Today in Supreme Court History: April 22, 1992

4/22/1992: Planned Parenthood v. Casey argued.

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

A day that will live in infamy.
Oh, wait. Wrong event.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually, it *is* a day that lives in infamy -- a majority of the court had been appointed during the 12 years of Reagan/Bush (41), who had been elected by the pro-life movement and this is what we got.

The thing that pisses me off the most about this case was the banning of the spousal notification affidavit -- if the state can force the husband to pay for the child, then the husband should have a say in if the child is aborted. What about his rights???

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, you can draw a line straight from this case to Trump: That's when the right started to figure out that the institutional GOP were playing them for fools. Though the civil war inside the GOP didn't really turn hot until the late 90's, when it was proven that electing a Republican Congress wouldn't get you right-wing legislation.

[Sarcastr0]

You're conflation of Republican with right-wing hides a lot. The voters don't want right-wing legislation.

And a quick glance at the right's angry populism these days will show that it's not anti-GOP establishment; that was sooo 2008. Now it's anti liberal with no consensus on what legislation should even look like. Heck, you're losing the consensus of what judges should be like.

Your thing is the institutional GOP. But your side's thing these days is a resentment aimed a thousand different ways, of which yours is a fraction.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not conflating Republican with right-wing. I'm in fact pointing out that the right learned that "Republican" DIDN'T imply "right-wing", (As they'd previously assumed.) and set out to change that!

[Magister]

Way to rewrite history to flatter your political preferences!

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was at CPAC in 2010 when the party establishment attempted to co-opt the TEA party movement as its own -- and wasn't able to. When the infamous cartoon of a cup of tea with the tag saying "GOP" was being distributed, etc. And then they tried to kneecap the TEA party by running an "under 30" event with Ann Coulter against the TEA Party's event.

This was when it became clear that there was the GOP establishment and that it was very separate from the grassroots. PP v Casey was disappointing, Bush 41 raising the tax on beer was disappointing, Newt Gingrich not accomplishing much was disappointing, but this was the firing on Fort Sumter -- it's when the Civil War in the party actually started. It's what led to Trump.

IMHO, this was when Trump became viable,

[bernard11]

Wait.

Are you saying the father should have the right to force the mother to have an abortion to avoid paying child support?

Wow. That's a bad idea if ever there was one.

I doubt you'll find much support, right, left, or center.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, the proposal you are referencing was slightly different -- it never was to force the woman to have an abortion, only to give up her rights for child support if the man gave her the money for an abortion.

In other words, if she had total choice over the child if it was "inconvenient" to her -- not just to abort it but to give it up for adoption -- then the father should have equal rights if the child was "inconvenient" for him. Hence his liability would be limited to paying all her costs and expenses for an abortion -- regardless of if she had one or not.

The issue here was the converse of that -- if both partners are equally responsible for raising the child, then both should have a chance to discuss killing the child. The important point here is that she didn't need to get her husband's permission for the abortion, only to tell him that she was going to get one.

[Magister]

So he can buy his way out of child support with a small payment, whether she has an abortion or not? He's off the hook for child support if she does have an abortion, and all you're doing is capping the total amount of child support at the cost of an abortion.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes.

Women want to be equal to men, let's treat them that way.
Women want to have total choice about if they become a parent or not -- if it is not "convenient for them to be a parent right now. Well, why shouldn't men have an equal right to make that decision.

The only other fail alternative is to ban all abortions and tell both partners "tough, you created a child, live with it."

[Brett Bellmore]

That's how it would work if the reasoning were consistent, Bernard.

[Jerry B.]

"What about his rights???"

Unless he transitions to a woman, does he have rights?

[Frank Drackman]

As much as I admired Ronaldus Maximus I (and not his Claudius like son Ronaldus Minimus Jr.) he was a bit of a pussy on the Pro-Life ish-yew, wouldn't even show up in Pubic for the protests on the Anniversary of Roe, just talking on the phone. And except for Scalia, his Court picks sucked ass.
He did keep us out of Wah though (after the boondogles in Lebanon and Grenada)

Frank

[Dan Schiavetta]

Jones v. Mississippi, 593 U.S. — (decided April 22, 2021): not “cruel and unusual punishment” to sentence juvenile to life without parole for homicide so long as it’s discretionary and not mandatory (oh thanks so much — excuse me while I vomit) (15 year old stabbed his grandfather after fight about boy’s girlfriend)

McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (decided April 22, 1987): study showing that death penalty imposed more often on black defendants as to white victims did not show specific discriminatory motivation of this jury so as to vacate death sentence

Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (decided April 22, 2014): warrantless “investigative” stop comported with Fourth Amendment where anonymous 911 caller reported that a vehicle had run her off the road; police located vehicle with reasonable suspicion of intoxication (marijuana found in car)

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. 291 (decided April 22, 2014): Court had no power to strike amendment to Michigan constitution forbidding affirmative action in public education, employment or contracting

Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (decided April 22, 2009): strict standard of 1996 immigration statute amendment as to appeal of removal orders (must show by “clear and convincing evidence” that removal order was “prohibited as a matter of law”) refers to orders to “enjoin” removal but not to “stay” removal order; traditional factors governing stays apply (Cameroon national claimed he would face persecution if he returned; removal order later vacated by Fourth Circuit, 585 F.3d 818)

Jinks v. Richland County, S.C., 538 U.S. 456 (decided April 22, 2003): upholding against Eleventh Amendment attack 28 U.S.C. §1367(d) which tolls state statutes of limitations while related federal suit is pending (§1983 action arising from mishandling of alcohol withdrawal in jail dismissed, followed by wrongful death suit in state court)

California v. Deep Sea Research, Inc., 523 U.S. 491 (decided April 22, 1998): not a violation of the Eleventh Amendment to contest with state over ownership of shipwreck; wreck was not in state’s possession (yet) even though in territorial waters

Lukhard v. Reed, 481 U.S. 368 (decided April 22, 1987): upholding against Due Process attack Reagan-era regulation classifying personal injury awards as “income” sufficient to disqualify welfare benefits even though IRS regulations say they’re not income

New York v. P.J. Video, Inc., 475 U.S. 868 (decided April 22, 1986): First Amendment implications of seizing materials listed in warrant did not change standard “probable cause” requirement (store renting videos of what today would be considered rather limp porn, including “Debbie Does Dallas” and “Deep Throat”, though the latter has a number of good jokes, e.g., the Medicare Card)

Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (decided April 22, 1968): another porn case, where the Court upholds New York statute prohibiting sale to minors

[Mr. Bumble]

Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (decided April 22, 1968): another porn case, where the Court upholds New York statute prohibiting sale to minors

RBG was a pornographer?

[Dan Schiavetta]

At first I thought this was a misprint and it was Ralph Ginzburg, publisher of some low grade porn I might have bought as a teenager. He also got into trouble. But no, it was another guy.

[Frank Drackman]

So how much jail time should a Juvenile Murderer get? any?? send him to "Juvenile Murderer Camp"?? Excuse me while I vomit in advance of your response.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action"

Loved this line from Scalia's concurrence: "Even taking this Court’s sorry line of race-based-admissions cases as a given, I find the question presented only slightly less strange: Does the Equal Protection Clause forbid a State from banning a practice that the Clause barely—and only provisionally—permits?"

[Dr. Ed 2]

As an example of how much academia has changed, the University of Maine showed _Debbie Does Dallas_ on campus in 1982. It was a packed house and a rowdy audience, inflated condoms being bounced around like beach balls, etc.

I can't imagine the outcry were this to be done today, not that the administration would ever consider doing it in the first place.

[Sarcastr0]

That's not academia changing, Ed, that's the porn industry.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The movie _Debbie Does Dallas_ could not be shown on that campus today.

Only five years later, MIT junior Adam Dershowitz (nephew of Alan Dershowitz) got in trouble for showing _Deep Throat_ at MIT. See:
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1987/12/5/a-younger-dershowitz-argues-porn-case/

But today, such an event would be shut down -- if not by the university then by mob violence.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Deep Throat, for all its lousy production values, was entertaining. Even if its premise (a woman whose clitoris is located in her throat, such that she can only reach orgasm by inhaling penises) is hilariously ridiculous. It seems hard to believe now, but this premise was what gave it "redeeming social value" so as to avoid censorship, or at least that was the winning argument in court.

And I wouldn't feel at all bad about watching it again (not that I'm so inclined) after all the noise about the sad life of Linda Boreman Marchiano (a.k.a. Linda Lovelace). I read her 1980 book, "Ordeal". Her only complaint was about her (first) husband, who abused her physically and psychologically. She said nothing bad about the porn industry, or about the director, or her co-stars, Harry Reems and Carol Connors. In fact she seems to have liked hanging out with them.

[Syd Henderson]

A counterpoint is "Chatterbox" about a woman who has a voice box in her vagina. Now it would be called "The Vagina Monologues."

[John F. Carr]

Adam and I were classmates. I was at that showing. The movie was awful. It may be that there was much worse porn out there, but I thought the movie was awful. I went to support free speech more than to watch a story about a stray clitoris.

Adam also circulated a petition regarding the policy. I signed it and the females in the lounge with me refused to sign it. They thought porn was demeaning to women and didn't want to support it. Nobody yelled or threatened violence.

The ban on porn in public was fairly new at the time. Like University of Maine, MIT had allowed open showing of pornography a few years earlier. The policy change was c. 1984.

[Krayt]

People, ever desirous of the power to censor and hurt opposition, even as they mouth otherwise, found they could invoke the power of government against their enemies by swooning like an antebellum belle at the sound of a blue joke.

That was enough, power to be had. And thus did 200 years of feminists struggling to prove women are not weak, hysterical creatures needing protection, but are strong, independent, fully formed humans with agency and autonomy, fall in half a generation.

[Krayt]

And now, the punch line: this is a hand-in-hand effort with lawyers creating new domains to sue over. To earn yachts you need massive settlements, so you can take one third of it. So the drum beat this is, golly gee whiz, the awfulest thing, to be a woman and hear a blue joke, or have to shudder and curl up like a ball if you know your university is showing a classic porno somewhere, or if your dean throws down the gauntlet, wondering publicly where the hell are all the top top female scientists, the rare ones to push humanity forward, to kick off a discussion about it, but you curl up like a kicked doggie.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's all about power -- the same people who complained about the X rated movies are now supervising productions of The Vagina Monologues (aka "A Play Called C*nt") and contests for young "ladies" to "Show Your Orgasm Voice." Places like Smith College routinely have "glitter parties" where all the young "ladies" wear is glitter. (You take a shower first so that it sticks to you, sort of.)

I had a problem with female students going out onto a window ledge (three stories above a solid concrete sidewalk) in miniskirts (and I don't believe anything under them) and then complaining about the boys looking at them.

It's all about power.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think The Vagina Monologues is X-rated?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Let me see -- celebrating a statutory rape leads one toward such a conclusion, although "X rated" is visual, not auditory.

It would get at least a "R" (likely "NC-17") rating for the scene where the women scream "CUNT" at the top of their lungs. Hence the question of if it is appropriate for high school students to perform -- and my answer is "NO."

But my larger issue is the hypocrisy -- if it's wrong to demean women, isn't it equally wrong to demean men???

[Nige]

Standing up for themelves doesn't sound weak or hysterical to me.

[Frank Drackman]

Student Commie Group at Auburn showed "Bedtime for Bonzo" during the 1980 Cam-pain, I guess to goof on Ronaldus Maximus, actually not a bad flick. They got pissed the crowd was mostly Reagan fans (it was Auburn Alabama afterall) and tried to end the movie early, Reagan only carried Alabama by 1.3% in 1980, of course back then there were still Yellow-Dog DemoKKKrats (emphasis on KKK)

Frank

[Magister]

As I recall, the more popular political take in the early 80s on campus was showing "The Killers", in which Reagan played, well, a killer.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in trans news:
Dame Edna has passed away.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don't know if Australians were entertained by her (him) or horrified. She was certainly a success elsewhere.

[Krayt]

[Mr. Bumble]

Happy Earth Day!
Celebrate saving the planet by having an abortion.

[Jerry B.]

The Washington Post suggests not having children due to the impending doom of climate change.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/04/19/climate-change-reproductive-choice-kids-childlessness/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well Issac Newton did say that the world would end in 2040...

[John F. Carr]

Or join the Church of Euthanasia. "Save the planet, kill yourself!"

[Mr. Bumble]

...and be sure to donate your body to the Soylent Company.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm celebrating Lenin's Birthday by mixing a toxic brew to remove the burnt-on grease off my stove. Usually my celebration involves burning a tire or two in celebration of Comrade Lenin.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Then husbands should not be responsible for child support, either.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you'll find out that that isn't really true for men, in some states. If you want to get a vasectomy, you'll need your wife's permission.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, to give just one example that pissed me off: The GOP took Congress due to a grass roots coalition between gun owners and pro-lifers working their asses off. Gingrich used his "Contract" to take the credit for that.

And that coalition would have been OK with that, if the 'Contract' had been seriously pursued. But, for instance, the balanced budget amendment was deliberately brought to the floor for a vote in multiple versions, in order that everyone who needed to vote for it could, without the risk of any one version getting enough votes to pass. Gingrich excused this by saying, essentially, "I never promised we'd try to pass any of this, just that you'd get a vote."

Well, if he wasn't going to try to pass any of it, what use was he?

[Magister]

Combined with less financial power, given pay disparities (no matter how you rationalize them).

[Dr. Ed 2]

To pay child support, men are often forced to take jobs with high rates of injury and death. Look at the on-the-job death rates sometime, ain't a lot of folk dying from papercuts.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I stopped going to CPAC when it stopped being in DC.

It's all about the money now -- and is sparsely attended...

[Brett Bellmore]

The difference between going down fighting, and taking a dive, is that in the former case you were at least TRYING to win.

Gingrich didn't fail to pass the balanced budget amendment. He made sure it didn't pass. That means he wasn't an ineffectual ally to the right, he was a covert enemy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

College-educated childless women under age 35 now earn MORE than college-educated childless men under age 35.

BOTH earn less than the male executive in his 60's, and that skews the pay evaluations. But amongst peers, young women earn MORE.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And not killing the child doesn't?

[Brett Bellmore]

Duties the mother, but not the father, can escape by means such as adoption.

[Brett Bellmore]

I was going by this.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I’d already lost one student that week to an OUI car crash, and I really didn’t want to lose two more. In fact, my first words to the young ladies (one of whom was one of my RAs), was “are you trying to see if you can get me to go two for two for funerals this week?

I don’t care if a women is wearing a man’s 3 piece suit, complete with tie and men’s dress shoes — if she falls THREE stories and lands on a SOLID concrete sidewalk, she’s going to be DEAD. And telling parents that their kids are dead really sucks.

And you call me a “creep” for not wanting to send kids home to their parents in body bags? Do you *have* children, or know anyone who does?!?!?

I hope that you have to someday give parents the absolute worst news that they will ever hear — it does something to you and it ain’t good.

[Magister]

That is not true, although earnings of women in that situation are closer to men. But if it were true, that would simply create additional financial coercion of women to have abortions. Dr Ed 2's positions on these matters are inconsistent.

(It is not clear if Dr Ed 2 experienced involuntary mental health commitment due to his delusions.)

[Magister]

Maybe they shouldn't get a woman pregnant if they can't afford it?

[Nige]

Once the child is born, no.

[Sarcastr0]

Didn't you say you saw a buncha NAMBLA activity there? I'd think that'd be why you stopped going.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm describing how the right sees the matter. That you don't see it that way hardly matters, because they're going to act on how they see things, not how you see them.

The institutional GOP had long used being in the minority to excuse failing to fulfill campaign promises. When they ended up in the majority and still managed to not fulfill them, the excuse fell apart, and they were seen to be, not fighting the good fight and losing, but deliberately taking a dive. It's really hard to disguise taking a dive when you're in the majority!

Take a look at the first two years of Trump's time as President: A Republican President, Senate, and House. The right should have been stacking up one policy win after another, and basically ended up with bupkis. Why?

Because the GOP establishment's campaign promises were lies, that's why.

The GOP has been embroiled in a civil war since the 90's, because the people at the top, the establishment, don't agree with their voting base about all that much, really, and are determined not to deliver on the promises they hate having to make to get elected.

12 years of Republicans picking Supreme court justices leading up to Casey was just an early sign of that determination...

[Nige]

‘The right should have been stacking up one policy win after another, and basically ended up with bupkis.’

How dare you. You got massive tax cuts for the wealthy. You got a ramshackle wall the served as a vehicle for fraud. You got families seperated at the border. Pfft. Ungrateful!

[David Nieporent]

I think you’ll find out that that isn’t really true for men, in some states. If you want to get a vasectomy, you’ll need your wife’s permission.

I'll think you find that… no.

[Brett Bellmore]

The bottom line is, women want to lose all the differences in treatment that were to their disadvantage, while retaining all the differences in treatment that were to their advantage.

[Nige]

Well, yeah, you say that like it's a bad thing, like there really ought to be some way to disadvantage women in case they get full of themselves.