SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[Person Man]

How many states are for-certain Freedom of Choice states and how many are right-to-life states are there going to be when this gets handed down?

[afleitch]

Biden states;

Banned - Michigan, Arizona, Georgia.
Restricted - Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia.
Not protected - New Hampshire, New Mexico

Rest are protected by law

Trump states;

Protected by law - Montana
Restricted - Indiana, West Virginia, Florida, Nebraska, Kansas

Rest are banned.

Rest are banned

[Asta]

How many states are for-certain Freedom of Choice states and how many are right-to-life states are there going to be when this gets handed down?

https://prismreports.org/2022/03/14/states-enshrine-right-to-abortion/

15 at the moment protect the right, and I don't think that figure will drop too much. My guess is blue states will only make their stance firmer.

"In the months since Texas Bill Senate Bill 8 passed in September 2021, rendering abortions after approximately six weeks illegal, Colorado abortion clinics statewide experienced a 130% increase in patients coming from Texas to access care, with one clinic seeing a 520% increase. "

As the report states, we should expect to see more women go across states to get abortion if it is overturned.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

https://twitter.com/GovPhilScott/status/1521492552704217093?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoog...

Based.

[7,052,770]

Biden states;

Banned - Michigan, Arizona, Georgia.
Restricted - Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia.
Not protected - New Hampshire, New Mexico

Rest are protected by law

Trump states;

Protected by law - Montana
Restricted - Indiana, West Virginia, Florida, Nebraska, Kansas

Rest are banned.

Probably legal in Alaska, right?

[7,052,770]

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1521504389713866756?t=aAOcE7Kfdbtp3owd9M...

[Matty]

Breaking:

CJ roberts released statement verifying document as authentic

BUT AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT

IT IS NOT FINAL DECISION OF COURT, MERELY A ROUTINE DRAFT

he also directs marshal to conduct leak investigation

[America Needs R'hllor]

Hey! Just dropping in to say I have only one opinion on this: f**k the people who did this, f**k the social conservative movement across the globe, and f**k all the ruthless little theocrats who have been, and continue to be, among the chief villains of human history that we must continue fighting to advance the rights of anyone who's not a heterosexual man

[OSR stands with Israel]

https://twitter.com/SenatorRomney/status/1521475818081427457?s=20&t=qqxgx83O...

[Asta]

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1521504389713866756?t=aAOcE7Kfdbtp3owd9M...

I know that a conservative leaking this to keep the conservatives "in line" so they don't back down from their initial opinion is an interesting hypothesis, but it comes across too analytical and outside-the-box.

People who tend to leak these kinds of things tend to be more often than not, journalists or activist type. Why would a conservative want to leak this and ensure that blue states use every piece of the remaining time to pressure their politicians to guarantee access to abortion?

[Matty]

Hey! Just dropping in to say I have only one opinion on this: f**k the people who did this, f**k the social conservative movement across the globe, and f**k all the ruthless little theocrats who have been, and continue to be, among the chief villains of human history that we must continue fighting to advance the rights of anyone who's not a heterosexual man

There is nothing theocratic about acknowledging the constitution as currently written does not protect the right to an abortion.

Plenty of pro choice legal scholars hold two views

A) abortion is something women should be allowed to do
B) it’s not a right protected by current iteration of the constitution

[soundchaser]

Regardless of what the final decision is, I can't see this as the opinion. It's far too nakedly political for anyone but Alito or Thomas to sign off on.

[7,052,770]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/03/alito-roe-leaked-draft-disaster-for-supreme-court/

Keep in mind: Majorities, particularly in high-stakes cases such as the Mississippi abortion law at issue, can fall apart. We don’t know how Politico, which broke the story, obtained the draft. One theory — my leading theory — is that the leak came from the conservative side, possibly from a clerk for a conservative justice concerned that the seeming majority, ready to do away with the constitutional right to abortion, might be unraveling.

There was a hint of this last week in a Wall Street Journal editorial warning that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. might be trying to dissuade Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh or Amy Coney Barrett from voting to overrule Roe outright. Roberts famously changed his mind after initially voting to strike down the Affordable Care Act in 2012 and “may be trying to turn another Justice now,” the Journal warned. “We hope he doesn’t succeed — for the good of the Court and the country.”

The Journal said its “guess” was that Alito was writing the majority opinion. Is it a coincidence that the Alito draft then leaked to Politico — or is it part of the same campaign to stave off a Kavanaugh or Barrett defection?

Of course, there are other possible culprits: a liberal clerk furious over the loss of abortion rights, perhaps? That makes less sense. Not much would be gained by leaking the draft of an outcome that has been expected since December’s oral argument in the Mississippi case, which involves a ban on most abortions after 15 weeks. Does anybody really think the reaction would change the conservative justices’ minds?

Conclusion: if a liberal did this, he's a dumbass. If a conservative did this, he's smart. Supreme Court clerks are usually smart.

[lfromnj]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/03/alito-roe-leaked-draft-disaster-for-supreme-court/

Keep in mind: Majorities, particularly in high-stakes cases such as the Mississippi abortion law at issue, can fall apart. We don’t know how Politico, which broke the story, obtained the draft. One theory — my leading theory — is that the leak came from the conservative side, possibly from a clerk for a conservative justice concerned that the seeming majority, ready to do away with the constitutional right to abortion, might be unraveling.

There was a hint of this last week in a Wall Street Journal editorial warning that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. might be trying to dissuade Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh or Amy Coney Barrett from voting to overrule Roe outright. Roberts famously changed his mind after initially voting to strike down the Affordable Care Act in 2012 and “may be trying to turn another Justice now,” the Journal warned. “We hope he doesn’t succeed — for the good of the Court and the country.”

The Journal said its “guess” was that Alito was writing the majority opinion. Is it a coincidence that the Alito draft then leaked to Politico — or is it part of the same campaign to stave off a Kavanaugh or Barrett defection?

Of course, there are other possible culprits: a liberal clerk furious over the loss of abortion rights, perhaps? That makes less sense. Not much would be gained by leaking the draft of an outcome that has been expected since December’s oral argument in the Mississippi case, which involves a ban on most abortions after 15 weeks. Does anybody really think the reaction would change the conservative justices’ minds?

Conclusion: if a liberal did this, he's a dumbass. If a conservative did this, he's smart. Supreme Court clerks are usually smart.

Again we saw those students in Yale start screaming over a discussion, those same students later become clerks.

[Del Tachi]

Regardless of what the final decision is, I can't see this as the opinion. It's far too nakedly political for anyone but Alito or Thomas to sign off on.

Yeah this was obvious.  It's a draft of Alito's opinion, which could take the form of a majority or concurrence depending on how the negotiations between the rest of the conservative bloc play out. 

Leaking the documents is a play to exert political pressure on the Justices while they're deep in deliberations.  The liberal outrage machine is only serving to throw fuel on the fire.  The victim is the perceived independence of the courts.     

[John Dule]

Breaking:

CJ roberts released statement verifying document as authentic

BUT AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT

IT IS NOT FINAL DECISION OF COURT, MERELY A ROUTINE DRAFT

he also directs marshal to conduct leak investigation

[GALeftist]

From a political standpoint, I'd wait until after the midterm elections to pass statewide bans beyond super safe R states so that the abortion issue won't be front and center in the fall. The SCOTUS decision in June will cause some backlash and mass protests, but I expected this to fade within weeks as we live in a 24-hour newscycle and inflation remains a big issue.

This would be a double-edged sword; there might be significant blowback from the base if Republican leaders are seen as sitting on their hands regarding what people believe to be an ongoing baby Holocaust.

[OSR stands with Israel]

https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1521514504999378945?t=OUGugwS0AvorhCYxwmiN0A...

[Associate Justice PiT]

https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1521514504999378945?t=OUGugwS0AvorhCYxwmiN0A...

     Very interesting statement. Sinema was the only Senator who I could realistically see flipping on the filibuster over this event. Collins and Murkowski are pro-choice, but they are unlikely to value that over the filibuster.

[John Dule]

2. This is actually legally terrible. Contrary to popular belief, Roe's legal basis is solid. This is the exact sort of thing that a majoritarian legislature *shouldn't* have the right to weigh in on. The commerce clause is also fine, Dule.

If you want to convince me that Roe is legally sound, trying to also justify the Commerce Clause jurisprudence of the past 100 years is not the way to do it.

[soundchaser]

Could someone elucidate for me how Gorsuch would sign off on this opinion? It doesn't square with my understanding of his approach to the 14th Amendment.

[KaiserDave]

Blairite you are hopelessly optimistic. +60 votes to codify Obergefell? No chance whatsoever. It is still the stated platform of the GOP to oppose gay marriage. And “Kav would never” made me laugh.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

In addition to codifying Roe v. Wade, the Democrats should have come out against lockdowns and the rest of this COVID nonsense from the very beginning. Then they'd have more credibility about being defenders of bodily autonomy.

As it stands right now, all they're doing is just using the latest turn of events to raise money and not really do anything.

[KaiserDave]

Blairite you are hopelessly optimistic. +60 votes to codify Obergefell? No chance whatsoever. It is still the stated platform of the GOP to oppose gay marriage. And “Kav would never” made me laugh.

Then if you're right, >40 Republican senators will walk onto the senate floor and vote against same sex marriage. There's literally no way this hurts us.

This would not do that much against them politically.

[ajc0918]

Blairite you are hopelessly optimistic. +60 votes to codify Obergefell? No chance whatsoever. It is still the stated platform of the GOP to oppose gay marriage. And “Kav would never” made me laugh.

Then if you're right, >40 Republican senators will walk onto the senate floor and vote against same sex marriage. There's literally no way this hurts us.

This would not do that much against them politically.

Seeing Rick Scott and Marco Rubio vote against gay marriage may at least cause some problems with them in Florida.