Rvw

[Too Tall]

RVW is in peril. Yesterday a preliminary opinion was leaked. We all read the news, no need to expand on that.

A. The most recent Justices lied like dogs during their nomination process. I will not entertain parsing their language "Roe is settled law". They lied, plain and simple.

B. Removing a constitutional right is fundamentally screwed. I'll say it just like that.

Discuss. Be civil. No cut and paste links, speak your mind please.

-J

[bigbill]

It was a leaked confidential document that is used by the justices in discussions. It wasn't a decision, just an opinion. After all these years, why hasn't Congress codified it? It seems overly political to leave it to the courts. I think everything so far is an overreaction other than the anger from both sides that the sanctity of the SCOTUS was violated. We're not privy to the inner workings of the current SCOTUS, opinion papers are probably part of the process when the nine justices discuss upcoming decisions.

[Saab2000]

The argument that the constitution doesn’t mention abortion, privacy or choice is simply preposterous. It doesn’t mention cycling either but that’s not being banned or sent to the states for regulation because it’s not mentioned in the constitution.

A person’s health care is the business of the person and the person’s doctor. It’s for sure not my business.

[Scott G.]

Now that we have saved the unborn, can we do something about the country
they're supposed to grow up in ?
Or does ones duty to ones neighbors & community expire once they're born ?

[Mabouya]

Well, we'll now see how hard women will be willing to fight for the right to control their own bodies. So far they haven't objected that much to the various encroachments on R v W, and as I see it, it's up to them to decide how hard to push back. If they don't push very hard I wouldn't be surprised if Griswold would be next to go, at which point things would be very interesting.

[Too Tall]

The Fourteenth frickin' amendment.

Fundamental Constitutionally promised right. Buh bye.

[monadnocky]

"It's settled law" - Kavanaugh in response to a RvW question

"It’s not the law of Amy" - Amy Coney Barrett, in response to a question regarding whether laws could be undone by personal beliefs, including her own.

Feckless liars and political hacks.

[zachateseverything]

The Fourteenth frickin' amendment.

Fundamental Constitutionally promised right. Buh bye.

Yeah. Even if you don't want, need, or care for abortions this is a fundamental attack on the right to privacy. The decisions that overturned bans on interracial marriage, contraception, and non-traditional sex practices can fall using similar "logic."

but those emails.

[JoB]

Well, we'll now see how hard women will be willing to fight for the right to control their own bodies. So far they haven't objected that much to the various encroachments on R v W, and as I see it, it's up to them to decide how hard to push back. If they don't push very hard I wouldn't be surprised if Griswold would be next to go, at which point things would be very interesting.

This is not a "women" issue. Why do women have to clean up the mess again?
And I'd argue that "they" (who?) not objecting to various encroachments is categorically untrue.

[Mabouya]

Why do women have to clean up the mess again?

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.

[gregl]

Tearing down RvW isn’t about protecting the unborn. It’s about re-establishing white, male, Christian hegemony. It’s about rescinding the human rights accorded and affirmed to many US citizens since the end of WWII. I state this as a white, male (recovering) Christian.

Greg

[72gmc]

The argument that the constitution doesn’t mention abortion, privacy or choice is simply preposterous. It doesn’t mention cycling either but that’s not being banned or sent to the states for regulation because it’s not mentioned in the constitution.

A person’s health care is the business of the person and the person’s doctor. It’s for sure not my business.

Originalism and textualism are excuses for a certain kind of person to cosplay as a founding father. If they overturn RvW, I say remove every creature comfort and technology that didn't exist on June 21, 1788 from Supreme Court chambers and their taxpayer-provided homes. Help em' get into the role.

[echappist]

RVW is in peril. Yesterday a preliminary opinion was leaked. We all read the news, no need to expand on that.

A. The most recent Justices lied like dogs during their nomination process. I will not entertain parsing their language "Roe is settled law". They lied, plain and simple.

B. Removing a constitutional right is fundamentally screwed. I'll say it just like that.

Discuss. Be civil. No cut and paste links, speak your mind please.

-J

If only a certain senator would have taken off her Mr. Magoo glasses and did the duty entrusted to her, as opposed to clutching her pearls and pull her ingénue shtick time and time again.

I’m also upset that RBG let the hagiographic treatment of her get to her head (when she ought to have retired when Sen. Reid was majority leader).

On the other hand, i’d say the Chief Justice is one of the few conservatives to have conducted him/herself in a manner expected of a jurist. He might not personally agree with RvW, but he at least appears to take Stare Decisis into account as opposed to reflexively decide on the basis of his own moral convictions.

It was a leaked confidential document that is used by the justices in discussions. It wasn't a decision, just an opinion. After all these years, why hasn't Congress codified it? It seems overly political to leave it to the courts. I think everything so far is an overreaction other than the anger from both sides that the sanctity of the SCOTUS was violated. We're not privy to the inner workings of the current SCOTUS, opinion papers are probably part of the process when the nine justices discuss upcoming decisions.

What’s the point of codification when it could just be repealed via the legislative process?

And even if it could be codified, would the Supreme Court defer to the “will of the people”? Or would it say legislators overstepped, and that such a law should be struck down? It would be naive to think that the goal posts wouldnt be shifted.

[j44ke]

Well, we'll now see how hard women will be willing to fight for the right to control their own bodies. So far they haven't objected that much to the various encroachments on R v W, and as I see it, it's up to them to decide how hard to push back. If they don't push very hard I wouldn't be surprised if Griswold would be next to go, at which point things would be very interesting.

I know what you are saying - you are talking voting statistics rather than ownership of the issue - but I’ll just say that I believe this to be a human issue.

[Mark Walberg]

They think they're stopping abortions. However, they are just stopping abortions for those without enough money to go to a state where it is allowed.

I've never understood why the same people against abortions are all for capital punishment. Doesn't seem to square to me.

[j44ke]

I think the speed of information has a corollary about the speed of forgetting increasing at an equal rate. Reminds me of something written by Walter Benjamin:

“A Klee painting named ‘Angelus Novus’ shows an angel looking as though he is about to move away from something he is fixedly contemplating. His eyes are staring, his mouth is open, his wings are spread. This is how one pictures the angel of history. His face is turned toward the past. Where we perceive a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage and hurls it in front of his feet. The angel would like to stay, awaken the dead, and make whole what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing in from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such a violence that the angel can no longer close them. The storm irresistibly propels him into the future to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows skyward. This storm is what we call progress.”

[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.