SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Levelfive]

But that's the point - the judicial system doesn't have transparency in this regard. They hear and read arguments, review the issues and law, and rule. Their internal processes aren't meant to be transparent, they never have been, aside from knowing what those processes actually are. If that makes sense.

Consider this from the opposite point of view. SCOTUS internal documents leaked about Brown vs Board of Education, and the mob that would have ensued prior to the official opinion release. There would have been literal rioting on the steps of the SCOTUS building. We can't have that as a nation of laws.

The original Roe v Wade decision leaked, too. Come on now.

[Somewhatconcerned]

Actually, it belongs to the people.

Yes, the people who voted in the last GOP president who installed the 3 SCOTUS judges that are making this possible.

Either pick a better candidate next time, or find a way to get more people to vote. This country's voter turnout even in a big year like 2020 is pathetic to other countries.

[cubby]

Worse than SCOTUS issuing shadow docket decrees that cancel decades of settled legislation or precedent...?
SCOTUS has much bigger institutional problems than a fucking leak.

"But if it pleases the court, would the record please reflect that I made polite agreement with the gentleman from Kentucky. Because this level of comity is like begging for karma points on reddit."

In my opinion, the shadow docket is something that needs to be addressed. But not by leaking memos and bullying judges.

[Elegiac]

In my opinion, the shadow docket is something that needs to be addressed. But not by leaking memos and bullying judges.

Protests are not "bullying" no matter how much you claim otherwise.

And you've still not answered the question as to why you think unjust laws and processes are worth protecting, let alone respecting. You're basically making an argument against whistleblowing in general, here.

[cubby]

Instead they can be partisan judges influenced by decades of grooming by conservative activist groups, installed in contradiction to normal order with political fuckery so that they can make rulings in favor of the party that installed them rather than in accordance with the law.

Highlighting the extensive use of the shadow docket as an example of how morally compromised this court is, not to mention Thomas and the fucking monumental ethics issues with his wife.

You're pretending like the SCOTUS is functioning as-normal and hasn't been weaponized as an arm of the Republican party. Don't do that.

You're right in the above, the conservative grooming, all of it. But leaking internal opinions hoping to change the ruling isn't how it's done - and it's dangerous. In this case we hope it will change a "bad" ruling, but the reverse, a good ruling, like previous gay marriage law upholdings, could also be affected.

[Edge-]

That part is a little dicey, but the overall point is what I was getting at.

The "overall point" is he's trying to use this as a bad-faith reason to attack the "radical left", that's literally it. This, coming from teh same guy that kept a SCOTUS seat open for a year. But I guess he's a reasonable guy in your eyes!

This development is bad, yes, but this leak and reaction isn't the solution. Outside of a fundamental change in our laws, expanding the court, or a revolution, this leak is bad, in so many ways. The subject of the leak is almost ancillary to the leak itself.

You're gonna need to explain more on this. Like, sure, we can agree that leaks like this in principle are bad. Fine and all as long as we ignore literal all context. But in the context of this leak, especially given the public statements of the recently appointed Justices (which both Murkowski and Collins are VERY CONCERNED ABOUT BECAUSE THEY CAN'T BELIEVE THEY WERE LIED TO) and how this has been a political goal for Republicans for decades that they're realizing through a politicized judiciary.

At a time when there's historically low trust and confidence in the independence of the SCOTUS specifically because of the partisan fuckery we've seen on display, which itself is far more damaging to the court than a leaked opinion.

Oh, we're fucked right now - truly. This ruling, if released as official opinion, spells damning trouble for most of the gains we've made in modern social policy.

Which sounds like a good thing that it was leaked so folks can start protesting about it.

[Elegiac]

Yes, the people who voted in the last GOP president who installed the 3 SCOTUS judges that are making this possible.

The Republican Party has not won a popular vote since 2004 so... no, "the people" didn't vote for this.

[cubby]

When "justice" is so clearly broken, mob (democratic) rule is better than (authoritarian) rule of law. That's kind of why Americans decided to hold a Revolution, once upon a time, y'know.

Oh, I agree. And you know my position overall on this issue and the bigger picture.

But...this isn't how it's done. We need this kind of passion in getting the House heavily Democratic and making the Senate 60+. Leaking internal opinion documents from SOCTUS hoping to change their opinion is horrifying.

[Edge-]

You're right in the above, the conservative grooming, all of it. But leaking internal opinions hoping to change the ruling isn't how it's done - and it's dangerous. In this case we hope it will change a "bad" ruling, but the reverse, a good ruling, like previous gay marriage law upholdings, could also be affected.

Again, you're here on "Team McConnell" blaming the left without any evidence, after literally just agreeing that there was no evidence.

For all we know one of the Justices leaked it. For all we know Roberts, fearing what the ruling would do to his already tarnished legacy of, "That Chief Justice that presided over oral arguments while the lawyer literally took a shit." and knowing that he can't be the swing vote on this leaked it to pressure the conservative justices. Maybe ACB or Kavanaugh leaked it for the lulz? We literally don't know.

Stop carrying water for McConnell in some weird-ass attempt to seem "reasonable" while everyone else is "freaking out".

[cubby]

SCOTUS shouldn't be influenced by threats of riotous violence.

Which have not remotely been made.

They absolutely should be influenced by public outcry and the common interpretation of what "justice" looks like. Even if the law concretely prevents them making the just decision in a case, underscoring that and stating clearly that it is Congress' injustice to solve is the only reasonable stance for SCOTUS to take.

And if the "public outcry" is all Nazis, then the country's already the Fourth Reich and nothing SCOTUS does is gonna change that, anyway.

"Justice" is a commonality arrived at by public consensus, not an objective fact determined through legalistic analysis.

I agree that is what Justice is and should be, but justice comes from our processes (which are currently broken), and those processes don't include leaking internal SCOTUS opinions documents hoping that will change their ruling. It won't. It shouldn't. It can't.

[Crissi]

If a Justice's ruling risks decades or even centuries of judicial rulings and overthows the rights of millions of people, a leak to stop radicalism is a just thing to do cubby.

You can rant about how this isnt how its supposed to go because of idealism, but the SC as is risks fucking over the US entirely for just about every privacy based issue under the sun.

[cubby]

Apperently they can be influenced by religious and political affiliation. That's A-OK.

Not sure what you mean. I'm trying to respond to everyone, but I don't know what you're getting at here. Can you expand?

[Elegiac]

justice comes from our processes

This is literally the opposite of what Endus said. Rofl.

[Edge-]

I agree that is what Justice is and should be, but justice comes from our processes (which are currently broken), and those processes don't include leaking internal SCOTUS opinions documents hoping that will change their ruling. It won't. It shouldn't. It can't.

If the processes are broken to begin with, as you admit, then further breaking them to attempt to head off enhanced ratfuckery - if that's what happened - seems like...I dunno...a good thing?

[Somewhatconcerned]

So yes, you are in effect saying "fuck all the women too poor to afford interstate travel to get abortions".

Pretty disgusting take on your part, but okay.

No, not at all. I empathize with those too poor to relocate or what have you. Just saying that society's treatment of poor people is a much larger issue and not isolated to this one decision.

[Endus]

I agree that is what Justice is and should be, but justice comes from our processes (which are currently broken), and those processes don't include leaking internal SCOTUS opinions documents hoping that will change their ruling. It won't. It shouldn't. It can't.

Whyever not?

Particularly if said leak motivates voters to take action in response.

Also, hard disagree that "justice" ever emerges from "processes". Justice, like I said, is a societal consensus, and not an authoritarian dictate. Processes are what lead to police officers kneeling on innocent people's necks until those people die. Which, obviously, isn't fuckin' justice.

[Elegiac]

If the processes are broken to begin with, as you admit, then further breaking them to attempt to head off enhanced ratfuckery - if that's what happened - seems like...I dunno...a good thing?

Like I said, he's basically making an argument against whistleblowing in general.

In such a viewpoint, it's a bad thing that people blow the whistle on abusive police procedure because they aren't using the 'proper channels' despite those channels being set up in such a way as to facilitate said abuse. Same thing with people reporting hostile work environments to the press rather than to HR.

[cubby]

You know what? I don't think I will.

Where are those "literal riots on the steps of the SCOTUS building" btw? I've seen that there are a ton of protesters so far but...where are the riots?

I meant back during Brown.

I'm trying to point out the issues of this event in the bigger picture. Remember, I fundamentally disagree with where the Court is heading on Roe. But to me, the leaked documents are the issue I'm discussing.

[Elegiac]

No, not at all. I empathize with those too poor to relocate or what have you. Just saying that society's treatment of poor people is a much larger issue and not isolated to this one decision.

Then why are you supporting a decision that helps facilitate that ill treatment under a facade of "federalism"?

[zorkuus]

Not sure what you mean. I'm trying to respond to everyone, but I don't know what you're getting at here. Can you expand?

Are you blind? Do you really think their rulings on these matters comes strictly from adhering to the constitution?
Mob rule bad... but partisan hack job good.