SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Darththeo]

We do not know the political leanings of the leaker.

For all we know it is a conservative leaning person who leaked it because they want to celebrate the decision.

[cubby]

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

It did? I didn't know that. Can you link?

[Darththeo]

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.

Yeah, just saying "Well, there is no transparency issue because these processes shouldn't be transparent" isn't an argument.

People want full transparency in the process meaning NOTHING hidden behind closed doors.

[Levelfive]

It did? I didn't know that. Can you link?

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/10960...al-ruling-leak

[Somewhatconcerned]

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

You know how our elections work.

Like it or not, that's the way it is. No amount of teeth gnashing or hand wringing will change that.

This is actually a great argument for more federalism.

[Paranoid Android]

I have a few conservatives I follow on Twitter. It's amazing the hoops they jump thru on trying to legitimize this. David French is well known conservative, who stopped at supporting Trump, but is a full on right extremist religious zealot. From everything such as French saying that this didn't stand constitutionally (he is almost correct on this), to others dismissing this is the end.

Yet with French and others and to be specific the extreme, religious right are really forcing their beliefs onto others. First I always and generally just keep it simple with it's a woman's choice of her body. I never get into when life is born and if its murder. I will never reach those people. But, the amazing pass we give this is so backed by religious views that it doesn't cross the barrier of church and state.

[Elegiac]

It did? I didn't know that. Can you link?

Literally a google search away but okay.

There have indeed been leaks at the court before, albeit of a different scale. One of them actually was about the case at the heart of today's conversation: In 1973, the original Roe decision was leaked to the press before the court had formally announced it.

Jonathan Peters, a media law professor at the University of Georgia, noted in a Twitter thread that there were actually two Roe-related leaks in the 1970s.

First, the Washington Post published a story about the court's internal deliberations, including a June 1972 memo from Justice William O. Douglas to his colleagues that was mysteriously leaked.

Seven months later, Time magazine published the final decision and vote details just hours before the court was due to announce it — the result of an early scoop and a delayed ruling.

[cubby]

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!

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.

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

I am definitely and purposefully ignoring the context, so yeah, you have a good point here. Your points above are good and spot on with regards to this issue and our historically low trust in the court. I completely agree we need a change.

However, leaking internal documents isn't the answer.

[Elegiac]

You know how our elections work.

Like it or not, that's the way it is. No amount of teeth gnashing or hand wringing will change that.

In which you admit you were fundamentally incorrect about "the people" installing these judges.

[cubby]

Question for you, since Kavanaugh testified under oath multiple times that he considered Roe settled law would voting to overturn it indicate perjury?

Good question. And I'm not 100% sure. My gut would be to say no, he's not liable for perjury. But the more I think about it, the more I'm not sure. We'd have to examine all the details.

[jonnysensible]

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.

didnt republicans hold the senate in 2016 or am i misremembering

[Elegiac]

I am definitely and purposefully ignoring the context, so yeah, you have a good point here. Your points above are good and spot on with regards to this issue and our historically low trust in the court. I completely agree we need a change.

However, leaking internal documents isn't the answer.

ITT: Whistleblowing is bad.

[gondrin]

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.

Thing is, this is whistleblowing at its core. If someone sees something so perverse, so wrong at where they work at, they have a duty to make sure that it is known what is going on, regardless of the institution.

The process is broken, as you say.

[cubby]

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".

I'm absolutely not Team McConnell. Pretty sure that's settled, lol.

However, the bigger picture issue is at hand. Granted, your point that we don't know who did it is solid, but I'm assuming it's someone on the Left. That's where my discussion is coming from, where it stems. If it's something else, like you mentioned above, then that's an entirely different problem.

[Smitzelplix]

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.

Is it time to throw all the beer into the harbor; because I don't think tea drinking is really big with the Republicans.

[Edge-]

However, leaking internal documents isn't the answer.

So what's the answer, then? Why is what is essentially a possible "whistle blower" situation in this instance "bad" outside of "muh principles"? The same "muh principles" that the Republicans and conservative majority have shown they don't care about?

[cubby]

So they could quietly pass it, without feeling any pressure from the people of America? Nah, fuck that.

That's how they do it, every time. Best case we see are some "hints" during oral argument as to where some Justices might land on the topic, but even that is never clear. This is an entirely new ballgame.

[Paranoid Android]

I wonder if this insanity will impact the elections in November. Nah, who am I kidding, right wing women want Gilead now.

Here is another thing. Good ole passive, aggressive Dems. Now they are talking about get out and vote. I have even seen some tweets of making Roe v Wade law. Pie in the Sky, with getting rid of filibuster and even the law passing.

Basically if this stays on its path, the most the Dems will do is they hope enough people are angry enough to vote. They won't work for it, just be the lazy asses they are and pray the Republicans mess up enough they vote Dems in.

[Edge-]

It’s not whistleblowing though. What SCOTUS is doing is legal.

It's "legal" doesn't make it "right". I mean, cops killing unarmed folks and then lying about it is largely legal, but I think you'll find few people who would say that it's not a problem because "it's legal".

[Darththeo]

It’s not whistleblowing though. What SCOTUS is doing is legal.

According to Wikipedia, whistleblowing doesn't require it to be illegal.

Snowden is considered a whistleblower, but what he showed was legal.