SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Belize]

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

It wouldn't matter since there's no way to hold him accountable.

[Crissi]

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".

yeah, Im thinking of what happened in Ft Worth like 5 years ago. 2 cops leaked a body cam vid showing their colleagues abusing a woman and her daughter who had called the cops because the neighbor was being abusive. Cops that leakedwere fired / demoted because "they broke procedure", but we would have never known about the abuse if they hadnt broken procedure

[AntiFascistVoter]

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.

30% Ginni Thomas leaked. To overwhelm the information scape with more 1/6 decisions incoming.

Because if anyone respects the Rule of Law, and the Sanctity of the Court. it's its Gini and Clarence Thomas...
/s

[cubby]

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.

Well, you and I could have some very good conversations about how fundamentally broken the United States' constitutional process is right now. Most of the postings you've put up I've not only agreed with, but learned something from - and I was a Poly Sci major in the United States, and you're just a Canadian. Hopefully that humor there was ok - apologies ahead of time if it wasn't. I'm trying to say that I always appreciate your analysis posts on government and, frankly, most everything else (especially climate change).

To your question. Whyever not because SCOTUS and other rulings can't, and shouldn't, be influenced by public outcry or mob rule. All of those are part of the Legislative and Executive process. If we let mob rule or public outrcy define our judicial rulings, we wouldn't have Brown vs Board, etc.

[Edge-]

Voting in better legislators who will codify abortion as a right in federal law is the answer. I’d also add voting in people who support expanding the court to nullify the conservative majority that currently exists.

Which isn't a proper response when you look at the ratfuckery going on with elections, including the activist conservative judges that are ruling in Republicans favor on election issues.

Doesn't change the fact that the SCOTUS is, after decades of Republican efforts, poised to overturn "settled" law that many of the new members appear to have lied about when they said they agreed it was settled.

[cubby]

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.

I know it doesn't, but that is beside the point. I'm talking about our overall process, and how leaking internal opinion documents isn't how SCOTUS makes their rulings. And those ruling shouldn't come from mob rule or public outcry.

But we do have major problems with out system, and those need to be fixed. Leaking documents from SCOTUS isn't the way to do it.

[Crissi]

Well, you and I could have some very good conversations about how fundamentally broken the United States' constitutional process is right now. Most of the postings you've put up I've not only agreed with, but learned something from - and I was a Poly Sci major in the United States, and you're just a Canadian. Hopefully that humor there was ok - apologies ahead of time if it wasn't. I'm trying to say that I always appreciate your analysis posts on government and, frankly, most everything else (especially climate change).

To your question. Whyever not because SCOTUS and other rulings can't, and shouldn't, be influenced by public outcry or mob rule. All of those are part of the Legislative and Executive process. If we let mob rule or public outrcy define our judicial rulings, we wouldn't have Brown vs Board, etc.

a rumor I heard was that ROb erts wanted a more tailored opinion because this, as is, is so broad that it risks ruining the US privacy rights. Would be interesting to see if he uses that to convince on of the other 5 to curtail the opinion, in which case this is a good thing ebcause the pressure is coming from inside the house itself.

[Elegiac]

Ok? That doesn’t change the definition of whistleblowing which necessitates illicit activities. This isn’t illicit no matter how much we disagree with it.

"A whistleblower (also written as whistle-blower or whistle blower) is a person, often an employee, who reveals information about activity within a private or public organization that is deemed illegal, immoral, illicit, unsafe or fraudulent."

This is most certainly immoral and unsafe, actually. And fraudulent considering it upends judicial precedent based on nonsense.

So yes, it's whistleblowing.

[Edge-]

Yeah, we should totally just lose all sense of reality and just start screaming into the void. I’m sure that’ll stop Justices who have lifetime appointments.

Not what I said, but ok.

Or, we could accurately discuss what’s going on and how we can fix it in November.

We can, while also discussing how Republicans have intentionally ratfucked the SCOTUS over the past five decades as part of an intentional plan to reshape it as a political arm of their party.

[cubby]

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.

But the processes, such as they are, are transparent. But those processes don't include leaking internal opinion documents. If that makes any sense.

[Elegiac]

Nah, it’s immoral from your POV. Unsafe is at best tangential since it leaves the unsafe part up to the states. This is their interpretation of the law. Unless they’re willfully misinterpreting(very had to prove) it’s not immoral. This doesn’t make abortion illegal, it leaves that to the states. So it’s not actually making anyone unsafe itself.

Apply this argument to slavery.

I dare you.

[cubby]

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

Oh wow, interesting. Thank you for the link.

Btw - Nina Totenberg at NPR is a stunningly good commentator for Legal Affairs. I have never seen or encountered better, and I have a law degree. Her explanations are spot on, insightful, and approachable for the non-legally minded.

[Levelfive]

Well, you and I could have some very good conversations about how fundamentally broken the United States' constitutional process is right now. Most of the postings you've put up I've not only agreed with, but learned something from - and I was a Poly Sci major in the United States, and you're just a Canadian. Hopefully that humor there was ok - apologies ahead of time if it wasn't. I'm trying to say that I always appreciate your analysis posts on government and, frankly, most everything else (especially climate change).

To your question. Whyever not because SCOTUS and other rulings can't, and shouldn't, be influenced by public outcry or mob rule. All of those are part of the Legislative and Executive process. If we let mob rule or public outrcy define our judicial rulings, we wouldn't have Brown vs Board, etc.

This is an interesting thread about why it may very well have been leaked by a conservative:

"I clerked at the Supreme Court. Last night, I assumed a liberal clerk leaked the draft opinion overturning Roe. Now I think MUCH more likely it was leaked by a conservative fanatically committed to every word of Alito’s monstrous opinion."

https://twitter.com/akapczynski/stat...TbIRz2O0LbuX7g

[Darththeo]

But the processes, such as they are, are transparent. But those processes don't include leaking internal opinion documents. If that makes any sense.

Yes, but what you are understanding is that people don't want internal opinion documents hidden at all for any reason.

They want full 100% transparency, not the limited transparency presented by the government.

[Levelfive]

I remember when you at least pretended to be not so GOP-leaning lol What a time that was. Guess the masks have to come off eventually.

Good times, good times.

[Edge-]

Oh wow, interesting. Thank you for the link.

Btw - Nina Totenberg at NPR is a stunningly good commentator for Legal Affairs. I have never seen or encountered better, and I have a law degree. Her explanations are spot on, insightful, and approachable for the non-legally minded.

Huh, so I guess the integrity of the court hasn't collapsed due to leaked rulings then. Weird, innit?

[Darththeo]

Nah, it’s immoral from your POV. Unsafe is at best tangential since it leaves the unsafe part up to the states. This is their interpretation of the law. Unless they’re willfully misinterpreting(very had to prove) it’s not immoral. This doesn’t make abortion illegal, it leaves that to the states. So it’s not actually making anyone unsafe itself.

Immoral is always based on someone's opinion. There is no moral system I have ever encountered where it isn't "immoral from individual's POV."

So, if someone found the act immoral and leaked it, it would logically be whistleblowing on their part.

[cubby]

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.

But it's not, at least in this case. Whistleblowing is a term for legally revealing something that shouldn't be happening; that is against the rules or law.

This leak is not part of any legal process. It's literally a betrayal of the SCOTUS institution. And while I disagree, fundamentally, with the opinion that was leaked, the process is what I'm trying to break out and discuss here.

I'm drawing a pretty fine line, and it usually gets me in trouble. Considering this is the 20th+ response I've penned in the last hour, I seem to have done it again, so to speak.

[AntiFascistVoter]

It's like the Legal profession has blown past the Tolerance Paradox, didnt even notice.

"We're bound by righteous precedent and customs"
Scalia, Alitio, burns those precedent in front of their faces.
"But we still have our customs!"

John Oliver reminds everyone from last week.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Yeah putting this squarely on the shoulder of Alt-Right Grifters posing as Bernie supporters who fell for Hillary’s email bullshit along with all the misogynistic garbage.

Everyone who voted Hillary even if they didn’t like her knew this would happen.

Just like DeSantis they’re just getting started.