SCOTUS Leak

[Uncle Rico]

Right on, DDS. Developed countries have done the right thing, not transgressed.

Americas roots in Puritanism have always taken us backwards after many steps forward

[murara1994]

I remember when separation of church and state was a thing. Fun times.

Who are you, Rex Chapman?  Thanks for your 8th-grade level take.  Well done.

[Lennys Tap]

Roe v Wade was always vulnerable. Basing on the right to privacy was a stretch. Ruth Badger Ginsberg thoughts:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html

[TSmith34, Inc.]

This country is a joke to the rest of the world. Now relegated to third world status. Pity how the mighty have fallen, hey?

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

[MUBurrow]

In before the lock, but anyone wringing their hands about the leak is just doing so because they feel dirty dancing a jig in the town square about the result.

[jficke13]

Americas roots in Puritanism have always taken us backwards after many steps forward

I have long had many issues with John Calvin. Given a time machine useable only for sucker punching historical figures in a way that is kinda painful but ultimately can't really do much to them or change the course of history, he's on the list.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

In before the lock, but anyone wringing their hands about the leak is just doing so because they feel dirty dancing a jig in the town square about the result.

Yup, absolutely this.

[dgies9156]

2. The danger here is five justices who lie about stare decisis and show no respect for long settled law.

Absolutism to Stare Decisis is dangerous on its face. If you accept the Stare Decisis in its absolute form, then Plessy vs. Ferguson would be the law of the land and Separate but Equal provisions that were the foundation of Jim Crow would be in place.

Likewise, if Stare Decisis was an absolute concept, Brown vs. Board of Education would have been ruled for Board, not for Brown. God knows where that would leave us today.

Where I agree with you, Brother Pakuni, is that SCOTUS should step on decisions on past courts very, very carefully. Courts, even the Supreme Courts, make errors that require fixing. But fixing errors should be rare. I'll leave it to others to decide whether Roe vs. Wade is a "rare" error requiring fixing.

That said, the country is about to get tied up in knots over a draft of something. We have no idea whether this opinion will be affirmed by the Supreme Court, whether it will be toned down or even whether concurring or dissenting opinions will be developed. This is why releasing the draft was so stupid. It's a draft!

If the opinion becomes a Court ruling, I would remind everyone that it does not mean the end of Abortion on Demand in the United States. As a teen in Tennessee in 1970 and 1971, abortion was outlawed in our state. At Eighth Avenue and Church Street, one of the busiest intersections in downtown Nashville (pre Interstate 265/40), there was a pregnancy hotline bulletin board that advertised for arranging abortions in New York. The billboard was huge and controversial, but it stayed.

Women will continue to have abortion access. It may be inconvenient and less than universal, but nobody will change Illinois', California's or New York's laws unless a Human Life Amendment is added to the Constitution -- and I don't see that ever happening.

[MUBurrow]

Absolutism to Stare Decisis is dangerous on its face. If you accept the Stare Decisis in its absolute form, then Plessy vs. Ferguson would be the law of the land and Separate but Equal provisions that were the foundation of Jim Crow would be in place.

Likewise, if Stare Decisis was an absolute concept, Brown vs. Board of Education would have been ruled for Board, not for Brown. God knows where that would leave us today.

Where I agree with you, Brother Pakuni, is that SCOTUS should step on decisions on past courts very, very carefully. Courts, even the Supreme Courts, make errors that require fixing. But fixing errors should be rare. I'll leave it to others to decide whether Roe vs. Wade is a "rare" error requiring fixing.

Now do originalism.

[Spotcheck Billy]

Guess the dems might expand the court now.

[MU82]

Given that no one knows “ for sure” who leaked this, but but weird how MOST are surmising which side of the aisle this is coming from. The ones who keep telling us our democracy is in “peril”   Being that I believe most would agree that this leak is above reproach, one would think the “journalistic” source could have exercised some self control and NOT reported it.  My understanding is this happens quite often, the “journalistic” integrity thing that is but this is another glaring example of why I believe “journalism” is dead. There are no standards or ethics anymore. 

If you want a litmus test of this, flip it around and imagine the reaction

If this leak turns out to be true, all it means is subject of abortion goes back to the states where it belonged all along.

So your thesis is that the Politico journalists should have shown "integrity" by refusing to publish the news? For the greater good or something?

And yes, it will be wonderful in all the red states when only rich white men can afford to pay for their mistresses or their daughters (or both) to get abortions, as was the case in the good old days. The poor women can use coat hangers in back alleys, just as they used to for fun. Or they can have babies they can't care for because most of the same rich white men who are against women's reproductive rights also are against providing money to help single mothers.

Your fellow dentist is right: This Supreme Court is undoing 50 years of progress on women's reproductive rights and turning America into a third-world country.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Given that no one knows “ for sure” who leaked this, but but weird how MOST are surmising which side of the aisle this is coming from. The ones who keep telling us our democracy is in “peril”   Being that I believe most would agree that this leak is above reproach, one would think the “journalistic” source could have exercised some self control and NOT reported it.  My understanding is this happens quite often, the “journalistic” integrity thing that is but this is another glaring example of why I believe “journalism” is dead. There are no standards or ethics anymore. 

If you want a litmus test of this, flip it around and imagine the reaction

If this leak turns out to be true, all it means is subject of abortion goes back to the states where it belonged all along.

"Health care professional" continues to be against actual health care. 

[Uncle Rico]

I have long had many issues with John Calvin. Given a time machine useable only for sucker punching historical figures in a way that is kinda painful but ultimately can't really do much to them or change the course of history, he's on the list.

America’s War on Drugs, War on Sex, War on Crime and so forth have always failed to address the root causes.  We blame our ills, well some do, on a belief we can look to a magic being and book to solve them.  It’s always been gobbledygook and if we believe in the words of our founding fathers, we’d know what they knew, religion causes more problems than solve them.  It’s a convenient crutch to pass the buck and avoid real governance.  Religion is a scourge on real humanity and hinders progress.  Always has, always will

[brewcity77]

Guess the dems might expand the court now.

They should expand to 15, but only allow the Senate to vote on three. After the first three get the court balanced with 6 Republican and 6 Democratic nominated justices, all future justices must be approved by unanimous consent of the sitting members of the court. So if you can't get Sam Alito and Sonia Sotomayor to agree, no new justice. This would mean nominating justices that actually cared about the rule of law rather than the most partisan judges the Senate will allow. Going forward, it would force both parties to care about justices that were chosen for credentials and record rather than just enforcing the party-driven flavor of the day issues.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Guess the dems might expand the court now.

No they won’t because democrats play scared, moderate, politics and don’t cater to their far left base because they don’t want to upset the apple cart.

I always find it hilarious when people call democrats communists when the US is a center right nation, and even the furthest left politicians here would be considered moderates in most other countries.

So yea, because of democrats refusal to play ball is why there is going to be an abortion ban in half the states.

[jficke13]

No they won’t because democrats play scared, moderate, politics and don’t cater to their far left base because they don’t want to upset the apple cart.

I always find it hilarious when people call democrats communists when the US is a center right nation, and even the furthest left politicians here would be considered moderates in most other countries.

Wasn't it Lenin who was notorious for upholding decorum rather than taking action to ensure his control of power? Clearly Democrats learned directly at Lenin's knee.

[Pakuni]

Absolutism to Stare Decisis is dangerous on its face. If you accept the Stare Decisis in its absolute form, then Plessy vs. Ferguson would be the law of the land and Separate but Equal provisions that were the foundation of Jim Crow would be in place.

Likewise, if Stare Decisis was an absolute concept, Brown vs. Board of Education would have been ruled for Board, not for Brown. God knows where that would leave us today.

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.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Guess the dems might expand the court now.

Don't have the votes for it, and ultimately that will just result in a tit-for-tat constant expansion of the court.

Of course, bald-faced lying during your confirmation hearing is impeachable, but that will never happen either.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

The Democrats big problem is that they are bound by the policy "wonkism" that succeeded in the Clinton and Obama administrations, but we are living in an era where the messaging is more important.  Case in point, while it was hardly perfect, Obamacare is a good (not great) law.  Most Republicans would even admit that without a hot mic around. 

As for the now, I am trying to figure out the *political* downside for cancelling student loan debt.  I fully understand that it would not be great policy because it doesn't actually impact the underlying issue regarding higher education financing, and it would likely disproportionately impact those who are actually able to pay back their debts, but I can't imagine that it wouldn't pay off politically.  I can see a bunch of people voting blue in the future who otherwise are going to sit out 2022 or 2024.  But I don't see many Dems voting red because of it.  Especially if you include parent PLUS loans in the equation.

But they are getting lost in the policy aspects of it.  For instance the "means testing," which sounds good and all but is bound to piss off a bunch of voters who didn't hear the phrase "means testing" when Biden made his promise two years ago. 

Democrats are trying to play chess while the Republicans proudly flip over the board to play something else entirely.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

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.

One clarification: they don't give a unnatural carnal knowledge about the Constitution. Since Scalia, the Constitution has been used as a fig leaf to give cover to the Court's right wing to make purely political decisions. Scalia in particular, but also Thomas, always started with the desired outcome first and then retrofit judicial reasoning to support that outcome.

[tower912]

I have long had many issues with John Calvin. Given a time machine useable only for sucker punching historical figures in a way that is kinda painful but ultimately can't really do much to them or change the course of history, he's on the list.

Try living in West Michigan with the Calvinists.

[MUfan12]

The Democrats big problem is that they are bound by the policy "wonkism" that succeeded in the Clinton and Obama administrations, but we are living in an era where the messaging is more important.

Compounding this is that they have so many various factions on the left to please, the messaging ends up being totally convoluted and ineffective.

[JWags85]

In before the lock, but anyone wringing their hands about the leak is just doing so because they feel dirty dancing a jig in the town square about the result.

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.

What I do find amusing, and is rampant on social media, is the number of politic obsessed people who clearly don't understand government, legislation/legislative process, or federal vs state.

[MuggsyB]

Don't have the votes for it, and ultimately that will just result in a tit-for-tat constant expansion of the court.

Of course, bald-faced lying during your confirmation hearing is impeachable, but that will never happen either.

I didn't watch any of the confirmation hearings except a flew blips here and there.  My memory of Comey Barrett is that she refused to answer whether she would overturn Roe V Wade.  Are you saying these alleged 5 justices under oath specifically said they would not overturn this decision?

[BM1090]

I didn't watch any of the confirmation hearings except a flew blips here and there.  My memory of Comey Barrett is that she refused to answer whether she would overturn Roe V Wade.  Are you saying these alleged 5 justices under oath specifically said they would not overturn this decision?

Basically, yes.