U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 02, 2022 06:50 PM UTC

Cory's Revenge: SCOTUS Has Voted To Overturn Roe v. Wade

  • 42 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols
Ex-Sen. Cory Gardner (R), laughing last.

A development shocking for its immediacy if not wholly unexpected, Politico reporting via an unprecedented leak that the U.S. Supreme Court has voted to overturn both Roe v. Wade and its affirming subsequent decision Casey v. Planned Parenthood, throwing abortion rights into jeopardy across the nation where statutory and/or constitutional protections do not already exist, and triggering total bans on the procedure in a number of states:

The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision – Planned Parenthood v. Casey – that largely maintained the right. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito writes.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” he writes in the document, labeled as the “Opinion of the Court.” “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

Deliberations on controversial cases have in the past been fluid. Justices can and sometimes do change their votes as draft opinions circulate and major decisions can be subject to multiple drafts and vote-trading, sometimes until just days before a decision is unveiled. The court’s holding will not be final until it is published, likely in the next two months…

That we are even reading this draft decision is indicative of something very unusual going on behind the scenes, reflecting the gravity of the situation:

No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending. The unprecedented revelation is bound to intensify the debate over what was already the most controversial case on the docket this term.

We’ll update as local reaction comes in. This is a moment both long foreseen and long denied could ever happen by Colorado Republicans seeking to win elections despite their records in this avowedly pro-choice state. Having passed legislation codifying abortion rights in statute just this session and already seeing huge increases in patients coming to Colorado, our state is now a haven for abortion care that will soon be unavailable to millions of Americans.

And why is this happening? Because you were lied to, voters of Colorado. Authoritative voices you thought you could trust like the Denver Post’s editorial board told you that “[Cory] Gardner’s election would pose no threat to abortion rights,” and then Cory Gardner went on to vote for three right-wing Justices in his single term that undid conventional wisdom and made the “unthinkable” today’s reality. More than any other factor under the control of Colorado voters, that is why we are here today.

If nothing else, the consequences of ever letting a mistake like Cory Gardner happen again should be plain.

Tweet
Share

Comments

42 thoughts on “Cory’s Revenge: SCOTUS Has Voted To Overturn Roe v. Wade”

    2. I will never forget that ditzy statement Collins made when explaining her vote on Kavanaugh:  "But he respects precedent!"

      Yeah, as an intermediate appellate judge, he had no choice but to respect precedent. As a Supreme Court justice, he makes the precedents.

      I don't know what was worse:  that or her statement explaining her vote to acquit Trump in his first impeachment trial when she said, "I think he's learned his lesson."

      1. I'm hoping Collins will be the poster child for why people ought not vote for "reasonable Republicans." 

        Her statement today

        “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office," Collins said. "Obviously, we won’t know each Justice’s decision and reasoning until the Supreme Court officially announces its opinion in this case.”

        But there are no "do-overs" on judicial confirmations, Nor is there any tribunal that holds Supreme Court Justices to a Judicial Code of Ethics. 

        The only ray of sunshine on this matter is Chief Justice Roberts, commenting on the leak, says

        “Although the document described in yesterday’s reports is authentic, it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.”

    1. The “editorial board” doesn’t run the paper.  As the late Editorial Page editor Sue O’Brien said when The Post endorsed Bill Owens for governor over Gail Schoettler:

       “The editor of the editorial page has one vote.  The editor of the whole paper has two votes.  The publisher has three votes.

      ” And the publisher breaks ties. “

  3. Yep, this sums it up pretty well:

    And why is this happening? Because you were lied to, voters of Colorado. Authoritative voices you thought you could trust like the Denver Post’s editorial board told you that “[Cory] Gardner’s election would pose no threat to abortion rights,” and then Cory Gardner went on to vote for three right-wing Justices in his single term that undid conventional wisdom and made the “unthinkable” today’s reality. More than any other factor under the control of Colorado voters, that is why we are here today.

    If nothing else, the consequences of ever letting a mistake like Cory Gardner happen again should be plain.

    And I remember all the post-election complaints that Udall had focussed too much on the abortion issue. I agree that a good campaign should focus on multiple issues that address the needs and desires of multiple constituencies.

    Not to blame women or young people as a demographic, but if you care about an issue, you need to engage yourself in the process. Tell your friends,  put your money and effort in. Too often I hear that both parties are the same or that my personal efforts won't have an effect.

     

  4. All I can think about are the sexually assaulted young girls – often assaulted by a relative – who could be forced to carry a fetus to term. I'm talking about YOUNG assault victims, sometimes as young as 10, 11, 12 – I know from working for years in a child protection-related field.

    This country is headed in a truly horrifying direction.

    1. November just got turned inside-out and shaken. No sleepy mid-term election wll this be. Furious pro-choice women and the men who love them will flock to the polls to turn out anti-choice candidates and incumbents. And, once again, the right-wingers did it to themselves.

      1. Cook, I hope you are right.

        I am just afraid that when swing voters are confronted with paying more for gasoline and food versus a constitutional right, the empty stomach and gas tank will drive the decisions of too many people.

        Here's a suggestion for the Dems:  why not work on a plan to address inflation AND talk about the overruling of Roe. It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

        1. I'll ask:  when has ANY action of Congress been able to do much of anything against a global inflationary spiral?   Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and its 38 national members benchmark a variety of issues.  Using the most recent available data:

          all OECD — food up 10%, total up 8.8%, and core (no food and energy) is 5.9% 

          US  — food up 10%, total up 8.5%, and core is up 6.5%

          The Fed will act on interest rates — probably 0.5% in the meeting this week — in an attempt "to discourage spending just enough to bring down inflation, without tipping the economy into recession — what economists call a "soft landing." That will mean variable rate loans and new loans will pay more.  If it DOES trigger a recession, as many are anticipating, we'll be back to higher unemployment, too.

      2. There have been about 50 million abortions since Roe.  That’s 50 million voters that have been branded murderers.  Okay, some are dead, some had multiple abortions, and some were already voting Democrats.  Call it 20 million new Democratic voters./p>

        I hope the cook is right.  Mitch has to be doing his numbers all over again.

        2. If there is a silver lining here I believe the dynamics of the mid-terms just got turned upside down. We never seem to “miss a chance to miss a chance” but the narrative won’t be suffocated entirely by their framing of inflation / gas price. BTW, I read somewhere yesterday that homeowners nationally are benefitting from a $6 trillion windfall as housing prices rise and equity expands. Out east we have the usual suspects complaining about the price of inputs while they’re simultaneously forward contracting their crops at prices never seen before. 

    1. Off the top of my head: Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird, Lawrence v. Texas, Windsor v. U.S., Obergefell v. Hodges, and any other decision predicated on a right to privacy.

    2. Griswold and Eisenstadt; SCOTUS decisions that affirm a right to access contraception; are already getting attention from far right politicians as a “violation” of states rights.

      (just noticed that Cook beat me by two minutes)

      Loving v. Virginia has also gained some attention.

      2. Why stop there?  Heart of Atlanta Motel, Brown, Miranda, Gideon–is there an end to the raw originalist madness?  And the 2024 election could well lead to the adoption of the independent state legislature doctrine.  

        Now, how does "O, Canada" go?

  6. When what's left of the Denver Post finally dries up and blows away, the world will be a slightly better place.

    Let's continue our trip down Memory Lane with video apropos of Michael's reference to Susan Collins and her 2018 statements about the right to choose being safe in the hands of the rapey alcoholic manbaby.

    1. Maybe stare decisis only applies to lower level Courts. The Supreme Court is more like the Pope. With a direct line to god, you decide to do anything you like.

      1. That is a very apt analogy. Their decisions aren't controlling because they are right or sound, but because they are final.

  7. Heather Cox-Richardson is good this morning, May 2, 2022. 

    Tonight, news broke of a leaked draft of what appears to be Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s majority decision overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision establishing access to abortion as a constitutional right.

    That news is an alarm like the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision declaring both that Black Americans had no rights that a white man was bound to respect and that Congress had no power to prohibit human enslavement in the territories. The Dred Scott decision left the question of enslavement not to the national majority, which wanted to prohibit it from western lands, but to state and territorial legislatures that limited voting to white men.

    …

    And so here we are. A minority, placed in control of the U.S. Supreme Court by a president who received a minority of the popular vote and then, when he lost reelection, tried to overturn our democracy, is explicitly taking away a constitutional right that has been protected for fifty years. Its attack on federal protection of civil rights applies not just to abortion, but to all the protections put in place since World War II: the right to use birth control, marry whomever you wish, live in desegregated spaces, and so on.

    1. Boom.  Five unelected aristocrats-for-life, three of whom were appointed by a con man who lost the popular vote to Hillary by three million votes and confirmed by a Senate majority that represents far less than 50% of this country.  

    1. Analysts and pundits say this leak has ruined the legitimacy of the court ?  Seriously? One Justice tried to rape a girl and another harassed women and then helped his wife plan a coup. One seat was stolen by Mitch. Five of the justices have been appointed by a POTUS who lost the popular vote. 
       

      KKKeeerist on a pogo stick (thanks, V) 

      1. "Analysts and pundits say this leak has ruined the legitimacy of the court?  Seriously?"

        And let's not forget that Bush v. Gore case decided in 2000.

  9. The analogy of the dog who finally catches the car comes to mind.  Republican dreams of retaking Congress are now exposed to forces beyond their control.  Maybe the court can release their decision on May 9th.  Pyrrhic parades around the world.  

  10. Protesters are assembling at courthouses and Federal buildings today at 5 pm. I don't think I'll drag my grandkids out to a protest this evening, but I'm sure there will be ample opportunities to do so in the coming months. The erosion of bodily autonomy and privacy  will affect their future lives.

    It sucks that we have to do all this again. 

     

    1. I'm saving protest for when there is a final decision announced — probably late in June. 

      It is possible the RWN wing of the Supreme Court won't fully agree and result is a decision on the 13-week ban is clear but there is no full override of Roe. The worst outcome will have been muted by moderate concurring opinions (I fully expect one from Roberts). 

  12. Kate Riga at TPM points out that "Alito's draft opinion sets the terms for outlawing abortion everywhere."

    The document holds the kind of clues that will not elude those in the rightwing legal space marching towards the next theater in the abortion wars. 

    ‘Privileged Moral Status’ 

    The primary banner under which anti-abortion activists push for a nationwide prohibition of abortion is fetal personhood, the idea that fetuses are imbued with rights under the 14th Amendment. 

    The once-fringe argument has already permeated the rightwing bloodstream, though we’ve had few data points with which to guess how amenable the justices would be to it. Justice Clarence Thomas seemed receptive in a 2019 concurrence where he cited a belief that abortion is “racial genocide.” 

    1. Also from Kate Riga "The Draft Opinion Is An Untempered Victory Lap Reveling In Roe’s Demise"

      For a long time, the conventional wisdom was that Roe’s death would come in 1,000 cuts. 

      The calculus was a political one — that the conservative justices, loath to spark a liberal backlash, would defang Roe in small, probably boring, ways that would escape the attention of casual observers. 

      As a theory, it made sense. Many red states have had great success all but killing abortion access within their boundaries already by micro-legislating things like counter height in abortion clinics and admitting privileges for their doctors.

      But the conservative justices upended that belief back in December, when they less tiptoed and more stomped on the rhetorical eggshells surrounding the overturning of a 50-year precedent. Excepting Chief Justice John Roberts, they didn’t dither over the details of the 15-week ban Mississippi was theoretically interested in; they treated the case like what it was, an opening to overturn abortion rights. 

      The leaked draft is the natural conclusion of that attitude. 

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

79 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!