49 votes

Leaked draft opinion show the Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights

68 comments

  1. [30]
    dubteedub
    Link
    It should be clear to anyone watching that this is just the beginning for a conservative SCOTUS. Republicans are going to claw back Civil Rights decades into the past. They are going to make...

    It should be clear to anyone watching that this is just the beginning for a conservative SCOTUS.

    Republicans are going to claw back Civil Rights decades into the past. They are going to make contraceptives illegal, gay marraige illegal, bring back sodomy laws, legislate trans people put of existence, and more.

    They are even openly targeting going after interracial marraige.

    Which brings us to Republican Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana and his attack last week not only against Griswold and Roe, but also Loving vs. Virginia. That wonderfully named 1967 ruling struck down state laws against interracial marriage — making the Thomases’ marriage possible, and Jackson’s, and so many millions more over 55 years.

    38 votes
    1. [3]
      shiruken
      Link Parent
      Yup. This ruling is premised on undermining the power of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. We're talking about 50 years of civil rights at risk. The ruling explicitly criticizes...

      Republicans are going to claw back Civil Rights decades into the past.

      Yup. This ruling is premised on undermining the power of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. We're talking about 50 years of civil rights at risk.

      The ruling explicitly criticizes Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges as rights not "deeply rooted in history."

      23 votes
      1. [2]
        dubteedub
        Link Parent
        Republicans want a white Christian ethnostate so bad and half the people in the middle think recognizing that fact is "politicizing" the issue. This country is just so massively fucked. It really...

        Republicans want a white Christian ethnostate so bad and half the people in the middle think recognizing that fact is "politicizing" the issue. This country is just so massively fucked.

        It really can't be overstated just how tremendously we fucked up in electing Donald Trump as President. I am just so furious right now. I have to log off.

        28 votes
        1. vord
          Link Parent
          I mean, yea, but he was just the canary in the coalmine. Probably preaching to the choir, but just in case it wasn't obvious: There wasn't a single candidate at that 2016 Republican primary which...

          I mean, yea, but he was just the canary in the coalmine. Probably preaching to the choir, but just in case it wasn't obvious:

          There wasn't a single candidate at that 2016 Republican primary which wouldn't have resulted in this exact same conservative court. Nothing Trump did (well, prior to the coup anyway) is at-odds with the broader Republican platform.

          19 votes
    2. [6]
      dubteedub
      Link Parent
      This is all actually explicitly laid out in Alito's draft opinion. They are 100% going after the right to marry a person of a different race, the right to marry the person of the same sex, the...

      This is all actually explicitly laid out in Alito's draft opinion. They are 100% going after the right to marry a person of a different race, the right to marry the person of the same sex, the right to contraception, and even the right not to be forcibly sterilized.

      Nor does the right to obtain an abortion have a sound basis in precedent. Casey relied on cases involving the right to marry a person of a different race, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1(1967); the right to marry while in prison, Turnerv. Saftey, 482 U. S. 78 (1987); the right to obtain contraceptives, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), Eisen- stadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972), Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S. 678 (1977); the right to reside with relatives, Moore v. Fast Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494 1977); the right to make decisions about the education of one's children, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925), Meyerv. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1925); the right not to be sterilized without consent, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535 (1942); and the right in certain circumstances not to undergo involuntary surgery, forced administration of drugs, or other substantially simi. lar procedures, Winston v. Lee, 470 U. S. 753 (1985), Washington. Harper, 494 U. S. 210 (1990), Rochin.v. California, 342 U. S. 165 (1952). Respondents and the Solicitor General also rely on post-Casey decisions like Lawrence v. sensual sexual acts), and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to marry a person of the same sex). See Brieffor Respondents 18; Brieffor United Statesas Amicus Curiae 23-24.

      These attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one's “concept of existence” prove too much. Casey, 505 U. S., at 851. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like. See Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 85 F.3d 1140, 1444 (CA9 1996) (O'Scannlain, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc).

      None of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history. Id., at 1440, 1445. What sharply distinguishes the abortion right from the rights recognized in the cases on which Roc and Casey rely is something that both those decisions acknowledged: Abortion destroys what those decisions call “potential life” and what the law at issue in this case regards as the life of an “unborn human being.” See Roe, 410 U. S., at 159 (abortion is “inherently different"); Casey, 505 U.S. at 852 (abortion is “a unique act’). None of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical moral question posed by abortion. They are therefore inapposite. They do not support the right to obtain an abortion, and by the same token, our conclusion that the Constitution does not confer such a right does not undermine them in any way.

      15 votes
      1. [3]
        streblo
        Link Parent
        So this is the first I'm reading the actual opinion because upon hearing about it in the news my immediate reaction was to "ugh" and avoid the rest of the day's news cycle. This would be hilarious...

        So this is the first I'm reading the actual opinion because upon hearing about it in the news my immediate reaction was to "ugh" and avoid the rest of the day's news cycle.

        These attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one's “concept of existence” prove too much. Casey, 505 U. S., at 851. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like.

        This would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. JFC. If we say people have autonomy over their own bodies, they might do anything with them, even things we don't like!

        That said, I don't think this opinion supports your read they are gunning for the highlighted support cases. I'm not ruling it out or anything, but they are listing the cases used to justify the autonomy that provided the legal framework for Roe v Wade and saying they are not applicable because there is no "critical moral question" regarding "potential life" involved in those. Now, I think that's a load of shit and their arguments will predictably have all sorts of knock-on effects regarding bodily autonomy and wonderful things like forced organ transplants but I think that's clear to anyone who has taken a philosophy class.

        13 votes
        1. dubteedub
          Link Parent
          I think that Alito is signaling pretty hard that he would be open to revisiting all of those cases with the line of "None of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history." The bulk...

          I think that Alito is signaling pretty hard that he would be open to revisiting all of those cases with the line of "None of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history."

          The bulk of Alito's premise in his opinion is that the U.S. had a long history of criminalizing abortions before Roe v. Wade and since the right to abortion is not enshrined in the Constitution, we should look to the 200 years of history prior to the decision for guidance.

          Since being gay and being a minority was also heavily criminalized for much of our nation's history, it is not a hard stretch to see how the flood gates are opening here.

          14 votes
        2. Cycloneblaze
          Link Parent
          It really is an incredibly weak and unfounded distinction to draw. The legal analysis, the weapon that has been constructed here with which to destroy Roe, is equally applicable to all those other...

          they are listing the cases used to justify the autonomy that provided the legal framework for Roe v Wade and saying they are not applicable because there is no "critical moral question" regarding "potential life" involved in those.

          It really is an incredibly weak and unfounded distinction to draw. The legal analysis, the weapon that has been constructed here with which to destroy Roe, is equally applicable to all those other rights. Except that abortion is special somehow. Why? Doesn't go into it. You can have all these rights that are supposedly unsupported by the Constitution, apparently, unless babies are being killed. It doesn't make sense on any level!

          One level that I wonder about though is that it seems very much in line with the GOP agenda to take down the rights to gay marriage and contraceptives and so on. And the right to privacy more broadly, in terms of the freedom to make choices about your personal life without government interference. I can see the conservative justices not wanting to repeal all of those rights now in the same decision, which is probably why they've erected this unfounded barrier between them and the right to abortion, but presumably they do want to repeal them later at some point, when an appropriate case comes up. As much of a non-sequitur as this distinction is, if they adhere to it, I can't see a way around it. So why do it? Have they just painted themselves into a corner here and are lazily deciding to deal with it later?

          9 votes
      2. [2]
        Thrabalen
        Link Parent
        "We need to purify the races." "We need to make sure everyone of breeding age is choosing partners they can breed with. "If we say you should be breeding, you should be breeding." "If we say you...

        the right to marry a person of a different race

        "We need to purify the races."

        right to marry a person of the same sex

        "We need to make sure everyone of breeding age is choosing partners they can breed with.

        the right to obtain contraceptives

        "If we say you should be breeding, you should be breeding."

        the right not to be sterilized without consent

        "If we say you should NOT be breeding, you should NOT be breeding."

        Am I reading too much into this, or is this an Eugenics program in the making?

        12 votes
        1. dubteedub
          Link Parent
          No I think you are pretty on target. Republicans are absolutely pushing for a white Christian theocracy with anyone that does not identify with their worldview relegated to second class citizens...

          No I think you are pretty on target. Republicans are absolutely pushing for a white Christian theocracy with anyone that does not identify with their worldview relegated to second class citizens at best.

          12 votes
    3. [20]
      humanwill
      Link Parent
      They are going to try to do these things. They very likely may succeed in the short term, but the reality of modern society and emerging demographics are not in their favor.

      They are going to try to do these things. They very likely may succeed in the short term, but the reality of modern society and emerging demographics are not in their favor.

      4 votes
      1. [7]
        dubteedub
        Link Parent
        In the short term these actions will do irreparable harm. People will die without access to abortions. People will emgage in risky practices to try and administer them at home. This is heartbreaking.

        In the short term these actions will do irreparable harm. People will die without access to abortions. People will emgage in risky practices to try and administer them at home. This is heartbreaking.

        17 votes
        1. [6]
          humanwill
          Link Parent
          Absolutely, but as quickly as things have turned in their favor, they can turn back, especially if people stop putting the illusion of being a millionaire with low taxes over other people's rights...

          Absolutely, but as quickly as things have turned in their favor, they can turn back, especially if people stop putting the illusion of being a millionaire with low taxes over other people's rights and abandon the GOP.

          The GOP can no more legislate trans people away than they could legislate gay people away in the 80s and 90s when it was a widely bipartisan effort. The GOP can make lives hard for people, but society is progressing and their attempts to oppress will backfire.

          11 votes
          1. [3]
            dubteedub
            Link Parent
            No matter how much the country as a whole progresses, there are too many Republican state strongholds. If this becomes a state by state issue, it could take decades before abortion, gay marriage,...

            No matter how much the country as a whole progresses, there are too many Republican state strongholds. If this becomes a state by state issue, it could take decades before abortion, gay marriage, access to contraceptives, etc. become legal again in huge swaths of the country.

            18 votes
            1. AnthonyB
              Link Parent
              That aspect could be the determining factor in solidifying Republican control on a national level. Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin have near-total bans on their books, Georgia and Ohio have...

              If this becomes a state by state issue, it could take decades before abortion, gay marriage, access to contraceptives, etc. become legal again in huge swaths of the country.

              That aspect could be the determining factor in solidifying Republican control on a national level. Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin have near-total bans on their books, Georgia and Ohio have time-limit bans, and Florida is likely to pass something similar. Over the past few decades, Presidential and Senate elections in those states have been decided by razor-thin margins, so if a few thousand people decide to leave because of some fucked up law that their heavily gerrymandered state legislator passes, they basically hand over the presidency and the senate.

              9 votes
            2. humanwill
              Link Parent
              If the Dems can't get it together and hold congress and the presidency for the next 10 years, then it will take 30+ years before this is remedied at the national level.

              If the Dems can't get it together and hold congress and the presidency for the next 10 years, then it will take 30+ years before this is remedied at the national level.

              2 votes
          2. [2]
            ICN
            Link Parent
            This wasn't quick though, on a deeper level. Right wing groups have been working for decades to build influence for this outcome and others. Liberals have mostly spent that same time quashing...

            Absolutely, but as quickly as things have turned in their favor, they can turn back

            This wasn't quick though, on a deeper level. Right wing groups have been working for decades to build influence for this outcome and others. Liberals have mostly spent that same time quashing union support and progressives.

            13 votes
            1. humanwill
              Link Parent
              The balance of the court shifted very quickly.

              The balance of the court shifted very quickly.

              1 vote
      2. [7]
        shiruken
        Link Parent
        Those are irrelevant if they continue to dominate the courts and gerrymander themselves into further entrenched power. All part of their very public plan to exert minority rule.

        but the reality of modern society and emerging demographics are not in their favor.

        Those are irrelevant if they continue to dominate the courts and gerrymander themselves into further entrenched power. All part of their very public plan to exert minority rule.

        9 votes
        1. [6]
          humanwill
          Link Parent
          Hopefully, I'm right and this lights a fire in people and they realize the harm in being lazy in the midterms and letting power slip back into the GOP's hands. It shouldn't have had to take this.

          Hopefully, I'm right and this lights a fire in people and they realize the harm in being lazy in the midterms and letting power slip back into the GOP's hands. It shouldn't have had to take this.

          3 votes
          1. [5]
            vord
            Link Parent
            The fundemental problem is that voting is not enough. Never has been, never will be. Rallying support and holding accountable is the only way to stop these things.

            The fundemental problem is that voting is not enough. Never has been, never will be.

            Rallying support and holding accountable is the only way to stop these things.

            9 votes
            1. [4]
              humanwill
              Link Parent
              80,000 votes in the right states in 2016 and Roe would have been preserved.

              80,000 votes in the right states in 2016 and Roe would have been preserved.

              5 votes
              1. [3]
                vord
                Link Parent
                That's called 'too little too late'. Voting is not enough because engaging 2 days every year (at most) doesn't result in consequences for being a bad representative. Voting didn't prevent the...

                That's called 'too little too late'. Voting is not enough because engaging 2 days every year (at most) doesn't result in consequences for being a bad representative.

                Voting didn't prevent the Republicans from blocking Obama's justice picks, which also would have prevented this problem.

                Voting didn't prevent the terrible gerrymandering around the country. Or election fraud.

                Voting is an essential part, yes. But it's argueably the least important part, because if the other parts have been done well, the votes will come naturally.

                9 votes
                1. [2]
                  humanwill
                  Link Parent
                  Voting happens on both sides. Voting didn't prevent Republicans from blocking Obama's pick because republican supporters voting enabled their representatives to block Obama's agenda. I guarantee...

                  Voting happens on both sides. Voting didn't prevent Republicans from blocking Obama's pick because republican supporters voting enabled their representatives to block Obama's agenda.

                  I guarantee you that if people don't turn out and give democrats a functional majority, things will only get worse. If something is essential, which I agree with, then it strikes me as strange to say that it is the least important part.

                  12 votes
                  1. vord
                    Link Parent
                    Learning to drive a car requires many essential skills. Situational awareness, muscle memory, knowing the laws and regulations. You also need to learn to disengage the emergency brake. If you...

                    If something is essential, which I agree with, then it strikes me as strange to say that it is the least important part.

                    Learning to drive a car requires many essential skills. Situational awareness, muscle memory, knowing the laws and regulations. You also need to learn to disengage the emergency brake. If you don't, you're not going anywhere.

                    Voting is the emergency brake. So much emphasis is placed on it, but it's so utterly unimportant in and of itself in the grand scheme of things.

                    We have so many campaigns for "Remember to release the e-brake" and not so many for "Remember to use your turn signals."

                    1 vote
      3. [5]
        AugustusFerdinand
        Link Parent
        Which demographics are these?

        the reality of modern society and emerging demographics are not in their favor.

        Which demographics are these?

        2 votes
        1. [4]
          humanwill
          Link Parent
          Younger and minority voters are ascendant. Also, older people have a tendency to become dead people.

          Younger and minority voters are ascendant. Also, older people have a tendency to become dead people.

          3 votes
          1. [3]
            spctrvl
            Link Parent
            I don't buy that being nearly enough, even leaving aside the long running, successful Republican program to seize and hold disproportionate and unelected political power. New reactionaries are...

            I don't buy that being nearly enough, even leaving aside the long running, successful Republican program to seize and hold disproportionate and unelected political power. New reactionaries are born every generation (I can name a lot more prominent Gen X republicans than democrats), and minorites aren't an automatic democratic bloc, as was demonstrated in Florida in 2020. Waiting for demographic destiny to kick in and award us permanent political power has been at best a coping mechanism and at worst a destructive dead end of a political strategy for the last 20+ years.

            8 votes
            1. [2]
              humanwill
              Link Parent
              An ability to name prominent people within a cohort is highly anecdotal reasoning. Regardless, gen x is a smaller cohort than gen y and z. The preference among minority groups was still favorable...

              An ability to name prominent people within a cohort is highly anecdotal reasoning. Regardless, gen x is a smaller cohort than gen y and z. The preference among minority groups was still favorable to the democrats across the board, it wasn't enough to turn Florida blue, but as more gen y and z begin voting while the silent and boomers fade out, it will be enough.

              Desantis won in 2018 49.6% to 49.2%, he's done a lot to Trumpify himself and Florida and it will likely pay off in 2024, but that itself will be driving young Floridians away from the GOP. Speaking of 2018, it saw the greatest youth turnout of any midterm election, and because of that, Democrats gained control of the house.

              4 votes
              1. spctrvl
                Link Parent
                The Gen X thing was just an example rather than the primary reasoning, which is that whatever growing demographic advantages the Democratic party has are too weak to overcome Republican strategies...

                The Gen X thing was just an example rather than the primary reasoning, which is that whatever growing demographic advantages the Democratic party has are too weak to overcome Republican strategies of disenfranchisement in the face of a still sufficient base of young and minority Republicans, and a more cohesive electoral strategy is needed. Republicans have proven entirely capable of arresting the progress of blue-trending red states like North Carolina, while gaining more power over formerly blue and swing states across the upper Midwest. Meanwhile the continued polarization along urban-rural lines and brain drain from red states ensures what gains Democrats get are concentrated in a few populous states, leaving them with little power in the Senate, and even vulnerable to a rewrite of the constitution by state governments should Republicans ever reach the 38 state threshold for ratification through convention (as appeared to be a threat a few years ago). Maybe if our system were already fair it'd be another story, but it looks like the only thing we're getting a lock on is the presidential popular vote, and 12 of the last 22 years have shown us what that's worth under the current regime. We will get nothing that we don't fight tooth and nail for.

                4 votes
  2. [2]
    kfwyre
    Link
    Related: What abortion access would look like if Roe v. Wade is overturned

    Related: What abortion access would look like if Roe v. Wade is overturned

    Abortion would immediately become illegal in at least 13 states if the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade, and more would likely follow suit quickly.

    At least 17 states and Washington, D.C., have enacted laws that would automatically keep abortion legal if Roe is overturned.

    20 votes
    1. shiruken
      Link Parent
      Keep in mind that the GOP has no intention of stopping with just SCOTUS overturning Roe and Casey. They want a federal ban and are already preparing for one the moment they regain control of Congress.

      Keep in mind that the GOP has no intention of stopping with just SCOTUS overturning Roe and Casey. They want a federal ban and are already preparing for one the moment they regain control of Congress.

      15 votes
  3. [2]
    ThatFanficGuy
    Link
    I can't believe I have something to contribute to the topic, but: Here is a thread from a clerk at the SCOTUS. First tweet is:

    I can't believe I have something to contribute to the topic, but:

    Here is a thread from a clerk at the SCOTUS. First tweet is:

    I clerked at the Supreme Court. Last night, I assumed a liberal clerk leaked the draft opinion overturning Roe. Now I think MUCH more likely it was leaked by a conservative fanatically committed to every word of Alito’s monstrous opinion. 🧵

    17 votes
    1. dubteedub
      Link Parent
      Thanks for sharing this. This is a very convincing analysis of the situation.

      Thanks for sharing this. This is a very convincing analysis of the situation.

      5 votes
  4. [5]
    psi
    (edited )
    Link
    I think this is the turning point for the Court's legitimacy problem. Set aside the implications of this decision. Set aside the Court's willingness to throw out decades of precedent because a few...

    I think this is the turning point for the Court's legitimacy problem.

    Set aside the implications of this decision. Set aside the Court's willingness to throw out decades of precedent because a few conservative justices personally dislike abortion.

    The ideological gulf between the Court's conservative and liberal blocs (and frankly, the Court's conservative bloc and everyday Americans) has become impossible to bridge. Evidently the jurisprudence of the liberal Justices means so little to the conservative Justices that somebody thought this act of protest -- leaking a draft -- would be the only way to make the conservatives listen.

    This leak is the ultimate attempt to shame the Court, which begets the question: how will the public react to a Court that's shameless?

    16 votes
    1. [4]
      onyxleopard
      Link Parent
      IMO this is just one more data point on a long trend line that has been vectoring toward scary territory for my entire life. The shamelessness of Thomas has been one thing. The shamelessness of...

      IMO this is just one more data point on a long trend line that has been vectoring toward scary territory for my entire life. The shamelessness of Thomas has been one thing. The shamelessness of Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett has just driven home the utter politicization of the SC. While McConnell strangles the legislative branch, the judiciary will now assume the mantle of regressing the US into a Dominionist nightmare. Anyone who saw Trump’s appointments to the SC and thought anything different was in store hasn’t been paying attention.

      9 votes
      1. [3]
        psi
        Link Parent
        Oh yeah, for sure. But let me explicitly point out – and I don't mean to imply you disagree, as I suspect you'll probably agree with my point – that this politicization of the Court isn't...

        Anyone who saw Trump’s appointments to the SC and thought anything different was in store hasn’t been paying attention.

        Oh yeah, for sure. But let me explicitly point out – and I don't mean to imply you disagree, as I suspect you'll probably agree with my point – that this politicization of the Court isn't specifically a Trump problem but, more generally, a GOP problem (I mean, if anyone's to blame here it's McConnell).

        Trump didn't do much to personally vet the judges; he just accepted the ones that were recommended to him (ie, originalist/textualist members of the Federalist society). If the US had instead elected virtually any other Republican for President, we likely still would've had a similar Court composition, if not the exact same Court.

        8 votes
        1. [2]
          onyxleopard
          Link Parent
          Oh absolutely, it predates Trump’s presidency. Trump just happened to have the presidency at the time. I didn’t mean to insinuate that Trump was in any way pivotal to the trajectory of the SC.

          Oh absolutely, it predates Trump’s presidency. Trump just happened to have the presidency at the time. I didn’t mean to insinuate that Trump was in any way pivotal to the trajectory of the SC.

          10 votes
          1. vord
            Link Parent
            Those of us who harp about 'Not just Trump' are probably projecting their frustration having to deal with people IRL who handwave him away as an amomoly in an otherwise-ok system.

            Those of us who harp about 'Not just Trump' are probably projecting their frustration having to deal with people IRL who handwave him away as an amomoly in an otherwise-ok system.

            4 votes
  5. [14]
    cloud_loud
    Link
    This is the first time one of these drafts has leaked, isn't it? This is crazy to see happen. It just shows how important that 2016 election was and how devastating it was that Trump won. One can...

    This is the first time one of these drafts has leaked, isn't it?

    This is crazy to see happen. It just shows how important that 2016 election was and how devastating it was that Trump won. One can only hope there will be at least one dissenter among the Republican judges, but that doesn't seem likely, unfortunately. This is the reason that they were appointed in the first place, after all.

    14 votes
    1. [2]
      bkimmel
      Link Parent
      After decades and decades of making noise over it, I can't believe they actually did it. This is the worst possible thing for the GOP. There was almost no way to make the midterms about anything...

      After decades and decades of making noise over it, I can't believe they actually did it. This is the worst possible thing for the GOP. There was almost no way to make the midterms about anything but inflation... Now it is 100 pct Roe and the status quo is 90 pct against their position. I even lean pro-life somewhat and I will absolutely vote against this as a single issue. This is absolutely the GOPs dumbest moment and a complete loss of either control or understanding of the political situation.

      12 votes
      1. vord
        Link Parent
        I think that's one of the biggest problems. The anti-abortion crowd has branded themselves as pro-life, implying everyone else is not. An abortion is a massive trauma that is the method of last...

        I even lean pro-life somewhat

        I think that's one of the biggest problems. The anti-abortion crowd has branded themselves as pro-life, implying everyone else is not.

        An abortion is a massive trauma that is the method of last resort. It's a shitty thing nobody wants to do. Many people go to therapy over having one.

        It's still far less traumatic than being a teenage rape victim raising the perpeteator's kid.

        18 votes
    2. shiruken
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      According to this tweet, the last time a decision leaked in advance was in 1986 on Gramm-Rudman-Hollings (Tim O'Brien / ABC News). However that was just the decision, not an entire draft of the...

      According to this tweet, the last time a decision leaked in advance was in 1986 on Gramm-Rudman-Hollings (Tim O'Brien / ABC News). However that was just the decision, not an entire draft of the document.

      6 votes
    3. [10]
      AugustusFerdinand
      Link Parent
      Interestingly, from a morbid curiosity sort of view, a lot of conservatives aren't celebrating this leak and see it as a "breach of ethics" (pot:kettle), fuel for an "uprising by the violent left"...

      Interestingly, from a morbid curiosity sort of view, a lot of conservatives aren't celebrating this leak and see it as a "breach of ethics" (pot:kettle), fuel for an "uprising by the violent left" (who?), and test the backlash/pressuring certain on-the-fence justices to switch sides.

      2 votes
      1. [8]
        nukeman
        Link Parent
        I’m unhappy with the decision, but I do think the leak was a breach in legal ethics. You do not leak draft opinions. The trust within the court is severely damaged. Whoever did this (likely a...

        I’m unhappy with the decision, but I do think the leak was a breach in legal ethics. You do not leak draft opinions. The trust within the court is severely damaged. Whoever did this (likely a clerk) is going to be fired.

        9 votes
        1. [7]
          dubteedub
          Link Parent
          Why should anyone give a shit about trust and civility in the court when they are taking away the rights of millions of Americans? I hope that everyone views SCOTUS as the dirty partisan scramble...

          Why should anyone give a shit about trust and civility in the court when they are taking away the rights of millions of Americans?

          I hope that everyone views SCOTUS as the dirty partisan scramble that it is and recognizes the need to pack it moving forward.

          16 votes
          1. skybrian
            Link Parent
            You should care because the court might make a different final decision than they would have due to this leak. However, it's impossible to say from the outside what affect this leak will have on...

            You should care because the court might make a different final decision than they would have due to this leak.

            However, it's impossible to say from the outside what affect this leak will have on negotiations within the court. I could argue it either way.

            One argument is that Alioto is less likely to compromise now that his position is publicly known. Imagine the conservative reaction if the court makes a very different decision now. They'll say he caved. So that suggests he'll be less open to compromise now.

            Another argument though, is that the public reaction will affect the court's deliberations so that they change their minds. This argument will be implicitly made by protesters - they imagine the court is more likely to see things their way if they protest. Otherwise, why bother?

            Or maybe it doesn't have any affect at all, because nobody was going to change their minds anyway? Who can say for sure?

            9 votes
          2. [5]
            nukeman
            Link Parent
            Again, I strongly disagree with the decision. I think the outcome is wrong, and it will have damaging repercussions. However, note that I did state “within” the court, i.e., the justices, clerks,...

            Again, I strongly disagree with the decision. I think the outcome is wrong, and it will have damaging repercussions. However, note that I did state “within” the court, i.e., the justices, clerks, and staff won’t trust each other to protect the confidentiality of court proceedings. From there, we get to a second consideration on the broader perspective: confidentiality and attorney-client privilege. Assuming the leaker was a law clerk (generally a new attorney out of law school), would you trust that person to be your attorney? I wouldn’t.

            4 votes
            1. NaraVara
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              I wouldn't trust at least 4 of the 9 justices on the SCOTUS to be my attorney. I mean, Clarence Thomas' wife literally fomented an insurrection with his knowledge. Alito is over here openly laying...

              I wouldn't trust at least 4 of the 9 justices on the SCOTUS to be my attorney. I mean, Clarence Thomas' wife literally fomented an insurrection with his knowledge. Alito is over here openly laying groundwork for destroying basically every individual right that isn't explicitly written into the Constitution so even Loving v. Virginia isn't safe. Kavanaugh said, under oath, that Roe v. Wade was settled law (sometime after ranting about liking beer as an excuse for rape). Amy Coney Barrett is evidently an empty suited stooge. Gorsuch and Roberts are the only conservatives who I think maybe give half a shit about the law as a system, and I also wouldn't be thrilled about either of them representing me because I think they're wankers.

              So if you tell me I'm gonna have an attorney representing me who clerked under Alito when he released this patently absurd opinion espousing a ridiculous judicial philosophy I'm not going to feel very safe being represented by them I'll be honest.

              22 votes
            2. [2]
              dubteedub
              Link Parent
              I don't see how attorney-client privilege works here when this is likely from a clerk of the court. And yes, I would absolutely trust the person that rightfully decided that the rights of millions...

              I don't see how attorney-client privilege works here when this is likely from a clerk of the court.

              And yes, I would absolutely trust the person that rightfully decided that the rights of millions of people was worth breaking confidentiality.

              10 votes
              1. nukeman
                Link Parent
                Law clerks are attorneys. The idea was extrapolating confidentiality of the court to that of attorney-client privilege.

                Law clerks are attorneys. The idea was extrapolating confidentiality of the court to that of attorney-client privilege.

                1 vote
            3. Cycloneblaze
              Link Parent
              This problem seems like a very minor consideration next to the fact of the Court having seemingly been worked into an assembly line to deliver fringe right-wing legal opinions in service of...

              However, note that I did state “within” the court, i.e., the justices, clerks, and staff won’t trust each other to protect the confidentiality of court proceedings.

              This problem seems like a very minor consideration next to the fact of the Court having seemingly been worked into an assembly line to deliver fringe right-wing legal opinions in service of regressive causes.

              Like, so what if the staff and Justices of the Court work together less effectively on foot of this leak? If anything it might be a good thing. It certainly can't make the defence of progressive ideals in the Court any less effective. That's what should be focused on here, not whether legal ethics are being flaunted.

              9 votes
      2. vord
        Link Parent
        The right has already been brandishing their weapons for some time now. They're itchin for a fight, at little better way to start one than by stripping people of their rights. Mothers/sisters:...

        The right has already been brandishing their weapons for some time now.

        They're itchin for a fight, at little better way to start one than by stripping people of their rights.

        Mothers/sisters: Call the men in your life and tell them to reject this garbage.

        3 votes
  6. shiruken
    Link
    The PDF of the draft can be seen here. Page 5:

    The PDF of the draft can be seen here.

    Page 5:

    We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely -- the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).

    11 votes
  7. knocklessmonster
    (edited )
    Link
    I wrote a comment trying to find a silver lining (we can make a stronger law) and deleted it. After writing the comment, my conclusion was basically this is bad, and the previous thinking I had...

    I wrote a comment trying to find a silver lining (we can make a stronger law) and deleted it. After writing the comment, my conclusion was basically this is bad, and the previous thinking I had just serves to enable the problem, rather than provide any mechanism for a solution.

    It may be to our benefit to start looking for these cases we take for granted as providing protections and look for better legal mechanisms for their enforcement and determination of rights so we may have them as amendments, rather than high-standing case law, but for the same reasons we have a conservative biased Court, this will be incredibly difficult.

    11 votes
  8. Rez
    Link
    Truly a dumb move by the Court. I could rant more but I’ll keep it at that since it’ll all be blowing up shortly enough. In theory, leaving it to the states isn’t so bad - if you have full...

    Truly a dumb move by the Court. I could rant more but I’ll keep it at that since it’ll all be blowing up shortly enough.
    In theory, leaving it to the states isn’t so bad - if you have full democracy, which the Court has allowed to be crippled. Gerrymandered Republican states are going to go way beyond what public opinion wants. That is how it will backfire, because at the end of the day, most people are simply not for a total ban on abortion which is what many states will implement, because of a systemic political bias for Republicans. The Court really might burn itself down with this one.

    10 votes
  9. moocow1452
    (edited )
    Link
    Welp, the conservative justices have clearly got the petal to the metal on this one. Midterms just got a lot more heated, and the Democrats better get together on messaging and lock arms right...

    Welp, the conservative justices have clearly got the petal to the metal on this one. Midterms just got a lot more heated, and the Democrats better get together on messaging and lock arms right quick if they want to be seen as anything other than enablers.

    3 votes
  10. [2]
    Nivlak
    Link
    Mexico is about to get real popular I think. I know they recently passed a law approving abortion. Not sure if the courts have thought about this but doesn’t seem to matter.

    Mexico is about to get real popular I think. I know they recently passed a law approving abortion. Not sure if the courts have thought about this but doesn’t seem to matter.

    3 votes
    1. dubteedub
      Link Parent
      Unfortunately, that only matters for the wealthy who have the means to make a trip there.

      Unfortunately, that only matters for the wealthy who have the means to make a trip there.

      5 votes
  11. skybrian
    Link
    I wonder what differences there will be between the draft and final version?

    I wonder what differences there will be between the draft and final version?

    2 votes
  12. skybrian
    (edited )
    Link
    John Burn-Murdoch tweeted the statistics (unrolled) about the high US pregnancy-related death rate and how relates to abortion.

    John Burn-Murdoch tweeted the statistics (unrolled) about the high US pregnancy-related death rate and how relates to abortion.

    2 votes
  13. [6]
    Amarok
    Link
    I won't be surprised when several states tell the Supreme Court to pound sand on this one and flatly reject both Federal authority and this law. This could precipitate a loss of Federal government...

    I won't be surprised when several states tell the Supreme Court to pound sand on this one and flatly reject both Federal authority and this law. This could precipitate a loss of Federal government judicial control. They certainly haven't got the money or resources to force states to comply with this or any law.

    1 vote
    1. [5]
      nukeman
      Link Parent
      The draft ruling only applies to the Constitution forbidding abortion bans. It would not be a personhood-style opinion that outlaws it nationwide (that movement could happen later down the line...

      The draft ruling only applies to the Constitution forbidding abortion bans. It would not be a personhood-style opinion that outlaws it nationwide (that movement could happen later down the line though).

      11 votes
      1. [4]
        NaraVara
        Link Parent
        Probably not as far away as you might think. I would bet a federal ban is in the cards in the house if the GOP wins it in the midterms.

        Probably not as far away as you might think. I would bet a federal ban is in the cards in the house if the GOP wins it in the midterms.

        6 votes
        1. [3]
          Amarok
          Link Parent
          Exactly. If the court overturns, congress won't be far behind pushing that agenda. There's no way in hell states like California, Washington, New York, or Massachusetts will ever enforce or even...

          Exactly. If the court overturns, congress won't be far behind pushing that agenda. There's no way in hell states like California, Washington, New York, or Massachusetts will ever enforce or even help to enforce such a ban. The consequences of multiple states openly refusing federal authority as a bloc are pretty bleak. Once a few of them do it for one issue, all of them are much more likely to do it for every issue. Any way you spin it, the federal government loses to the states.

          The only silver lining I can find is if that series of events provokes some long overdue reform of the federal government by the states themselves. All it takes is 38 of them to ratify a new constitution and they can change any and every rule they please - if they can all agree on it. They can rewrite the laws that all of the court's rulings are based upon and invalidate any legal precedents. State authority can even dissolve congress and the supreme court or change them in any way they see fit. Finding a consensus for that kind of reform among so many different states seems unlikely, though. There's too much room for disagreement and state government institutions are every bit as polarized, geriatric, and corrupted as the federal government.

          4 votes
          1. [2]
            vektor
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            Is there a way for a majority (as defined by a reasonable democratic definition of majority) to remove the obscene power states have by virtue of being states? I'm looking at the senate here,...

            Is there a way for a majority (as defined by a reasonable democratic definition of majority) to remove the obscene power states have by virtue of being states? I'm looking at the senate here, basically: Can 51% (or 76%) of the population just decide that votes are counted by population rather than number of states? I.e. can we make CA and NY count as much as they should relative to, say, Wyoming?

            Or is the only way such a majority can force this change "an american dream that involves black masks and gasoline"?

            If you want to be cheeky, what I'm asking is can the United States be peacefully transformed into a democracy if the non-democratic forces don't cooperate?

            4 votes
            1. Amarok
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              The majority doesn't vote. The red and blue teams are relatively small parts of the population, though you'd never know that looking at online political discussions. The silent majority is sick of...

              The majority doesn't vote. The red and blue teams are relatively small parts of the population, though you'd never know that looking at online political discussions. The silent majority is sick of both of them, and even those who have favorites are likely disappointed with their own party.

              What it would take to actually fix this mess is an election cycle that was a vote of no confidence in the red and blue teams - meaning that everyone agrees not to vote democrat or republican. Treat those D's and R's as scarlet letters. As to who everyone does vote for - it doesn't matter, as long as it's people not on those two teams. I mean local, state, and federal, too - bloc voting straight down the ticket for any persons or groups that are not D and not R. Every senator, representative, judge, and governor out on their asses overnight unless they leave their respective parties. This shatters the control mechanism of any shadow government or corporate financing.

              That drains the swamp and opens the door for real reforms, at least until big money manages to bribe and corrupt the new guys, which it will do within a mere couple of years barring some kind of reform that allows citizens to outbid the corporate interests and become the lion's share of a politician's revenue stream. That is the only thing I can think of that could possibly thread the needle.

              That gives us the ability to get in term limits, reform election funding, and reset the stage. The court isn't really a problem, because the limit of 9 is just a tradition. A not-democrat not-republican president/congress can appoint 9 more in a month if they want to do it.

              1 vote
  14. Whom
    Link
    Fuck this. Fuck this illegitimate state and everyone who brought us here. Ugh. /noise

    Fuck this. Fuck this illegitimate state and everyone who brought us here. Ugh. /noise

    19 votes
  15. Removed by admin: 3 comments by 3 users
    Link