SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Elegiac]

Sure. Slavery is codified into our constitution as legal and remains so to this day. The ones who did the harm there aren’t the people interpreting the law, it’s the people who codified it into law and those who have allowed it to remain. Phew, that was tough.

Facilitating the ability of abusive parties to commit abuse is in fact being facile and doing harm, habibi.

As for this ruling being knowingly made in bad faith? The argument presented in that ruling could equally be applied to the very concept of judicial review. Which Alito and the other clowns are not doing because it would hinder their ability to facilitate minority rule.

[Darththeo]

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.

OHSA does not deal with all Whistleblowing. It is specific in the law on what whistleblowing it handles.

Do you consider Edward Snowden a "Whistleblower"? Some do, but by this logic, what he did was not whistleblowing.

[Nurasu]

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

So the opinion doesn't put the decision back on the states? It eliminates abortion outright? Conservative pundits are lying again? How shocking.

[Elegiac]

They aren’t facilitating. They have no power to legislate.

If you know that an obstacle set up under your power is preventing abuse and you choose to exercise your power to remove that obstacle, you are facilitating it. The same shit applies to their repeated gutting of the Voting Rights Act.

[Edge-]

https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-cour...ce=mostpopular

RE: McConnell calling for the leaker to be prosecuted -

“Thanks to Roberts, the Supreme Court has no code of ethics — which is the place you would normally put a ban on misusing nonpublic information,” former White House ethics counsel Walter Shaub commented before asking: “[W]hat crime would FBI even investigate?”

I mean, we're looking at this for about the most relevant charge here if anything -

“There could be a theft of government property if someone literally stole a document off a clerk’s desk,” he told Law&Crime.

Maybe Roberts should codify some ethics rules for the SCOTUS, including disclosure rules if a SCOTUS Justice's spouse is being paid by organizations arguing cases in front of her husband while he doesn't recuse himself.

[cubby]

And it then comes down to whether you think it's legally or morally right/wrong to leak it.

Right - that's the issue. Not the subject of the leak, but the leak itself. And fundamentally, we don't want those leaks to happen. Because nothing good can come from them, and many bad things can.

[Edge-]

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

Eyyyy, I offered up this theory earlier! I feel big smart!

[Somewhatconcerned]

To those worried about poor women not having the means to travel to a state where abortion is legal...I am almost certain charities will pop up to help them out.

[cubby]

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.

That would be very interesting. I certainly hope he gets his way. But leaking the opinion wasn't the way to go about it, or rather, shouldn't be.

[Elegiac]

To those worried about poor women not having the means to travel to a state where abortion is legal...I am almost certain charities will pop up to help them out.

Okay, Mister Federalist; what stops states from banning those charities from operating within their jurisdictions?

[cubby]

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

Interesting. There is a lot of discussion to be had by this event, for sure.

[Elegiac]

That would be very interesting. I certainly hope he gets his way. But leaking the opinion wasn't the way to go about it, or rather, shouldn't be.

And SCOTUS shouldn't be a rats nest of reactionaries legislating from the shadow docket.

You're soooo close to understanding the context.

[Nurasu]

To those worried about poor women not having the means to travel to a state where abortion is legal...I am almost certain charities will pop up to help them out.

This opinion enshrines rights for fetuses. Do you mean they could maybe travel to the Virgin Islands?

[Elegiac]

That's not really how it works at all. If something isn't legal under the constitution they don't have a choice but to remove it.

Except... it is, or else Roe would never have been issued.

They absolutely have a choice. You're being massively obtuse here for some insane reason.

If they're doing their jobs honestly it's not bad faith.

Okay then.

Show me where in the Constitution the notion of judicial review is enshrined.

[zorkuus]

To those worried about poor women not having the means to travel to a state where abortion is legal...I am almost certain charities will pop up to help them out.

If you are ok with that then why not just be ok with the whole thing being legal? That ought to cut some inconvinient corners.

[cubby]

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.

Do they? We've never had transparency in draft opinions of SCOTUS, going on 200+ years now. Has there been a demand for that? I can tell you no one in the legal field wants it. And there is no logic to leaking them. And there can only be bad repercussions from draft opinions being leaked.

- - - Updated - - -

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

No, but the leak is a threat to it. That's the point.

[Edge-]

To those worried about poor women not having the means to travel to a state where abortion is legal...I am almost certain charities will pop up to help them out.

What about states that penalize women who seek out of state abortions? See Tennessee's proposed legislation: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...souri-00018539

Why do Republicans want to have big government controlling peoples bodies and movements?

- - - Updated - - -

No, but the leak is a threat to it. That's the point.

Well, given that this threat doesn't seem very real, you'll excuse me if I don't put much stock in the handwringing and pearl clutching.

[Darththeo]

Do they? We've never had transparency in draft opinions of SCOTUS, going on 200+ years now. Has there been a demand for that? I can tell you no one in the legal field wants it. And there is no logic to leaking them. And there can only be bad repercussions from draft opinions being leaked..

I work for my state's government and we get tons of requests for information on our processes and decisions. Many of which are not subjected to the Freedom of Information Act.

People don't like government workings behind closed doors.

I cannot be leaked if it was never hidden in the first place. The issue people have is that you can publicly say X as a government official but secretly be working against it in the background. People are getting annoyed by the political games.

[Darththeo]

Explain how it's incorrect to correctly place blame on the uneducated, single issue voters who really caused this? The fact that Trump won in 2016 says all that needs to be said about the status of your average US voter. Being disgustingly uneducated over almost every single issue and voting for all the wrong reasons is the reason why our current SCOTUS is now deliberately attacking women's rights in our country.

Change my mind.

The number of people that think Trump was a "Political Outsider" prior to his election still bothers me. He was very involved in politics, just never held a position in the government.

People have zero understanding of what politics actually is.

[Santti]

To those worried about poor women not having the means to travel to a state where abortion is legal...I am almost certain charities will pop up to help them out.

Oh well, we lose some basic human rights, but at least there's going to be charities that help with that? Charities, that are not any kind of guarantee, especially when they, too, could get banned.