SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[7,052,770]

House: Safe R -> Tilt R
Senate: Lean R -> Lean D

Oh, who am I kidding?

[7,052,770]

I never thought I would see the day. This is such a beautiful moment for life and our country.

I’m overjoyed.

You guys destroyed the legitimacy of the Supreme Court to achieve this but sure act like this a good thing for the country

To be fair, the Supreme Court destroyed its own legitimacy on 12/12/2020.

[7,052,770]

Why would Joe Biden let this happen

Well, if it's 5-4, not advancing Clarence Thomas to a full floor vote might have made the difference.

I'd be willing to bet good money this draft opinion is 6-3, and thus not giving Thomas a hearing is moot.

And even if it's not, it's not like Bush would have appointed a liberal had Thomas been rejected. (Ok, ok, there's Souter, so who knows. But probably not.)

[7,052,770]

Oh, and obligatory shoutout to everyone left of center who just couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary Clinton on 11/8/2016 (whether because she was too right-wing or too left-wing). Nice f**king job, losers.

[7,052,770]

I'm going to bet that someone connected to Roberts (though not Roberts himself) leaked it, since Roberts is likely trying to peel off one of the other 5 to contrive some ruling that keeps Roe in place, but allows a 15-week abortion ban to go through.

[7,052,770]

These people gathering at the SC building better not do anything stupid that will make the movement look terrible. Our side won't get the deference and forgiveness that the pro-1/6 party did.

[7,052,770]

Worth noting that many states have their own equivalents of Roe v. Wade per State Supreme Court, I know that Minnesota does, as does Kansas of all places. That might be an option for some surprising states, like Kentucky and Oklahoma. Michigan is a no-brainer, its Supreme Court already has a 4D-3R majority but one of the Republicans is basically a RINO so it's really a 5-2 liberal majority, and there's already evidence that Whitmer and Nessel are planning something to it in this regards.

That's not much comfort to the millions of pro-choice Americans living in states where is it going to be totally illegal this summer.

[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.

[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.

This. I actually feel like, for the reasons you explained, it's likelier a pro-lifer strategically leaked this to ensure it happened, than a pro-choicer leaked this to shame one of the judges into switching to the pro-Roe camp.

As ElectionsGuy said, it would be incredibly dumb if a pro-choicer leaked this because all they'd be doing is actually forcing them all to double-down and support this to the bitter end when one might have considered changing their mind - because now if they do, it'll look like they're weak-kneed, unprincipled flip-floppers who caved to pressure. On the other hand, a pro-lifer strategically leaking it would be good 3D chess (though on the other hand, the fact that's it's so well thought out makes me wonder that someone pro-life could come up with it, given the average pro-lifer's arguments against abortion and Roe).

Exactly. This leak pretty much guarantees that none of the 5 conservative justices can flip now. Who benefits from that? Someone who wants to make sure that none of them flip.

Of course, it's not a guarantee. Not everyone sees things the same way I do. And there could also be additional motivations beyond trying to push the judges in any direction. But it seems like the most likely culprit is some clerk who's worried about Kavanaugh (or maybe another judge, but who could that be?) flipping and wants to prevent that.

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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.

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

Not literally the same individuals. At least not without a lot of drastic maturing.

[7,052,770]

It's pretty wild, and under discussed, how Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all blatantly lied to the Senate about how they respected Roe's precedent.

If abortion really is murder, it is totally justifiable morally to tell a white lie in order to end it. I disagree with their opinion, but the way they went about it makes sense.

[7,052,770]

It's pretty wild, and under discussed, how Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all blatantly lied to the Senate about how they respected Roe's precedent.

If abortion really is murder, it is totally justifiable morally to tell a white lie in order to end it. I disagree with their opinion, but the way they went about it makes sense.

Perhaps, but my understanding is that the legal argument isn't so connected to the question of "murder" as it is to the premise that abortion rights simply aren't included anywhere in the constitution.

I'm quite convinced that the 5 justices, along with the vast majority of anti-abortion politicians, start from a position of abortion being against their moral/religious beliefs, and then work backwards from there to find a justification.

That's not an attack per se, most everybody does that to some extent, but I don't think it's a coincidence that all of the Christian Conservatives on the Court have come to the decision that matches their church's teachings.

[7,052,770]

Women's abortion issues are a personal issue. No one should know about it. Period. Stay out of it.

I'll leave it at that.

Child abuse is a personal issue. No one should know about it. Period. Stay out of it.

I'll leave it at that.

You see, YOUR House of Warships clergy might believe in abortion rights and / or question whether life begins at conception, but MY houses of worship clergy believe life begins at conception and should be protected by law with zero exceptions. And since MY clergy has five votes on the Supreme Court and YOURS has only three or MY religious views are now the law of the land! See how simple that is?

No Fhtagn's views on this issue are not made the law of the land by this ruling. What this does is kick the issue back to the elected legislators to decide which laws will get implemnted in their state. Heck in states like Michigan , where ballot measures exist you can put it up to a vote whether Roe should be codified or not.

Today, that's all, but the anti-abortion crowd isn't going to quit until it's illegal in every state. And to be fair, what other approach could someone who believes abortion is murder take?

[7,052,770]

House: Safe R -> Tilt R
Senate: Lean R -> Lean D

Oh, who am I kidding?

Both Safe R is the correct answer

I'll defer to your impeccable track record.

[7,052,770]

Is there any information or speculation on how Harriet Myers would have voted on this? Wasn't there speculation that she might be fairly moderate?

[7,052,770]

Everyone does realize that abortion bans typically are supply-side bans by shutting down clinics and punishing providers, not demand-side bans to punish mothers, who were mostly lied to and deceived by the abortion industry, right?

How do you define what's "typical" ? What country, other than Communist Romania, has ever gone from broadly legal abortion to illegalizing it in whole or in some areas?

[7,052,770]

Everyone does realize that abortion bans typically are supply-side bans by shutting down clinics and punishing providers, not demand-side bans to punish mothers, who were mostly lied to and deceived by the abortion industry, right?

How do you define what's "typical" ? What country, other than Communist Romania, has ever gone from broadly legal abortion to illegalizing it in whole or in some areas?

I was referring to proposed and enacted abortion bans in thr US, including Texas's law.

Oh, well I don't think you're correct if you're saying proposed abortion bans in America don't often include punishment on women. Some, but not all, have.

I also think you're being a little demeaning when you imply that women who choose to abort have been tricked by "the abortion industry," as if they don't have agency and can't possibly understand what they're doing.

[7,052,770]

Everyone does realize that abortion bans typically are supply-side bans by shutting down clinics and punishing providers, not demand-side bans to punish mothers, who were mostly lied to and deceived by the abortion industry, right?

I'm going to tell you a story that happened to someone I know when she was a teenager, about 15 or 16 I think.  This is one of the personal connections that I mentioned in my long post on my abortion views earlier in the thread.

She was on a family vacation to Florida.  While she was in the hotel room alone, a stranger broke in and forcibly raped her.  It was reported to the police but the rapist was never caught.  She missed her next period a couple weeks later, and her mother got her a pregnancy test.  It was positive.  The girl was not sexually active and there is no question that the rapist was the father.

Her mother took her for an abortion as soon as possible, and it's something she's been thankful for ever since.  She grew up to be happily married with several children.  She and her family have had a good life.  Had she been forced to carry the rapist's baby to term, it would have had a devastating effect on her life.   Her family at the time was just scraping by, so if she had kept the baby (which I think is very unlikely) it would have grown up in poverty, along with pushing the rest of her family into it.  Even if she didn't keep it, she would have been forced to carry a baby to term as the result of a horrible, violent act.  I have no doubt that this would have emotionally scarred her for life. 

Now tell me again that abortion in the case of rape is wrong.

I agree with your point, but there's no way a person who sincerely believes that even an unattached single-cell zygote is equivalent to a person and entitled to all of the same rights is going to be moved by it.

[7,052,770]

So if Republicans are going to play the "overturn Obergefell doesn't really mean overturn Obergefell" card, surely they'll never criticize "defund the police" again, right?

(Not that defunding the police was ever in the Democratic platform or anything, but the analogy still works I think)

[7,052,770]

Were these home addresses previously a secret? That seems unlikely. You can find anyone's home address within a few minutes if you know what to Google.

Now, is it appropriate to go do a protest in a neighborhood? Not really. It's disrespectful to the other people living nearby. But is it a "leak" ? Is a 1/6-level incitement of violence? Please...

[7,052,770]

Phone books

Honestly, I don't think Gen-Zers are very familiar with those or grasp how in the recent past, everyone's phone number and address were delivered to everyone annually. (Yes, it was possible to get yourself "unlisted," but the vast majority of people were in there.)