05-03-2022, 04:50 PM
(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.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
