641812

A true classic film.

 

[PeanutGallery]

1. They're allowed to protest, and they don't have to justify it.
2. Their protests are also sending a message to Congress, both Houses of which currently have Democratic majorities. They could draft and pass abortion legislation (carving out a filibuster exception or nixing it altogether; if the decision really is just all about giving it to elected officials, the Justices should let that just sail on through. Orrrrr ...
3. We're also less than six months from Election Day, and the protests are also a message to the voters to mobilize to defend Roe.
4. Also, remember it is just a draft. There is still plenty of time to pressure the Justices to soften or change their stances, or just set aside the whole issue.

Actually, 18 Code 1507, it's against federal law to protest outside a judge's house to try and pressure or change their stances on a decision. The question will be will Merrick Garland enforce the law or not. Anyway, you sound like one of those people who believe that abortion will go away if RvW is overturned.