Roe vs Wade vs SCOTUS legitimacy

[basballguy]

Alright...where's your money at on who the leak is?

I'm guessing it's a clerk for one of the progressive justices.

I doubt we will ever know.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-03-2022, 01:08 PM)basballguy Wrote: Alright...where's your money at on who the leak is?  

I'm guessing it's a clerk for one of the progressive justices.

I doubt we will ever know.

I'd say that's about as likely a donkey as any to pin the tail on.

[CKwi88]

(05-03-2022, 01:08 PM)basballguy Wrote: Alright...where's your money at on who the leak is?  

I'm guessing it's a clerk for one of the progressive justices.

I doubt we will ever know.

Probably not. To the ever knowing part. 

There's an argument that having this leak by someone on the majority's side allows the focus of the narrative to be more about the leak rather than the decision itself. Option A is admittedly more likely. 

[Sled21]

I hope they find them. It's probably not something that would bring criminal charges, but if it's a lawyer they will be disbarred.

[*Nately120*]

I don't get why this is sone sort of secret to begin with. Shouldn't we have a right to know what the SC is up to?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-03-2022, 03:45 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I don't get why this is sone sort of secret to begin with.  Shouldn't we have a right to know what the SC is up to?

As I understand, both based on past knowledge and what has been spoke by others since last night, it is not uncommon for justices to lean one way initially, and for an opinion to be drafted, and then to change their mind after some deliberation.  That being the case, the leaker can be seen, and IMO this is the correct interpretation, as leaking the early draft in order to stoke public outrage and intimidate a wavering, or weaker, justice into changing their mind.  This is lent further credence, again IMO, as Schumer has essentially done exactly that in the past, threatening the court with a dire result if they decide in a way he dislikes.  This was so blatant it earned a rare public rebuke from the court.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/rare-rebuke-chief-justice-roberts-slams-schumer-threatening-comments-n1150036

This, likely not coincidentally, was also over a case addressing abortion rights.  

[basballguy]

(05-03-2022, 03:45 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I don't get why this is sone sort of secret to begin with.  Shouldn't we have a right to know what the SC is up to?

I kinda agree.  I didn't even know they were talking about it.  I don't claim to be all knowing about how everything works but I thought they only look at issues when they get appealed through the courts.  Seems like this they decided to revisit on their own...which I didn't even know they would do.  

I've been saying since Barrett that they won't just arbitrarily review Roe vs Wade for no reason....I guess I was wrong.  

[*Nately120*]

(05-03-2022, 04:18 PM)basballguy Wrote: I've been saying since Barrett that they won't just arbitrarily review Roe vs Wade for no reason....I guess I was wrong.  

Ida know.  Part of me figured they'd never overturn it because they'd lose their standard reason to get votes for the past 40+ years, then again when you are up 6-3 you can't exactly play the "we want to, but we can't" card forever, can you?

If it's a state by state thing I wonder if pro-life people will feel compelled to leave and stop supporting states that don't outlaw it and vice versa.

[Belsnickel]

(05-03-2022, 04:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As I understand, both based on past knowledge and what has been spoke by others since last night, it is not uncommon for justices to lean one way initially, and for an opinion to be drafted, and then to change their mind after some deliberation.  That being the case, the leaker can be seen, and IMO this is the correct interpretation, as leaking the early draft in order to stoke public outrage and intimidate a wavering, or weaker, justice into changing their mind.  This is lent further credence, again IMO, as Schumer has essentially done exactly that in the past, threatening the court with a dire result if they decide in a way he dislikes.  This was so blatant it earned a rare public rebuke from the court.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/rare-rebuke-chief-justice-roberts-slams-schumer-threatening-comments-n1150036

This, likely not coincidentally, was also over a case addressing abortion rights.  

Yeah, that was what I had to tell my wife last night as she was despondent over the opinion. I mean, it was pretty gross in my view and I found it interesting that it talked about the fallacious reasoning in Obergefell and Lawrence but neglected calling out Loving, which shares a similar set of issues. But that's a tangent I won't go too far down right now.

Anyway, I pointed out that this is a draft majority opinion, and while it does signal that at least five justices may currently be leaning to overturn Roe, it doesn't mean for sure it will happen and it doesn't mean that this very heavy handed opinion will be the one to do it. The one that garners majority support could be much more narrowly focused, for example. She was, of course, having none of it from me so I just went to bed and let her stew over it.

As for trying to push the court in one direction or the other, I have already made my opinions on it clear in this thread. The court is a political body and we should stop pretending otherwise. It isn't independent and non-partisan. None of the justices rule solely on the law because it would truly be impossible to do so. I am such an institutionalist in so many ways, but when it comes to SCOTUS I just get annoyed with this farcical pedestal people put it on.

[Belsnickel]

It's still so weird to me to think that this rabid anti-choice movement all started because evangelicals were mad about the IRS stripping their tax-exempt status over segregated schools.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I wanted to add this as the rage fueled hyperbole machine is in high gear. There are claims that same sex marriage is next on the chopping black, of course assuming the final draft of this decision matches the leak. Allow me to say this. While I don't disagree with the Roe decision I always considered the connection between it and the 14th amendment to be tenuous. At the very least, certainly not the firmest foundation ever. Same sex marriage is not the same in that regard, at all. Same sex marriage is firmly and easily grounded in the equal protection under the law guaranteed by the Constitution. It's in zero danger. Of course, people will use this doomsday scenario to stoke further outrage and mobilization, but this one is just not grounded in any kind of logical fact.

[StoneTheCrow]

https://twitter.com/jenniferjjacobs/status/1521513083088388096?s=21

Psaki’s gonna have work to do if this is an actual quote.

[StoneTheCrow]

(05-03-2022, 05:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I wanted to add this as the rage fueled hyperbole machine is in high gear. There are claims that same sex marriage is next on the chopping black, of course assuming the final draft of this decision matches the leak. Allow me to say this. While I don't disagree with the Roe decision I always considered the connection between it and the 14th amendment to be tenuous. At the very least, certainly not the firmest foundation ever. Same sex marriage is not the same in that regard, at all. Same sex marriage is firmly and easily grounded in the equal protection under the law guaranteed by the Constitution. It's in zero danger. Of course, people will use this doomsday scenario to stoke further outrage and mobilization, but this one is just not grounded in any kind of logical fact.

They’re also apparently coming for interracial marriages. Gotta admit, this is a new one for me. I logged on to Twitter for 3 seconds and did the Grampa Simpson gif.

https://twitter.com/repswalwell/status/1521340822989402113?s=21

[basballguy]

(05-03-2022, 05:39 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: They’re also apparently coming for interracial marriages. Gotta admit, this is a new one for me. I logged on to Twitter for 3 seconds and did the Grampa Simpson gif.

https://twitter.com/repswalwell/status/1521340822989402113?s=21

This is an absurdly baseless claim (that you linked)

[Vas Deferens]

(05-03-2022, 05:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I wanted to add this as the rage fueled hyperbole machine is in high gear.  There are claims that same sex marriage is next on the chopping black, of course assuming the final draft of this decision matches the leak.  Allow me to say this.  While I don't disagree with the Roe decision I always considered the connection between it and the 14th amendment to be tenuous.  At the very least, certainly not the firmest foundation ever.  Same sex marriage is not the same in that regard, at all.  Same sex marriage is firmly and easily grounded in the equal protection under the law guaranteed by the Constitution.  It's in zero danger.  Of course, people will use this doomsday scenario to stoke further outrage and mobilization, but this one is just not grounded in any kind of logical fact.

Neither is the christian right.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-03-2022, 06:02 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Neither is the christian right.

Or the radical left.  Doesn't address my point though, or even attempt to.

[NATI BENGALS]

I hope this isn’t a diversion for something bigger and uglier.

TERM LIMITS!!!! FFS

Nobody in a democracy who wields the kind of power they do deserves a lifetime appointment

[Belsnickel]

(05-03-2022, 05:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I wanted to add this as the rage fueled hyperbole machine is in high gear. There are claims that same sex marriage is next on the chopping black, of course assuming the final draft of this decision matches the leak. Allow me to say this. While I don't disagree with the Roe decision I always considered the connection between it and the 14th amendment to be tenuous. At the very least, certainly not the firmest foundation ever. Same sex marriage is not the same in that regard, at all. Same sex marriage is firmly and easily grounded in the equal protection under the law guaranteed by the Constitution. It's in zero danger. Of course, people will use this doomsday scenario to stoke further outrage and mobilization, but this one is just not grounded in any kind of logical fact.

I disagree. Criminalizing abortion is a restriction of liberties of people with untureses. I think its link to constitutional rights is as strong as the right to marriage is. I agree that same-sex marriage is not at risk, but that is more about there not being as much of a culture war surrounding it.

[*Nately120*]

What percentage of Americans actually want this overturned? If the court is acting against the interests and wishes of the majority it might not be too crazy to assume other stuff people generally accept could be next.

[CKwi88]

(05-03-2022, 06:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I disagree. Criminalizing abortion is a restriction of liberties of people with untureses. I think its link to constitutional rights is as strong as the right to marriage is. I agree that same-sex marriage is not at risk, but that is more about there not being as much of a culture war surrounding it.

I am certianly not a legal scholar, and while I don't think same-sex marriage is necessarily at great risk, you can't really fault people for their fear when the draft reads that rights not mentioned in the constitution  "must be 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and Traditional and 'implicit in the conceptual of ordered liberty.'" The draft also mentions how "...until the latter part of the 20th century, [the right to an abortion] was entirely unknown in American law." 

I dont think it is unreasonable to believe that an opening is presented here to challenge same-sex marriage.