SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[brucejoel99]

If the immediate pressure campaign triggered by this doesn't convince Kavanaugh to realize what conservatives are getting into with this & flip to join Roberts & the liberals, & this draft opinion does actually end up panning out as the law of the land, then this very well could be for the Democrats in the midterms what Russia's invasion of Ukraine has been for NATO.

And ISTFG, if Manchin & Sinema won't finally vote to end the filibuster, at least on a bill to just do a Lilly Ledbetter & statutorily codify Roe, then what good are they even for? We have to assume that we only have the majority for 8 more months. Use it, f**kers! This, if NOTHING else, is what it's f**king for!!

[brucejoel99]

And ISTFG, if Manchin & Sinema won't finally vote to end the filibuster, at least on a bill to just do a Lilly Ledbetter & statutorily codify Roe, then what good are they even for? We have to assume that we only have the majority for 8 more months. Use it, f**kers! This, if NOTHING else, is what it's f**king for!!

Well Manchin is pro-life. In fact he probably would have lost to a Republican in West Virginia in 2018 if he supported Roe. So I'm not sure what you're complaining about there.

Joe Manchin is pro-Joe Manchin. He will do whatever enables him to exercise the most influence, flip-flopping included.

[brucejoel99]

Doctors & nurses are gonna be murdered:

https://twitter.com/JaneLytv/status/1521293729419694082
Meanwhile, a SCOTUSblog moment:

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1521295411545260035
Shut the f**k up. At the very least, thousands, if not millions of women's lives across this country are now in complete & total jeopardy. Who gives a flying f**k if somebody broke the precious little justices' protocols, you f**king melt brains!?

[brucejoel99]

Bernie rushing to call for the immediate abolition of the filibuster to protect abortion rights in this country:

https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1521301444166574081

[brucejoel99]

I for one, find it disgusting that it's even possible to "leak" a future SC decision in order to intimidate the court into doing exactly what they want (which is what this is, no doubt). The court's integrity is on the line, not because they might overrule Roe, but if they buckle to social/political pressure in response to this leak.

Has it been established that this was leaked by a pro-choicer, and what the motivations were? Or are you just assuming? It's very easy to see the argument that this was releasing by a supporter of ending Roe v. Wade to make sure those 5 stay in line, because if one of them flips now, everyone will know about it.

Do you really think with the amount of media and activism the left has in their favor that the conservative justices are going to be pressured to stay in place? Barrett and Kavanaugh have been notoriously flaky over the past 2 years, and complained about the court's "image".

If it was a pro-life person who leaked, why would they leak a victory for them potentially two months in advance? It makes much more sense to me that a pro-choicer would've leaked, as a panic mechanism to turn up the heat on the court (and the issue in general) to gain favorability for their side.

Harry just answered you: to keep them all in line. Now it is too late for last-minute compromises or changes, because anything different will be seen as "caving to public pressure."

Bingo. It's not at risk. If a pro-choice clerk did this, it was likely just to "get the news out there" rather than try to change anyone's mind.

Might be a dumb question, but help me out legal-brains: is it "illegal" to release stuff like this? (Draft opinions, that is)

It isn't. The Federal courts don't have official regulatory bodies or regulations that police them. That's a major issue. If a Justice did this leak, there is nothing you can do about. I guess if a staff member did this, they could be fired by the Justice they clerk for.

Just curious. I'm still not 100% on what you stance on this is.

IIRC, the Chief Justice has administrative authority over the entirety of the federal judiciary, so as long as clerks are non-Senate confirmed (which they obviously are lol), they can be fired by Roberts himself in addition to the clerk whom they actually work for. Of course, it's kinda like saying that Roberts has the authority to fire a janitor at the federal courthouse in Fairbanks, AK: he technically does on-paper, but would he ever actually try to fire an employee who wasn't hired by him?

[brucejoel99]

THE CONCERN IS APPROACHING LEVELS NEVER THOUGHT POSSIBLE

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1521490781638385664

Textbook leopards ate my face.

[brucejoel99]

Third, the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly States, and I quote, all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens. Implying citizenship to a newly fertilized egg or even a three months old fetus is at best and extremely novel argument, and more accurately completely antithetical to the 14th amendments explicit language.

So if somehow the right manages to twist around the literal word "born" in the Amendment to imply citizenship to the unborn, here are a couple of interesting questions:

1. Would a child born in the U.S. but conceived outside of it be a citizen of the U.S.?

2. The reverse: would a child conceived in the U.S. but born outside of it be a citizen?

And if that's not enough cans of worms yet, how about the census?  It calls for enumerating the number of "persons" in the U.S.  If personhood begins at conception...

Yeah, the 14th Amendment's setting of birth, as opposed to conception, as when natural-born American citizenship begins would seemingly either preclude the possibility of fetal personhood or require that fetuses - although people - are stateless persons. It's utter legal insanity; granted, mayyybe a state can try to get away with arguing that the 14th qualified rather than wholly replaced the original understanding of citizenship under the Constitution, thereby meaning that states are free to do fetal personhood if they so choose, but yeah, the fetal personhood argument's 14A implications are just laughable, & it can't be understated how much of an extreme minority position the pro-life fetal personhood position is even in the conservative legal movement. With the exception of the idiosyncratic Thomas, I don't see anybody currently on the Court - even somebody of ACB's pro-life disposition - willingly invoking it in an abortion case that manages to come before them.

[brucejoel99]

more leaks

Justice Samuel Alito’s sweeping and blunt draft majority opinion from February overturning Roe remains the court’s only circulated draft in the pending Mississippi abortion case, POLITICO has learned, and none of the conservative justices who initially sided with Alito have to date switched their votes. No dissenting draft opinions have circulated from any justice, including the three liberals.

That could explain why no second draft of Alito’s majority opinion has been distributed, as typically the two sides react to one another’s written arguments and recast their own.

No wonder a, if not the primary theory has been that the hardline conservatives are worried that one of their 5 (i.e., Kav) may flip to Roberts: they still don't even know just how much he may be tailoring his opinion for such a potential flip!!

[brucejoel99]

Nope, SCOTUS trolls us by never releasing the big ones till the end of the term.

This might be a special case?  To prove they can't be intimidated?

Alito isn't past the first draft. Neither Roberts' concurrence nor the liberals' dissent were in as of last week. It's impossible.

[brucejoel99]

Nope, SCOTUS trolls us by never releasing the big ones till the end of the term.

This might be a special case?  To prove they can't be intimidated?

Alito isn't past the first draft. Neither Roberts' concurrence nor the liberals' dissent were in as of last week. It's impossible.

Or Robert’s opinion and Alito’s concurrence.

Well, technically a controlling concurrence & a plurality, but yes, & it's especially not coming on Mon. if these changed.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/bykatesmith/status/1564742485066268674

[brucejoel99]

Nvm:

https://twitter.com/maayanschechter/status/1564743942318555137

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/grace_panetta/status/1582373078046494721