SCOTUS

[Seacoaster(1)]

Sen Susan Collins: “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office..”

Sucker born every minute...

Hence why deliberations by the SCOTUS justices should never be leaked before they are announced to the public. Nobody on this forum gives 2 chits about that. So political scumbaggery has infiltrated the SCOTUS.. if it serves a purpose. The end justifies the means after all. I can only wait for this forums resident FLP liberal republican to justify this chicanery. I'm sure he will do so.

I assume you mean me?

I dunno who leaked this, or even if it's a credible leak, though experts are saying it sure looks like it.

Yes, clearly "political scumbaggery has infiltrated SCOTUS"...that is, if this is accurate and it's accurate that the decision is 5-4 with Roberts voting against, as is also being reported.

And that's without a leak.

So, ok, someone felt there would be a benefit of finding out what the public thinks of the reasoning of the decision, before it is ultimately finalized. Could have been one of the 5, wanting to see where the legal issues would be, before finalization.

Could have been Roberts, trying desperately to put pressure against this, given his concern about preserving the public's confidence in the Court and knowing that the esteem the Court is held in would plummet from such a decision, given the assurances by the past 3 nominees to follow precedent, respect "the law of the land" that they agreed Roe is...knowing that the machinations by McConnell to prevent Obama's nominee from even getting a hearing, then rushing through Trump's third in one term, would be seen as incredible "political scumbaggery" made real.

Or could have been one of the 3 other dissenting justices or any of their staffs, totally outraged and hoping against hope that the public reaction would moderate this version from being the final vote. Might be a staff member of one of the 5, as not all such should be assumed to be staunchly anti-Roe.

Yup.

But your outrage, cradle, is about the leak, not the content? Very telling.

No I did not mean you. My outrage is about the leak. I'm willing to bet that the leaker will be found out fairly quickly and offered a job at CNN or MSNBC making big Yes it is scumbaggery and one more reason why nobody trusts our government anymore.

Unfortunately it’s not likely a violation of criminal law. It was only a draft. It should be a crime given the enormity of what the clerk to Sotomajor was trying to do. But alas, draft opinions aren’t exactly federal property.

That said, in an interrogation with the feds, if the leftist clown dweeb clerk who works for Sotomajor who leaked this lies, then you’ve got the crime that trips up everyone.

And of course the ‘party of norms’ will gleefully hire this clerk to MSNBC.

Anything to back this up?

[RedFromMI]

The best bet on who leaked this is either Alito himself or one of his followers at the court - lock in the opinion without changes or the court looks silly.

[Seacoaster(1)]

The best bet on who leaked this is either Alito himself or one of his followers at the court - lock in the opinion without changes or the court looks silly.

I sort of agree; but I don't think it's really fair or appropriate to ascribe it to some specific clerk. Unless, of course, PB has good evidence that that was the case. Call me doubtful.

And I think the leak is, in any event, the least of the Court's problems (seditionist pillow talk, etc.).

[cradleandshoot]

Sen Susan Collins: “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office..”

Sucker born every minute...

Hence why deliberations by the SCOTUS justices should never be leaked before they are announced to the public.

Ironic because a decision like that would limit our right to privacy.

No irony, just good old fashioned common sense and respect for the SCOTUS. That is now another ship that has sailed full steam ahead towards the iceberg. Thank you all you FLP for moving the goalposts towards scumbaggery.

[jhu72]

Sen Susan Collins: “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office..”

Sucker born every minute...

Hence why deliberations by the SCOTUS justices should never be leaked before they are announced to the public. Nobody on this forum gives 2 chits about that. So political scumbaggery has infiltrated the SCOTUS.. if it serves a purpose. The end justifies the means after all. I can only wait for this forums resident FLP liberal republican to justify this chicanery. I'm sure he will do so.

I assume you mean me?

I dunno who leaked this, or even if it's a credible leak, though experts are saying it sure looks like it.

Yes, clearly "political scumbaggery has infiltrated SCOTUS"...that is, if this is accurate and it's accurate that the decision is 5-4 with Roberts voting against, as is also being reported.

And that's without a leak.

So, ok, someone felt there would be a benefit of finding out what the public thinks of the reasoning of the decision, before it is ultimately finalized. Could have been one of the 5, wanting to see where the legal issues would be, before finalization.

Could have been Roberts, trying desperately to put pressure against this, given his concern about preserving the public's confidence in the Court and knowing that the esteem the Court is held in would plummet from such a decision, given the assurances by the past 3 nominees to follow precedent, respect "the law of the land" that they agreed Roe is...knowing that the machinations by McConnell to prevent Obama's nominee from even getting a hearing, then rushing through Trump's third in one term, would be seen as incredible "political scumbaggery" made real.

Or could have been one of the 3 other dissenting justices or any of their staffs, totally outraged and hoping against hope that the public reaction would moderate this version from being the final vote. Might be a staff member of one of the 5, as not all such should be assumed to be staunchly anti-Roe.

Yup.

But your outrage, cradle, is about the leak, not the content? Very telling.

No I did not mean you. My outrage is about the leak. I'm willing to bet that the leaker will be found out fairly quickly and offered a job at CNN or MSNBC making big Yes it is scumbaggery and one more reason why nobody trusts our government anymore.

Unfortunately it’s not likely a violation of criminal law. It was only a draft. It should be a crime given the enormity of what the clerk to Sotomajor was trying to do. But alas, draft opinions aren’t exactly federal property.

That said, in an interrogation with the feds, if the leftist clown dweeb clerk who works for Sotomajor who leaked this lies, then you’ve got the crime that trips up everyone.

And of course the ‘party of norms’ will gleefully hire this clerk to MSNBC.

Anything to back this up?

... just bullsh*t as usual.

[jhu72]

The best bet on who leaked this is either Alito himself or one of his followers at the court - lock in the opinion without changes or the court looks silly.

I sort of agree; but I don't think it's really fair or appropriate to ascribe it to some specific clerk. Unless, of course, PB has good evidence that that was the case. Call me doubtful.

And I think the leak is, in any event, the least of the Court's problems (seditionist pillow talk, etc.).

... this is the least of the court's problems. The truth is, this is only a problem for the republiCONs. Everyone else sees the decision itself as the problem.

[RedFromMI]

The best bet on who leaked this is either Alito himself or one of his followers at the court - lock in the opinion without changes or the court looks silly.

I sort of agree; but I don't think it's really fair or appropriate to ascribe it to some specific clerk. Unless, of course, PB has good evidence that that was the case. Call me doubtful.

And I think the leak is, in any event, the least of the Court's problems (seditionist pillow talk, etc.).

The other clue is how _fast_ the fake outrage over the leak spread over RWM - almost as if the knowledge of the leak was already there...

[Kismet]

The best bet on who leaked this is either Alito himself or one of his followers at the court - lock in the opinion without changes or the court looks silly.

I sort of agree; but I don't think it's really fair or appropriate to ascribe it to some specific clerk. Unless, of course, PB has good evidence that that was the case. Call me doubtful.

And I think the leak is, in any event, the least of the Court's problems (seditionist pillow talk, etc.).

Don't think its a clerk. One of the justices is my bet - Alito is the frontrunner but short-timer Breyer is a possibility (after all he was the culprit who flushed a toilet on conference telecon during the early days of the pandemic. That said,, he is also an institutionalist which might argue that he'd never do it.

Alito is a big enough d*ck and it would be in character.

[jhu72]

The leaks is a good thing.

[CU88]

If life starts at childbirth then so should parental responsibilities, including child support. I think that most child support payments usually start at 25% of annual income.

How soon until we hear less about the importance of the child and more about father’s rights?

If we really want to legislate for the prevention of abortions, time for mandatory vasectomies.

[dislaxxic]

Thank you all you FLP for moving the goalposts towards scumbaggery.

How do you FRC sleep at night with this laying squarely at the feet of Moscow Mitch? Mitch's middle name is Turkey Wad...err...Garland Scumbaggus Maximus. Well, ol' Moscow might get a nick or two from catching this Culture War bus...we shall see.

Rumor in my blue state is that the state law here will be amended to hold the deadbeat father of the fetus to full legal and financial accountability relative to any woman from an abortion-illegal state that must travel to this state for a lawful procedure.

..

[NattyBohChamps04]

Sen Susan Collins: “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office..”

Sucker born every minute...

Hence why deliberations by the SCOTUS justices should never be leaked before they are announced to the public.

Ironic because a decision like that would limit our right to privacy.

No irony, just good old fashioned common sense and respect for the SCOTUS. That is now another ship that has sailed full steam ahead towards the iceberg. Thank you all you FLP for moving the goalposts towards scumbaggery.

Ironic in that you think the SCOTUS deserves rights to privacy while at the same time they're taking it away from Americans.

As dis said, respect for SCOTUS and the courts completely fell off the wagon with McConnell blocking hearings for Obama's lower court appointees then his SCOTUS appointee. Not even allowing a vote.

And of course we don't know who leaked it, but not surprising you'd blame it on the "FLP", especially if it was something the Republicans already did. You have done that a few times on here.

[youthathletics]

Seems Joe is getting what he wanted back in 81'? https://www.instagram.com/p/CdGzV39OupU ... _copy_link

[a fan]

Sen Susan Collins: “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office..”

Sucker born every minute...

Hence why deliberations by the SCOTUS justices should never be leaked before they are announced to the public.

Ironic because a decision like that would limit our right to privacy.

No irony, just good old fashioned common sense and respect for the SCOTUS. That is now another ship that has sailed full steam ahead towards the iceberg. Thank you all you FLP for moving the goalposts towards scumbaggery.

We don't know who leaked it......what happens if it's a R Judge/clerk?

Confident they'll figure it out. I agree that this leak is NOT good for the country.

[dislaxxic]

From jhu72's linked article, above...

The reaction to the leak has been swift and furious, and much of it has asserted without any hard evidence that it was instigated by a left-wing clerk for one of the three liberal justices as a way to bring public pressure to bear on the Court (even as some have plausibly speculated that the leaker might have been a right-wing clerk with a completely opposite agenda). “It’s impossible to overstate the earthquake this will cause inside the Court, in terms of the destruction of trust among the Justices and staff. This leak is the gravest, most unforgivable sin”, tweeted the influential SCOTUSBlog half an hour after the story broke. Marco Rubio added that “the far left” “leaked a Supreme Court opinion in an attempt to intimidate the justices on abortion.” “There is little question that this leak is designed to create threat to the life and limb of any justice who signs onto the majority opinion. Prosecution to the full extent of the law,” tweeted right-wing talking head Ben Shapiro. On her popular Substack, Bari Weiss called the leak “nothing more than the most recent salvo in our race to the bottom,” blaming a hypothetical, woke Yale Law alum for tarnishing a sacred institution. Donald Trump said the leak was “demeaning and not good.” This morning, Chief Justice John Roberts ordered an investigation into the leak, denouncing “this betrayal of the confidences of the Court,” which he said was “intended to undermine the integrity of our operations.”

This freakout not only misses the forest (the end of Roe) for the trees (a breach of protocol), but also suggests something about the right’s mind-set on the eve of a generational triumph. To start, it’s not at all clear what law has been violated by leaking a draft opinion to the press. The breach of confidentiality may be a career risk for the leaker, but in any other branch of government, such breaches are routine. Politico, which is as mainstream a media outlet as exists, has a business model that depends heavily on leaks from White House and Congressional staffers (and their state-level equivalents) looking to push various agendas. Elected officials may or may not approve of any given leak from their offices, and some run tighter ships than others, but few are naïve enough to imagine this isn’t how the stories they read every morning are acquired. And while media critics might question the reliance of Politico and similar outlets on leaks — which in turn requires cultivating access and a willingness to carry water for all manner of cynical political actors — in a very general sense the public benefits from knowing so much about the inner workings of the executive and legislative branches.

If the objection isn’t to leaking to the press per se, nor to the legality of such leaks, then what explains its suddenness and fervency? On one level, this is just conservative elites eager to steer the national conversation away from the predictable and devastating real-world impact of the justices they’ve championed for decades; many of these people have friends, family, colleagues, and constituents who believed that Roe was never actually in danger and are now waking up, so it’s understandable why they want to shift the focus to a comparatively petty procedural drama. But if we take them at their word, the concern right now is for the legitimacy of the Supreme Court as an institution — one whose authority depends on a perception that it is apolitical, wise, reasonable, and above partisanship.

No one who has seriously followed the Court over the past few decades has any excuse for believing that, and if you lived through the 5–4 party-line decision to award the 2000 election to George W. Bush over Al Gore and still thought the Court was somehow sacred, I have an infrastructure bill’s worth of bridges to sell you. But while the elite reverence for and credulity about the judiciary was wrongheaded back then, it’s simply untenable now that a supermajority of the Court consists of trained right-wing ideologues. The repeal of Roe will be neither the first nor the last major decision this Court takes that upends laws a majority of Americans have assumed were permanent. Given Democrats’ grim outlook for this year’s midterm elections, President Biden’s persistent unpopularity, and the GOP’s extensive and largely unchecked efforts to permanently entrench minority rule in Washington, there’s no reason to think that our existing political institutions can adequately check the Roberts Court or that its composition will align any closer with public opinion on issues like abortion in the foreseeable future.

..

[ggait]

Most of the discussion of "if" abortion should be legal or banned is quite misleading. Basically, extremists and partisans on both sides yelling and not listening. Pointless and irrelevant.

The relevant discussion is "when" should abortion be legal. And on that question, overwhelming majorities pretty much agree. And have for a very long time. In the real world, abortion is way less controversial than you'd think for most regular people.

The law and public opinion in the US and our western democratic peers is surprisingly similar. Abortion upon request/demand is basically legal and public opinion supported everywhere from 0-12 weeks. And not legal/supported (subject to some valid exceptions) from 25-36 weeks. So pretty much the only issue are the rules between 13-24 weeks.

Canada and the UK draw the elective abortion line at 24 weeks. France, Germany, Italy are 12-14 weeks no questions asked, and then somewhat available (depending on circumstances and procedures) during the second trimester. RvW draws it at 23 weeks, although the realistic effective limit is less than that due to years of chipping away under the Casey case.

While that line draw is important, it matters a lot less than you'd think. Since here in the USA, 92% of abortions are 13 weeks or less, with another 3% 14-15 weeks.

So keeping RvW but dialing it back a bit (as CJ Roberts wants to do) is extremely reasonable policy. And it would be very good for the country. Since it would keep the righties from going completely bat shirt Gilead (cough Texas cough cough) on their female populations.

Law professors can debate whether that is really Roberts' job or not. But that outcome makes a lot of sense.

[Peter Brown]

Most of the discussion of "if" abortion should be legal or banned is quite misleading. Basically, extremists and partisans on both sides yelling and not listening. Pointless and irrelevant.

The relevant discussion is "when" should abortion be legal. And on that question, overwhelming majorities pretty much agree. And have for a very long time. In the real world, abortion is way less controversial than you'd think for most regular people.

The law and public opinion in the US and our western democratic peers is surprisingly similar. Abortion upon request/demand is basically legal and public opinion supported everywhere from 0-12 weeks. And not legal/supported (subject to some valid exceptions) from 25-36 weeks. So pretty much the only issue are the rules between 13-24 weeks.

Canada and the UK draw the elective abortion line at 24 weeks. France, Germany, Italy are 12-14 weeks no questions asked, and then somewhat available (depending on circumstances and procedures) during the second trimester. RvW draws it at 23 weeks, although the realistic effective limit is less than that due to years of chipping away under the Casey case.

While that line draw is important, it matters a lot less than you'd think. Since here in the USA, 92% of abortions are 13 weeks or less, with another 3% 14-15 weeks.

So keeping RvW but dialing it back a bit (as CJ Roberts wants to do) is extremely reasonable policy. And it would be very good for the country. Since it would keep the righties from going completely bat shirt Gilead (cough Texas cough cough) on their female populations.

Law professors can debate whether that is really Roberts' job or not. But that outcome makes a lot of sense.

I agree with ggait.

[a fan]

So keeping RvW but dialing it back a bit (as CJ Roberts wants to do) is extremely reasonable policy. And it would be very good for the country. Since it would keep the righties from going completely bat shirt Gilead (cough Texas cough cough) on their female populations.

I don't understand....are you telling us that this is what's going to happen because of the pending ruling? '

How does a Judge get to peg how many weeks is allowed? I'm completely lost.

[ggait]

How does a Judge get to peg how many weeks is allowed? I'm completely lost.

Judges "line draw" all the time. The original Roe case drew the line at 23 weeks as an example.

The easy thing to do in this case would be to just uphold the Miss law, which mostly shuts down abortions after 15 weeks. Leave Roe/Casey on the books, but say that a 15 week line vs. a 23 week line is still considered consistent with the constitutional right.

The righties would keep coming back with new cases at 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 weeks, but SCOTUS merely refuses to hear those cases. So 15 years gets established as the new limit. Which, as a practical matter, still keeps almost all current abortions legal.

Gets the task accomplished while avoiding all the mess that the full Alito would bring. All you need to make it happen is Roberts and Kav. Not likely, but possible.

One theory is that Alito (or folks aligned with him) did the leak to keep Roberts from flipping Kav.

[njbill]

All of the speculation about who leaked the draft and why is interesting, but none of that changes the unassailable fact that Alito got five votes at the conference to overturn Roe.

Roberts did not agree to overturn Roe. Had he, he would have kept such an important decision to himself because he knew he would write a “moderate” opinion, certainly one more temperate than Alito’s scorched earth draft.

Interesting to me that Thomas assigned the decision to Alito who, I would guess, begged for it.

Alito is fully prepared to moderate his opinion. He threw out his repugnant draft to see what would stick. If any of the other four even hints at defecting, he’ll soften his language.

I don’t hold out any real hope that Kav or Gorsuch or Amy B will flip. First of all, they knew full well what was at stake when they voted in conference. They certainly know of the seismic importance of the case, both legally and in society. Leaking the opinion is not going to get anyone to change their mind. Is there any way to get anyone in this country to change their mind about Roe? No.

And lastly, before any of those three were nominated, they met in private with the Anti-Women Nazis and assured them that, yes, they would vote to overturn Roe, though they told the Nazis that they would have to deny that in meetings with gullible Senators like Susan Collins and in testimony before the Judiciary Committee. Keep an “open mind” about the issue, my ass.

I don’t know if I will live long enough to see this abomination of conservative judicial activism overturned. But it will be. If not in 10 or 20 or 50 years, it will happen eventually. This decision ranks up there (or down there) with Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. It is the worst Supreme Court decision in my lifetime. Even worse than Heller, which itself will be overturned in time.