SCOTUS Leak

[StillAWarrior]

Tell that to women in Texas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and the 10 other states with trigger laws set to go into effect as soon as Roe is overturned.

There will be very few states where abortions are completely banned. Even in Texas and Oklahoma, two states that received a lot of attention for their extremely restrictive laws, abortion is still legal for the first six weeks. The Mississippi law that is at issue in Dobbs sets it at 15 weeks which would likely allow 90%+ of abortions. I believe that 20+ states already have laws on the books preventing abortion after viability, which Roe allowed

I think what we will ultimately see is quite a few states settling in at allowing abortion up to 12-15 weeks or so. I suspect that this will be a plurality if not a majority. I also suspect that there will be more states allowing abortion throughout pregnancy than totally banning abortion. Honestly, I think that the end results of this decision -- if it in fact tracks this draft opinion -- will be much of country settling in on "Safe, legal, and rare." And, frankly, I think that the percentage of the US population that is OK with this is larger than a lot of people think.

[dgies9156]

I never suggested absolutism to stare decisis, but before I explain myself there, let me explain that you're wrong re: Plessy.
Plessy v Ferguson was never overturned by the court. Subsequent rulings - including Brown - had the effect of weakening it, but a separate group of justices didn't come along decades later and simply say "they were wrong, we're going to pretend the ruling doesn't exist."
That's what's potentially happening here with Roe. Five justices - three of whom have been on the court for five years or less - have decided that they know the Constitution better than the seven justices who ruled in favor of Roe as well as the justices who decided Casey.
And they're doing so capriciously. Unlike Plessy and Brown, there have been no societal, cultural or legal changes to bring this about. In fact, the opposite is true. The American public is far more accepting and supportive of abortion rights than 50 years ago. Unlike Brown, this court is cutting against the grain.

Now, when I rage about these justices lying about stare decisis, it;s just that. These justices - most notably Kavanaugh - took an oath in their Senate hearings and testified that they respected stare decisis and precedent, and considered Roe settled law. And then at the very first opportunity, they went back on their word to overturn it.

Brother Pakuni:

I think we're arguing semantics. Brown versus Board may not have de jure revoked Plessy vs. Ferguson, but de facto, it did. And, you know it.

It is not and should not be the intent of the Senate to lock a Justice in on every possible ruling with political ramifications. That's absurd and things change. Did they lie about Roe vs. Wade? Candidly, I doubt it. Rather, Roe vs. Wade was and will be decided based on conflicting judicial philosophies. To say any court ruling, regardless of subject, is sacrosanct is absurd. Nobody will do that and we've seen a procession of SCOTUS nominees over the years be as evasive as possible.

I've never seen anyone dance as well as a SCOTUS nominee when it comes to questions of how they'd rule on specific cases. The last one that didn't was Robert Bork and you can where that got him!

[dgies9156]

Honestly, I think that the end results of this decision -- if it in fact tracks this draft opinion -- will be much of country settling in on "Safe, legal, and rare." And, frankly, I think that the percentage of the US population that is OK with this is larger than a lot of people think.

I hope so.

That was Hillary Clinton's view back in the 1990s. I had an immense respect for her effort to try to bridge the gap on this issue.

The whole issue with abortion is that we're too busy trying to control supply. Priests, Ministers, Rabbis, Imans and other wise men and women need to focus on the demand for abortion. We can stop abortion by stopping the demand for it. That leads to some discomfort with Catholics and many fundamentalists because it'ss gong to mean dealing with birth control, family planning and people's propensity to be intimate! These are subjects too many people don't want to face up to!

Unfortunately for Ms. Clinton's initiatives, cooler heads on both sides did not prevail.

[rocket surgeon]

Super easy for a poor woman in San Antonio to hop a flight to Los Angeles and rent a hotel for a couple nights on top of paying for a costly medical procedure.
Oh yeah, I forgot. Health care is for the rich.

just go down to the border, cross it and they will fly you 'bout anywhere ya wanna go and give a phone, a drivers license and a pre-filled in ballot! 

[jficke13]

There will be very few states where abortions are completely banned. Even in Texas and Oklahoma, two states that received a lot of attention for their extremely restrictive laws, abortion is still legal for the first six weeks. The Mississippi law that is at issue in Dobbs sets it at 15 weeks which would likely allow 90%+ of abortions. I believe that 20+ states already have laws on the books preventing abortion after viability, which Roe allowed

I think what we will ultimately see is quite a few states settling in at allowing abortion up to 12-15 weeks or so. I suspect that this will be a plurality if not a majority. I also suspect that there will be more states allowing abortion throughout pregnancy than totally banning pregnancy. Honestly, I think that the end results of this decision -- if it in fact tracks this draft opinion -- will be much of country settling in on "Safe, legal, and rare." And, frankly, I think that the percentage of the US population that is OK with this is larger than a lot of people think.

The GOP in Wisconsin hasn't exactly been defined by their steady moderation recently, and they're virtually guaranteed a veto-proof majority after this upcoming election. If you Wisconsin instituted a total ban by this time next year I can't say I would be able to say "I told you so" but I also wouldn't be completely shocked.

Call me crazy, but being reliant on state legislatures to be the moderating even keel on this issue strikes me as wishful thinking.

[MU82]

There will be very few states where abortions are completely banned. Even in Texas and Oklahoma, two states that received a lot of attention for their extremely restrictive laws, abortion is still legal for the first six weeks. The Mississippi law that is at issue in Dobbs sets it at 15 weeks which would likely allow 90%+ of abortions. I believe that 20+ states already have laws on the books preventing abortion after viability, which Roe allowed

I think what we will ultimately see is quite a few states settling in at allowing abortion up to 12-15 weeks or so. I suspect that this will be a plurality if not a majority. I also suspect that there will be more states allowing abortion throughout pregnancy than totally banning pregnancy. Honestly, I think that the end results of this decision -- if it in fact tracks this draft opinion -- will be much of country settling in on "Safe, legal, and rare." And, frankly, I think that the percentage of the US population that is OK with this is larger than a lot of people think.

I like your optimism, SAW, but we'll see. Even before this became public, red states already were falling over each other trying to enact as restrictive laws as possible, with several aiming to mimic Texas' law. And as you almost surely know, many women (probably most women) don't even know they're pregnant at 6 weeks.

There will be numerous states where it will be illegal, for all intents and purposes, and the poorest women in those states will be affected the most.

Sadly, it'll be yet another form of systemic racism.

My biggest hope is that the outrage over this will somehow lead to mifepristone and misoprostol being easily available to all, but I'm not holding my breath for that, either.

[Pakuni]

There will be very few states where abortions are completely banned. Even in Texas and Oklahoma, two states that received a lot of attention for their extremely restrictive laws, abortion is still legal for the first six weeks. The Mississippi law that is at issue in Dobbs sets it at 15 weeks which would likely allow 90%+ of abortions. I believe that 20+ states already have laws on the books preventing abortion after viability, which Roe allowed

I think what we will ultimately see is quite a few states settling in at allowing abortion up to 12-15 weeks or so. I suspect that this will be a plurality if not a majority. I also suspect that there will be more states allowing abortion throughout pregnancy than totally banning pregnancy. Honestly, I think that the end results of this decision -- if it in fact tracks this draft opinion -- will be much of country settling in on "Safe, legal, and rare." And, frankly, I think that the percentage of the US population that is OK with this is larger than a lot of people think.

Thirteen states currently have laws that will trigger a complete ban the moment Roe is overturned.
Nine more states never eliminated their pre-Roe laws banning abortion - including Wisconsin - so those would automatically go back into effect, barring further legislative action.
So, the moment this ruling comes down, abortion would be banned in as many as 22 states.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/03/us/state-abortion-trigger-laws-roe-v-wade-overturned/index.html

[4everwarriors]

Good luck to J.P. Mandel in the Ohio primary tonight! I look forward to his posts on Trooth Senshul.

We'll see. Figurin' J.D. Vance, with Trump's  endorsement kicks Mandel's ass, aina?

[MUBurrow]

With all due respect, thats BS.  I'm pretty staunchly pro-choice, but don't think the leak is at all kosher, much less the people who are celebrating it as heroic.  Many would surely be losing their minds at the fall of democracy or judicial process if it was flipped.  This situation is a sh**show from the court to the leak.

I completely agree with you and am also pro-choice.  I think this discussion is two pronged with the potential decision itself and separately the fact that it was leaked. 

As far as the leak it's extremely concerning imo.  Our institutions seem to be at risk.  Now maybe some here and across the country want to completely overthrow our system, but that prospect isn't exactly thrilling to me and the vast majority of American citizens.

Okay, maybe two people - but then I think your concerns about the leak are overblown.  This isn't leaked troop movements or leaked details about criminal procedure. Not all leaks are created equal nor are they all equally dangerous or equally symptomatic of our #failinginstitutions.  This is a leak about a decision that would immediately affect the legality of a medical procedure that has been legal for 50 years.  I think folks should have some forewarning of that and that we shouldn't have to wait for SCOTUS theater on the courthouse steps  to see what medical procedures will be legal tomorrow. 

I am trying to give credence to your argument that folks on the left would be equally pissed if it were a leak about a decision in the other direction, and I'm having real trouble finding a reasonable good faith example.  Maybe if a decision were leaked that SCOTUS were going to outlaw assault rifles I would be upset because I think it would cause a run on those rifles before they are illegal?  But even so, it would be hard to argue that people shouldn't have advance notice of a change in the law that affects something they care about.  And that's also a poor example because the policy reasons for outlawing weapons vs returning abortion to the states are totally different. I am not saying I couldn't be persuaded by a good example, but its tough for me to imagine getting too upset about a leak like this.

[brewcity77]

If Roe is overturned, does that also ban all means of transportation? Or free will to move?

If you don't have the money to travel to a different state or be forced to MOVE to a different state? Yes. Please stop with the ridiculous privilege arguments.

[StillAWarrior]

Thirteen states currently have laws that will trigger a complete ban the moment Roe is overturned.
Nine more states never eliminated their pre-Roe laws banning abortion - including Wisconsin - so those would automatically go back into effect, barring further legislative action.
So, the moment this ruling comes down, abortion would be banned in as many as 22 states.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/03/us/state-abortion-trigger-laws-roe-v-wade-overturned/index.html

I don't have time to read that entire article...already spent more time on this today that I probably should have. But, my point was that I think actual "bans" will be rare. I conceded that restrictions -- including some severe -- will likely be the result. A quick look at that seemed to be "almost complete bans" but that address health of mother.

I continue to think that eventually when this all shakes out, most states will settle into limits on abortion that will allow abortions early in pregnancy. Time will tell.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

We'll see. Figurin' J.D. Vance, with Trump's  endorsement kicks Mandel's ass, aina?

When Biden mispronounces kleptocracy, it's because he's senile. When Trump forgets the name of the person he is endorsing and mangles the name of his own social network it's because he is a stable genius. No one can argue with that.

[Merit Matters]

If you don't have the money to travel to a different state or be forced to MOVE to a different state? Yes. Please stop with the ridiculous privilege arguments.

I bet that’s how all the people who got fired the past two years feel. What goes around comes around I guess.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I bet that’s how all the people who got fired the past two years feel. What goes around comes around I guess.

WTF does this even mean?

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I completely agree with you and am also pro-choice.  I think this discussion is two pronged with the potential decision itself and separately the fact that it was leaked. 

My take on the issue itself is that we have generally been 50/50 since the 70's.  My thought has always been that if you overturn it however abortions become much less safe for people.   

As far as the leak it's extremely concerning imo.  Our institutions seem to be at risk.  Now maybe some here and across the country want to completely overthrow our system, but that prospect isn't exactly thrilling to me and the vast majority of American citizens.

Nope. We've entered minority rule thanks to the Electoral College and gerrymandering.

https://www.masslive.com/politics/2022/05/although-poll-suggests-most-americans-agree-with-1973-roe-v-wade-decision-moral-acceptability-is-less-clear.html

"Overturning the ruling isn’t what a majority Americans agree with, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released in November.

More than 6 in 10 Americans, or 63%, say they agree with the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that established a woman’s right to an abortion and only 28% disagree with it, the poll suggests.

The poll also stated that 45% of Americans think the Supreme Court should make it easier to get an abortion in the United States, while 33% think the Supreme Court should make it harder.

In January, a Marquette Law School poll suggested that 72% are opposed to overturning it.

“As the abortion issues before the Court have received more attention since summer, the percentage of respondents with an opinion about Roe has increased,” the report states. “In September, 71% said they had an opinion on reversing Roe; the number rose to 77% in January.”

[jesmu84]

If you don't have the money to travel to a different state or be forced to MOVE to a different state? Yes. Please stop with the ridiculous privilege arguments.

His line of thinking also ignored laws in states that seek to fine/punish residents who cross the state border to have the procedure performed.

[#UnleashSean]

The beginning of the end boys. Hopefully this entire government gets burned down and we can start anew with term limits and age limits.

[brewcity77]

I bet that’s how all the people who got fired the past two years feel. What goes around comes around I guess.

What are you even talking about? That's totally nonsensical and unrelated.

My wife and I recently moved across town. It cost us a few thousand dollars to move roughly 90 blocks. Many people who need this medical care don't have hundreds of dollars, much less thousands to handle emergencies that come up, and certainly not to move to another state, which will be more expensive than our 90 block move. Just a ridiculous train of thought.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

His line of thinking also ignored laws in states that seek to fine/punish residents who cross the state border to have the procedure performed.

Yup, that’s what I’m most worried about. It wouldn’t surprise me if the deep, religious, south puts something like that into place.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Yup, that’s what I’m most worried about. It wouldn’t surprise me if the deep, religious, south puts something like that into place.

Texas already floated the idea

[rocket surgeon]

Glad that you NOW are against ginning up public anger and emotion leading to dangerous or even deadly outcomes. Can't we just call this leak "tourists taking a stroll through the Capitol" or "antifa being agitators"?

Seriously ...

Though I'm staunchly pro-choice, I actually think the leak wasn't good. IMHO, we simply shouldn't have leaks from SCOTUS.

But that roQQet and maybe a couple of others here are pinning blame for it on Politico -- as if any news organization would have or should have ignored such a leak -- is beyond comical.

  beyond commical?  in other words, our "journalists" have no self control?  professionalism?  yup, that what i thought

  on the other hand, if it was a leak about crack head and/or the "big guy" we all know which file that goes into

[TSmith34, Inc.]

"Healthcare" "professional"

[jficke13]

  beyond commical?  in other words, our "journalists" have no self control?  professionalism?  yup, that what i thought

  on the other hand, if it was a leak about crack head and/or the "big guy" we all know which file that goes into

So... uh... what exactly do you perceive the role of journalists to be?

"hmm, this is newsworthy and relevant to the governance of the country, but I suppose I'd rather not make waves so I'll just not report it?"

which is, I suppose, more charitable than

"I will diligently discharge my duty to uphold the status quo, serve those in power, and only publish that which those in power approve."

And I... kinda think you're aiming at the latter? Say, what are your feelings about Pravda?

[JWags85]

just go down to the border, cross it and they will fly you 'bout anywhere ya wanna go and give a phone, a drivers license and a pre-filled in ballot!

FFS man.  Get a grip.

Okay, maybe two people - but then I think your concerns about the leak are overblown.  This isn't leaked troop movements or leaked details about criminal procedure. Not all leaks are created equal nor are they all equally dangerous or equally symptomatic of our #failinginstitutions.  This is a leak about a decision that would immediately affect the legality of a medical procedure that has been legal for 50 years.  I think folks should have some forewarning of that and that we shouldn't have to wait for SCOTUS theater on the courthouse steps  to see what medical procedures will be legal tomorrow. 

I am trying to give credence to your argument that folks on the left would be equally pissed if it were a leak about a decision in the other direction, and I'm having real trouble finding a reasonable good faith example.  Maybe if a decision were leaked that SCOTUS were going to outlaw assault rifles I would be upset because I think it would cause a run on those rifles before they are illegal?  But even so, it would be hard to argue that people shouldn't have advance notice of a change in the law that affects something they care about.  And that's also a poor example because the policy reasons for outlawing weapons vs returning abortion to the states are totally different. I am not saying I couldn't be persuaded by a good example, but its tough for me to imagine getting too upset about a leak like this.

2 active people on a board that predominantly leans left.  Meaning that the entire right/center right isn't as made up of bible thumping 50's fetishists as people like to believe.  I know it wasn't your intent, but its the broad brush stuff that makes real life discourse a mess.

And I hear what you're saying, but it still feels an awful lot like "im fine with the leak cause it benefits the cause of my viewpoint"

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

  beyond commical?  in other words, our "journalists" have no self control?  professionalism?  yup, that what i thought

Assuming they did their due diligence to confirm its authenticity, nothing that Politico did was in any way unprofessional.

Aren't you one of those who claims the "liberal media" should report the truth?  Today, the SC confirmed this was authentic.  I guess you only care about truth when it suits you huh?