SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[MasterJedi]

I fully expect most Republican states to pass blanket bans within the next month after the decision goes live. They’ll also likely try fugitive abortion acts and basically bury themselves in the long run.

[SWE]

People think the Dems can hold the Senate.... (new here?)

Better chance of Manchin passing a federal abortion protections bill in the lame duck.

No chance because no one will break the fillibuster

Regardless Manchin is Anti-Choice. Collins and Murkowski might vote for it but not to break the fillibuster

Manchin is whatever his backers need him to be.

I would not be shocked if Manchin turned out to have quasi-moderate-hero personal stances on abortion, deep down. Though it's unlikely we'll ever know.

I would be very shocked if Manchin has personal stances, period

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

I just woke up and what the crick

That’s all I can think to say…

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

I fully expect most Republican states to pass blanket bans within the next month after the decision goes live. They’ll also likely try fugitive abortion acts and basically bury themselves in the long run.

Allot of them already have bans on the books that will automatically go into effect.

Also, for extra fun, because no one thought it would actually happen, they tend to be poorly thought out and broadly written.

[Comrade Funk]

There's a reason Christianity is dying among young people in this country. And it has to do with Christians themselves. Idc if you belong to "mainline" church. The face of Christianity in this country is evangelicalism. An ideology using religion as a tool to fight back against any social progress made since the 1950s (plus gutting public education). Luckily for them they have crazy right-wing Catholics to use as an ally.

The only positive with these decisions is that more young people will shun religion as its only use nowadays is a being a tool for the right.

[afleitch]

I fully expect most Republican states to pass blanket bans within the next month after the decision goes live. They’ll also likely try fugitive abortion acts and basically bury themselves in the long run.

Allot of them already have bans on the books that will automatically go into effect.

Also, for extra fun, because no one thought it would actually happen, they tend to be poorly thought out and broadly written.

And if deaths through school shootings don't change their position on access to guns, people dying as a result of abortion restrictions, prohibitions and trying to get round them won't change their position much either. They'll probably just dig in.

[7,052,770]

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.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

whose ready for the fugitive fetus laws…

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

I fully expect most Republican states to pass blanket bans within the next month after the decision goes live. They’ll also likely try fugitive abortion acts and basically bury themselves in the long run.

Also, for extra fun, because no one thought it would actually happen, they tend to be poorly thought out and broadly written.

"Good work, gentlemen.  The President shall be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.  We're all clear on what that means right? Right.  Good.  Alrighty, moving on..."

Seriously though, the potential gray area of these legislative orders worries me. 

[TheTide]

Shut the f**k up. At the very least, thousands, if not millions of women's live 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!?

The discrediting of the Supreme Court arguably has wider and longer term consequences (if more indirect) than merely breaking justices' protocols.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

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)

[Person Man]

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.

[Pres Mike]

As long as their are exemptions for rape, incest and health of the mother, I am ok with this.

Roe v Wade has divided our country for half a century. There is no end on sight. For 40-45% of Americans, no restrictions on abortion is an abomination. That bridge simply can not be built. In states where they are a majority, they should be able to ban it.

We already live in two Americas. People in my state stopped wearing masks a year before some other states. We have to get used to that and focus on things that unite us like passing paid leave or free college.

[Mr. Reactionary]

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)

I dont think its illegal per se but it violates legal ethics and certainly whatever contract the leaker was bound to. Its like a lawyer sleeping with a client after agreeing to represent them or a judge having ex parte communications. The bar would be the main sanctioning body.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

I’m glad I’m in europe rn

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I fully expect most Republican states to pass blanket bans within the next month after the decision goes live. They’ll also likely try fugitive abortion acts and basically bury themselves in the long run.

You can hardly blame them. Can't let those unclaimed handmaids escape from Gilead.

/s

[Person Man]

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)

I dont think its illegal per se but it violates legal ethics and certainly whatever contract the leaker was bound to. Its like a lawyer sleeping with a client after agreeing to represent them or a judge having ex parte communications. The bar would be the main sanctioning body.

Didn't SCOTUS rule that the various NGOs that regulate judicial ethics doesn't apply to them?

[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?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

As long as their are exemptions for rape, incest and health of the mother, I am ok with this.

Roe v Wade has divided our country for half a century. There is no end on sight. For 40-45% of Americans, no restrictions on abortion is an abomination. That bridge simply can not be built. In states where they are a majority, they should be able to ban it.

We already live in two Americas. People in my state stopped wearing masks a year before some other states. We have to get used to that and focus on things that unite us like passing paid leave or free college.

Add fetal abnormalities and then I agree. Any side bringing up the abortion issue just pushes me away instantly. Least important issue facing the world today, and they insist on making it their most important mission.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

People think the Dems can hold the Senate.... (new here?)

Better chance of Manchin passing a federal abortion protections bill in the lame duck.

No chance because no one will break the fillibuster

Regardless Manchin is Anti-Choice. Collins and Murkowski might vote for it but not to break the fillibuster

Manchin is whatever his backers need him to be.

I would not be shocked if Manchin turned out to have quasi-moderate-hero personal stances on abortion, deep down. Though it's unlikely we'll ever know.

I would be very shocked if Manchin has personal stances, period

I'm confident he personally believes his daughter shouldn't be prosecuted for her role in EpiPen price inflation scandal.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

As long as their are exemptions for rape, incest and health of the mother, I am ok with this.

Roe v Wade has divided our country for half a century. There is no end on sight. For 40-45% of Americans, no restrictions on abortion is an abomination. That bridge simply can not be built. In states where they are a majority, they should be able to ban it.

We already live in two Americas. People in my state stopped wearing masks a year before some other states. We have to get used to that and focus on things that unite us like passing paid leave or free college.

For 40-45% of Americans, no restrictions on Republican lies and abuse is an abomination. Should they be able to ban the GOP?

(I think the answer ought to be "no", but I've gotten to the point where I'm not sure I care that much anymore.)

[Thank you for being a friend...]

There's a reason Christianity is dying among young people in this country. And it has to do with Christians themselves. Idc if you belong to "mainline" church. The face of Christianity in this country is evangelicalism. An ideology using religion as a tool to fight back against any social progress made since the 1950s (plus gutting public education). Luckily for them they have crazy right-wing Catholics to use as an ally.

The only positive with these decisions is that more young people will shun religion as its only use nowadays is a being a tool for the right.

It's sad because there are lots of young people that want to go to church, mass, explore their faith and spiritual beliefs, but it became so politicized.  It really became almost a part of one party (the Republicans), and I do agree with many evangelicals that say it's become too focused on these issues where it really cannot change the whole of society.  There's issues that have been so neglected - poverty, especially in children, hunger and food insecurity, homelessness, not being able to afford a family, not being able to keep families together - but they have been so narrow-minded.  Even at Liberty University there's students who are really starting to question this undying loyalty to one man (Trump) and how that really does not match the ideals they have.

[It’s so Joever]

There's a reason Christianity is dying among young people in this country. And it has to do with Christians themselves. Idc if you belong to "mainline" church. The face of Christianity in this country is evangelicalism. An ideology using religion as a tool to fight back against any social progress made since the 1950s (plus gutting public education). Luckily for them they have crazy right-wing Catholics to use as an ally.

The only positive with these decisions is that more young people will shun religion as its only use nowadays is a being a tool for the right.

It's sad because there are lots of young people that want to go to church, mass, explore their faith and spiritual beliefs, but it became so politicized.  It really became almost a part of one party (the Republicans), and I do agree with many evangelicals that say it's become too focused on these issues where it really cannot change the whole of society.  There's issues that have been so neglected - poverty, especially in children, hunger and food insecurity, homelessness, not being able to afford a family, not being able to keep families together - but they have been so narrow-minded.  Even at Liberty University there's students who are really starting to question this undying loyalty to one man (Trump) and how that really does not match the ideals they have.

Can confirm. The Republican Party has been the single most destructive entity to Christianity in America in the past few years. The church is increasingly refusing to actually change their rhetoric (not their stance which is theological obv) to fit the population. If it makes you feel a bit better, I am noticing a slow rise in liberal Christianity among the very young, although it’s slow. Hopefully we can get a trend like this to accelerate, a Christianity which preaches community and loving thy neighbor is the best thing America could hope for.

[Person Man]

There's a reason Christianity is dying among young people in this country. And it has to do with Christians themselves. Idc if you belong to "mainline" church. The face of Christianity in this country is evangelicalism. An ideology using religion as a tool to fight back against any social progress made since the 1950s (plus gutting public education). Luckily for them they have crazy right-wing Catholics to use as an ally.

The only positive with these decisions is that more young people will shun religion as its only use nowadays is a being a tool for the right.

It's sad because there are lots of young people that want to go to church, mass, explore their faith and spiritual beliefs, but it became so politicized.  It really became almost a part of one party (the Republicans), and I do agree with many evangelicals that say it's become too focused on these issues where it really cannot change the whole of society.  There's issues that have been so neglected - poverty, especially in children, hunger and food insecurity, homelessness, not being able to afford a family, not being able to keep families together - but they have been so narrow-minded.  Even at Liberty University there's students who are really starting to question this undying loyalty to one man (Trump) and how that really does not match the ideals they have.

Can confirm. The Republican Party has been the single most destructive entity to Christianity in America in the past few years. The church is increasingly refusing to actually change their rhetoric (not their stance which is theological obv) to fit the population. If it makes you feel a bit better, I am noticing a slow rise in liberal Christianity among the very young, although it’s slow. Hopefully we can get a trend like this to accelerate, a Christianity which preaches community and loving thy neighbor is the best thing America could hope for.

People need God and having God doesn't mean you can't have civil rights, a strong civil society, and modern science.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

How likely is this to become a real ruling? This draft looks more like a political document, not a court opinion.

Opponents of Roe v. Wade have been trying to overturn that ruling for 49 years. The Democrats can't just say this draft is a complete surprise now. They had chances to codify Roe v. Wade, and opted not to do it.