Rvw

[TTX1]

Because it's old white men who've f'd things up, and women will have to be the ones to help vote them out of office.

I don't expect men to be a whole lot of help on this issue.

As a father of 3 young women, I'm prepared to provide as much help as possible. I suspect I'm not alone.

[TTX1]

Has anyone seen any substantive commentary on Alito's draft?

I read the whole thing.

The draft states that the Constitution has no mention of abortion, therefore there is no constitutional right. This argument conveniently forgets or ignores the provision for constitutional amendments. He then goes on to cite examples of common law precedents. The argument becomes quite convoluted. If the argument is about Constitutional precedent, why bother with common law at all? It's like he's both willing and not willing to consider precedents. He references changes in medicine and science only in passing, but spends most of his argument looking in the rear view rather than exploring any contemporary context, say, within the past several decades. We can have amendments, or not? We are strictly limited to the Constitution, or not? There are other historical precedents, or not? There are modern factors with relevance, or not? The draft focuses almost entirely on arguments of convenience against Roe, and is rarely directed toward the current case of Mississippi. The draft is quite entangled in its own underpants, and it is hard to believe that the final ruling will look like this draft - even if the draft accurately predicts the outcome.

Whoever exposed this farce is a hero.

Possibly a naive question, but why isn't there more discussion about the draft itself? Who's grading the work? If it was a very, very rough, preliminary draft - that should be part of the disclosure. If it was a collection of arguments prepared by a clerk, explain the process.

[robin3mj]

Has anyone seen any substantive commentary on Alito's draft?

I read the whole thing.

The draft states that the Constitution has no mention of abortion, therefore there is no constitutional right. This argument conveniently forgets or ignores the provision for constitutional amendments. He then goes on to cite examples of common law precedents. The argument becomes quite convoluted. If the argument is about Constitutional precedent, why bother with common law at all? It's like he's both willing and not willing to consider precedents. He references changes in medicine and science only in passing, but spends most of his argument looking in the rear view rather than exploring any contemporary context, say, within the past several decades. We can have amendments, or not? We are strictly limited to the Constitution, or not? There are other historical precedents, or not? There are modern factors with relevance, or not? The draft focuses almost entirely on arguments of convenience against Roe, and is rarely directed toward the current case of Mississippi. The draft is quite entangled in its own underpants, and it is hard to believe that the final ruling will look like this draft - even if the draft accurately predicts the outcome.

Whoever exposed this farce is a hero.

Possibly a naive question, but why isn't there more discussion about the draft itself? Who's grading the work? If it was a very, very rough, preliminary draft - that should be part of the disclosure. If it was a collection of arguments prepared by a clerk, explain the process.

I would expect (and hope) after the initial nonsense about who the leak is, that the Left will return focus to this, but am not hopeful

EV cars are not in the Constitution but flavor of the month EM doesn’t seem to care.

[vertical_doug]

Has anyone seen any substantive commentary on Alito's draft?

I read the whole thing.

The draft states that the Constitution has no mention of abortion, therefore there is no constitutional right. This argument conveniently forgets or ignores the provision for constitutional amendments. He then goes on to cite examples of common law precedents. The argument becomes quite convoluted. If the argument is about Constitutional precedent, why bother with common law at all? It's like he's both willing and not willing to consider precedents. He references changes in medicine and science only in passing, but spends most of his argument looking in the rear view rather than exploring any contemporary context, say, within the past several decades. We can have amendments, or not? We are strictly limited to the Constitution, or not? There are other historical precedents, or not? There are modern factors with relevance, or not? The draft focuses almost entirely on arguments of convenience against Roe, and is rarely directed toward the current case of Mississippi. The draft is quite entangled in its own underpants, and it is hard to believe that the final ruling will look like this draft - even if the draft accurately predicts the outcome.

Whoever exposed this farce is a hero.

Possibly a naive question, but why isn't there more discussion about the draft itself? Who's grading the work? If it was a very, very rough, preliminary draft - that should be part of the disclosure. If it was a collection of arguments prepared by a clerk, explain the process.

Draft was probably from Alito's office if not Alito himself. He had to be worried about Roberts or other justices poking holes in it, so now this trash document is out there and the right expects it to come as is. . . puts more pressure not to modify the language which is the aim of the leak.

There are so many crazy parts, but to me, the craziest is the passage citing a old court that found a woman guilty of beating a pregnant woman to force a miscarriage and sentenced her to three years. Alito cites this is proof courts did not condone abortion.

[j44ke]

Draft was probably from Alito's office if not Alito himself. He had to be worried about Roberts or other justices poking holes in it, so now this trash document is out there and the right expects it to come as is. . . puts more pressure not to modify the language which is the aim of the leak.

There are so many crazy parts, but to me, the craziest is the passage citing a old court that found a woman guilty of beating a pregnant woman to force a miscarriage and sentenced her to three years. Alito cites this is proof courts did not condone abortion.

I agree that this is not a leak against the court but part of a tactic from within the court. And as far as what is getting discussed in the press and what is not, everything is getting parsed and dissected in the legal press and think tanks and law schools ad infinitum. Those are the most influential studies, and the ones the clerks and justices read.

However, I think the public perception that government and the judiciary are operating in a state of willful tone deafness is dangerous. I hope no one does anything stupid.

[bigbill]

I agree that this is not a leak against the court but part of a tactic from within the court. And as far as what is getting discussed in the press and what is not, everything is getting parsed and dissected in the legal press and think tanks and law schools ad infinitum. Those are the most influential studies, and the ones the clerks and justices read.

However, I think the public perception that government and the judiciary are operating in a state of willful tone deafness is dangerous. I hope no one does anything stupid.

I have some faith in the Chief Justice to handle this situation. He hasn't been the conservative that many expected, much of his work in SCOTUS shows him to be a moderate. I think the protests at the homes of justices works against public opinion, I'm not sure of the target audience. I treasure freedom of speech but I believe the theatrics hurt the opportunities for debate, regardless of how I personally feel about it.

[echappist]

I have some faith in the Chief Justice to handle this situation. He hasn't been the conservative that many expected, much of his work in SCOTUS shows him to be a moderate.

Calling the Chief Justice a moderate is a simplification, for it's essentially categorizing him on the basis of his decision for a particular case. One could very well argue that on the basis of Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, and Obergerfell that he is indeed conservative. Nothing wrong with that, but it is of relevance.

What gives the perception of him being a "moderate" is that he has to do (and has done) his utmost best to maintain trust in the institution of the federal courts. He might not agree with something on a personal level, he might vote a different way were he an associate justice, or he might vote a different way were there another swing-vote associate justice, but as the chief justice in a court of the present composition, he has to pay due deference to stare decisis. Some may say he's merely being cynical when his decisive vote is no longer needed, but I think his position is more principled than that. Looking to National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius should lend credence to just that: he's more than willing to be the decisive vote in a majority opinion that does not favor a conservative view.

Casting such a vote does not make him a moderate by disposition; rather, it shows that he takes seriously the responsibility handed to him when he was confirmed as chief justice.

I think the protests at the homes of justices works against public opinion, I'm not sure of the target audience. I treasure freedom of speech but I believe the theatrics hurt the opportunities for debate, regardless of how I personally feel about it.

That horse has long bolted the barn door. See the menacing protests in front of various Planned Parenthood locations.

Is the protest against the Trump-nominated justices near their respective residences justified? I don't know. But on the other hand, at least one of the three stated on the record that RvW is settled law.

Having said that, there is a local incident where a pro-life lobbying office fell victim of arson, and it is currently alleged that a self-proclaimed pro-choice protestor group claimed responsibility. I have no idea what the actual facts of the case are (as it's still ongoing), but were the perpetrators an actual pro-choice extremism group, I'd say such actions would be quite deplorable.

[lumpy]

He hasn't been the conservative that many expected, much of his work in SCOTUS shows him to be a moderate.

Don't forget Roberts wrote the opinion in Shelby County vs. Holder, finding the preclearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional despite explicit authority in the 15th amendment for Congress to make laws enforcing it. It is a radical opinion substituting the Court's judgment for Congress's and it's been incredibly damaging. Roberts is as radical a reactionary as any other justice, he's just more calculating in how he goes about it.

[j44ke]

Yes, as I said before re: my wife's assessment with which I agree - I would not be surprised if this leak came as purposeful shock to the system, followed a final draft of moderate tone that accomplished the same ends but would less incendiary to enough people there would not be mayhem. To me, that points to the leak coming from the office of the Chief Justice.

This is a significant reversal. I cannot see Roberts shirking the opportunity to write the majority opinion himself. Unless he's not in the majority or not in the majority who view the issues as Alito does. But still, he might request drafts from several justices if their legal rationale is different but final decision is the same and then figure out what arguments are valid enough to include in his own final synthesis.

My gut feeling is that given the leak, the case should be thrown out entirely. No decision. Just feel like the whole deal is so completely fckd. that whatever the final decision, the court's credibility is completely trashed. No winners.

[Mabouya]

a final draft of moderate tone that accomplished the same ends but would less incendiary to enough people there would not be mayhem

I'm thinking that most women don't care that much about the tone of the ruling, compared to the substance.

If someone says "You no longer have the right to control your own body" it doesn't really matter if they say it in a nice tone or a harsh tone, the bottom line is what's been lost, not how they were told about it.

[j44ke]

I'm thinking that most women don't care that much about the tone of the ruling, compared to the substance.

If someone says "You no longer have the right to control your own body" it doesn't really matter if they say it in a nice tone or a harsh tone, the bottom line is what's been lost, not how they were told about it.

I'm talking about a possible tactic for broaching a topic that is potentially going to meet with significant opposition by creating a firestorm when there is technically nothing to object to (rough draft) in the hope that the opposition to the actual item (final decision) produces a less incendiary response. I'm not forecasting success.

However, the anti-abortion movement is full of women who would view Alito's arguments as perfect. And through their use of the courts and use of state governments where anti-abortion policy is supported, they've been able to run around the back door on what is on paper the view of the majority, partially by moderating the vitriol in their polemic while reassuring the public that RvW is law. So moderating tone to gain the same goal has worked for them.

Speaking of which, the NYTimes has a fact check article on some Alito's assertions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/11/u...act-check.html

[TTX1]

For further review of Roberts' record, or that of any of the SCJs, there are some good infographics here...

https://harvardlawreview.org/supreme-court-statistics/

[robin3mj]

I don’t even know where is best to post this lately but after the SC leak and its impending inevitable aftermath, ongoing voter disenfranchisement, racial attacks, I am nearing the end of my belief in the US as a specific country and general concept.
I grew up within miles of some of the most consequential events of the revolution which I took pride in, but recent events really rankle.

My three kids have UK passports and we’re working on Irish ones and I am beginning to think the latter is their greatest chance to be upright citizens of the world.

[j44ke]

I don’t even know where is best to post this lately but after the SC leak and its impending inevitable aftermath, ongoing voter disenfranchisement, racial attacks, I am nearing the end of my belief in the US as a specific country and general concept.
I grew up within miles of some of the most consequential events of the revolution which I took pride in, but recent events really rankle.

My three kids have UK passports and we’re working on Irish ones and I am beginning to think the latter is their greatest chance to be upright citizens of the world.

In a lot of ways, the concept of the United States is not about the good times.

[robin3mj]

In a lot of ways, the concept of the United States is not about the good times.

Agree, it's the response to the not-good times, and the desire to improve, as a country, that I like to think has been key to the US in the past.

[vertical_doug]

member how this all started in 2016 and Southpark pointed it out.....




member how we got here......

Scalia died and there was a new rule that in the last year of Obama, President couldn't appoint because we were going to let the people decide on a new congress first.....

member
RBG died, and that old rule of McConnell wasn't a rule anymore and let's confirm with a month to go.....