"In an editorial last week, The Wall Street Journal expressed concern that Chief Justice Roberts was trying to persuade Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett to take his narrower approach.
The point of the leak, then, may have been to lock in the five-justice conservative majority. 'I would be wary of jumping to a conclusion that the leaker is necessarily someone who opposes overturning
Roe v. Wade,' said Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine.
Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said the source was probably trying to increase the price of switching positions.... Professor Hasen said there was another benefit to the right from the disclosure of the draft opinion. 'This kind of leak could in fact help the likely future majority overturning
Roe if it deflects the conversation to the question of Supreme Court secrecy and the danger of leaks to the legitimacy of the process'...."
From "A Supreme Court in Disarray After an Extraordinary Breach/The leak of a draft majority opinion overruling Roe v. Wade raises questions about motives, methods and whether defections are still possible" by Adam Liptak (NYT).
MEANWHILE: Alan Dershowitz tells Fox News: "I think this was leaked by a liberal law clerk who is trying to change the outcome of the case – either by putting pressure on some justices to change their mind or by getting Congress to pack the court even before June, which is very unlikely."
Posts
80 comments:
An interesting theory, I suppose, but one that runs counter to history.
This is a case of overthinking things- one should go with the simplest and most logical explanation- it was leaked in order to put pressure on the judges in the majority to change their position, not hold to it.
"The point of the leak, then, may have been to lock in the five-justice conservative majority"
By creating chaos and undermining the authority of the court?
Cui bono? The most likely calculation is by a prog who views the court's value as purely instrumental trying to mobilize Dems and gain advantage in November.
Maybe not. Several hours after the leak there are mass demonstrations with prepared signs. If only our withdrawal from Afghanistan had shown the same amount of organization and readiness.
’…eliminating a constitutional right in place for half a century…’
Whoa! Did I miss an amendment or something?
A NYT columnist could not possibly understand the irony of the phrase "a constitutional right in place for half a century."
It has been speculated that the WSJ editorial is based on leaking, perhaps even the same or another draft.
Dollars to donuts it was Roberts.
He is absolute scum.
“Only a move as extraordinary as eliminating a Constitutional right . . .”
If only Roe v Wade actually addressed where in the Constitution the right to abortion is defined.
It seems to me that Alito’s opinion is less about abortion and more about what a poor decision Roe was.
I would to see a debate on the merits of the Roe decision itself.
Sure, anything is possible.
Also possible that it could be the life-long abortion activist that is currently a supreme court clerk with verifiable ties to the reports who received the leaked draft.
https://twitter.com/willchamberlain/status/1521685968939630592?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1521685968939630592%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fnalert.blogspot.com%2F
We can return abortion to the states, saying we should have left the decision to the people. The Supreme Court isn't infallible or omnipotent. It can mistakenly overreach just like any other branch of government. It'll do better when everyone keeps that in mind.
The real damage from the leak is its own purpose pushing the decision making of the court into populist crowd. The current damage is now we have a great deal of information about a decision, and people are reacting to this decision, while the decision actually has not been made and formally announced. Nothing has actually changed, and in fact, if the decision is announced as is; the various laws across the country are exactly the same as they are today.
The only difference will be states that want late term and partial birth abortion can pass those laws. And women who want such procedures are free to cross borders and get them if not available in their state. If travelling costs are too high, talk to FJB about getting serious about the economy and restoring our energy independence.
Who knows, but I think The CJ should seek written signed denials from all the clerks.
Fair or not, I'd terminate any who refused.
Then I'd have each and every one interviewed by the FBI under the Aegis of the Marshall of the SC (keeping up appearances of a co-equal branch)
It should be very difficult to watch this and support abortion under the present guidelines. Imagine this being killed and torn apart in the womb. If there is a Hell, it may be waiting for those of us who have simply allowed it to happen by simple inaction.
Josh Gerstein, the leakee, was on the radio yesterday referring to the "Republican justices." So, the politicization of the judiciary is now so taken for granted that it passes without comment as the basis for interpreting its actions.
The legitimacy of the courts now rests on the legitimacy of the parties and many analysts are ready to call their disfavored party communists or neo-nazis.
My best guess is that the Alito opinion was leaked to the WH back in February by a liberal law clerk.
It was up to the political pros at the WH to decide when to release the opinion to Politico.
It is not just the timing of the leak that is important, but the ability to cover up the leaker. If they can protect the incredibly corrupt Biden Gang, they can easily protect the SCOTUS leaker.
I doubt any of the five justices supporting the draft opinion could be shaken after all the cr@p conservatives experienced in their confirmation hearings. Dersh's explanation is supportable but such a liberal clerk would really have to be naïve. I think there's a higher likelihood Hasen is right, i.e., a clerk who opposes Roberts' lobbying of Kavanaugh and Barrett to form a middle ground that preserves some combination of Roe/Casey yet upholds the Mississippi law. And if any thought the last five decades were fun, boy o boy, a Roberts' middle ground decision would be delirium.
This Person.
a reasonable guess
The idea that the Con judges leaked it is absurd. Kavanaugh LOVES to disappoint the Right and join with the Libs. that's why he was Anthony Kennedy's clerk. The whole point of the leak is to put pressure on the Judges to issue a narrow ruling AND help the D's in the midterms. Lets not talk about Inflation, massive illegal immigration, skyrocketing gas prices due to Biden's actions, the Democrats printing moeny and spending like druken sailors, exploding crime, the Stalinist treatement of the Jan 6th protestors and slap on the wrist treatment of Antifa Terrorism.
No, lets focus in on abortion and energize the D's for "Abortion Rights". Even though Roe v. Wade dosn't make Abortion illegal, it just throws it back to the states.
Beasts of England reacts "Whoa! Did I miss an amendment or something?"
People discover new things all the time. These are the elements of the periodic table discovered since the right to abortion was discovered in the constitution:
Seaborgium (L Berkeley Lab, USA - Dubna Lab, Russia 1974)
Bohrium (Dubna Russia 1975)
Meitnerium (Armbruster, Munzenber et al. 1982)
Hassium (Armbruster, Munzenber et al. 1984)
Darmstadtium (Hofmann, Ninov, et al. GSI-Germany 1994)
Roentgenium (Hofmann, Ninov et al. GSI-Germany 1994)
Nihonium - Nh - Atomic Number 113 (Hofmann, Ninov et al. GSI-Germany 1996)
Flerovium - Fl - Atomic Number 114 (Joint Institute for Nuclear Research and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 1999)
Livermorium - Lv - Atomic Number 116 (Joint Institute for Nuclear Research and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 2000)
Oganesson - Og - Atomic Number 118 (Joint Institute for Nuclear Research and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 2002)
Moscovium - Mc - Atomic Number 115 (Joint Institute for Nuclear Research and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 2003)
Tennessine - Ts - Atomic Number 117 (Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Vanderbilt University and Oak Ridge National Laboratory 2009)
The husband of one of the USSC clerks is a journalist who previously worked at Politico and wrote news articles together with Josh Gerstein, the reporter to whom the draft opinion was leaked.
And she happens to have been a vocal abortion advocate for most of her adult life, including clerking for a DC judge who apparently adamantly pushes abortion issues. See link posted above.
But, yeah, I bet the Republicans did it.
Kermit Roosevelt [ kermitroosevelt.net ] is the great-great-grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt."
Further, only the Left breaks Norms/Traditions whenever they feel will benefit. Their attitude is "This [insert issue] it too important to care about Rights, traditions, norms, being consistent, being civil, being peaceful, etc. etc."
Conservatives don't think like that. That's on reason they lose.
the point of the leak, is to say you can't even speak on such subjects, how dare you, other absurdities, you must affirm, like nonsensical vaccine mandates, 'pregnant' people, et al
Maybe it was Ginni Thomas???? That makes about as much sense as that total tool Stinchfield saying it was Ketanji Brown Jackson. who is not even on the court yet.
My guess, a conservative law clerk or Roberts.
to you all who oppose conserving reproductive rights, get the lead out and get some programs to take care of these children you are so concerned about. But, you're not concerned about the rights of the child, only about controlling the rights of women. Like Mississippi which has NO programs to for early childhood education, child care or housing.... Pathetic. Please no comments about libtards or being a liberal. i am a women for women's rights, not men's rights to control women.
Vicki from Pasadena.
I think the leak actually helps the right . There is already talk of how states will adapt to the new law. The draft gives the country a "head's up." This is much better than a final opinion out of nowhere that shocks the country.
I'm going to stick with my "wait 48 hours before speculating" rule.
Most likely it's a lefty clerk. A leftist is more likely to think that destroying the confidentiality of the Court's deliberations is worth trying to intimidate one of the 5 justices in the majority to switch votes. Leftists don't care about institutions. They care about power. Once they lose control of an institution like the court, it no longer serves their purpose, so what good is it?
More importantly, there was never a right to abortion under the Constitution. Creating one was the truly extraordinary decision. Like Dred Scott and Plessy and Korematsu, the Court in Roe and then Casey got it very, very wrong. Their egregious errors are being corrected.
We all benefit when our right to govern ourselves is restored by the same institution that stole that power for itself.
So, what will Justice Brennan do about his law clerk Elizabeth Deutsch?
John Roberts is a weasel even by Washington standards; leaking and then ordering an FBI investigation of the leak sounds just like him.
i am a women for women's rights,
Define woman.
Only a move as extraordinary as eliminating a constitutional right in place for half a century
Just like the 13th Amendment.
And, again, the Court has not eliminated any rights.
You cannot eliminate that which never existed in the first place. And it is grossly dishonest to keep pushing the idea. But, then, that was always the tactic of Roe and its progeny -- gross dishonesty.
"Eliminating a constitutional right in place for half a century"
This is the part I'm trying to wrap my head around: That the Court creates or eliminates constitutional rights. In my (admittedly ignorant) framework they recognize a right as rooted in the Constitution or they don't.
Roe makes me think of a mirror-image world where the majority decided fetuses are persons under the Fourteenth Amendment; therefore no state may deny them equal protection of the law, and any state law legalizing abortion is unconstitutional.
Did 30 states have laws permitting abortion under at least some circumstances? Too bad. Those laws are now struck down. Pro-choicers, have you worked to elect representatives who would liberalize abortion laws? Sorry! The Constitution grants the fetus a right to life. You think this is a matter for popular majorities, for states to set their own policies? Think again. The Constitution says abortion is illegal, because the Supreme Court ruled it does.
And because I agree with it, I'm perfectly happy for the Court to rule this way – I'll just have to fight like hell to make sure your side never gets this power.
[Except I don't, and I'm not.]
Just an observation - with the document being dated from back in February, I wonder if the leaker was planning on releasing it at the end of February / early March to distract the country away from the economy as it was crashing under Biden and the Dems. But then Vlad Putin decided he wanted to expand Russia’s borders by attempting to swallow Ukraine whole (and failing quickly to do so). This little event sucked most of the remaining air out of the room besides that taken up by the economy and southern border and diverted all of the US news operations away from everything but Ukraine (and outside of Fox and conservative news outlets, the MSM weren’t paying too much attention to the economy and literally none at the border).
"I think this was leaked by a liberal law clerk who is trying to change the outcome of the case – either by putting pressure on some justices to change their mind or by getting Congress to pack the court
There's also the 2nd Amendment solution :)
If I were one of the Five, I'd probably be staying quite close to home for a bit.
In analysing whether this is the best policy for a fanatically pro-choice law clerk, you also have to consider that currently you're losing. After a while, your options shrivel and you're only left with a Hail Mary. Which, very occasionally, does work.
all they have to do is increase enough to seat already confirmed on the bench into play
We all have a theory. Here is mine. When weighing the likelihood of the leak coming from a liberal or a conservative law clerk, I am inclined to think it was a a liberal. Such an individual is not likely to be a pariah within the liberal universe. A conservative leaker would be more likely to face catastrophic career consequences . . . such an individual could not count on a soft landing into an endowed chair at any American university.
wildswan said...
We can return abortion to the states,
===========
I see DredScot redux >>> woman travels to state allowing abortion === goes into state prohibiting : then can claim right attached to her person / not dependent on location
what say y'all
wildswan said...
We can return abortion to the states,
===========
I see DredScot redux >>> woman travels to state allowing abortion === goes into state prohibiting : then can claim right attached to her person / not dependent on location
what say y'all
Slavery was ok for centuries… half a century was an eye blink in comparison.
Given the medical advances of today, resorting to abortion still is barbaric.
I would even go so far as to say abortion on demand has stifled better methods of avoiding child birth.
Vicki
Try to keep your legs closed. I know it's difficult but self control is a reward in and of itself.
As @AlicefromQueens points out, people who think this was leaked by a conservative law clerk are not capable of thinking about the psychology. Whoever did this is risking his or her whole career, and putting their integrity and their respect for the institution into the dustbin. No one would do that unless they thought it was the kind of emergency worth risking your life for.
No conservative law clerk would see it that way. Things are moving in their direction regardless. If it's a clerk, it can only be a liberal law clerk who sees overturning RvW as the edge of a precipice and will do anything to stop it.
to you all who oppose conserving reproductive rights, get the lead out and get some programs to take care of these children you are so concerned about.
The old lefty lie. The same left impedes adoption. The black social workers tried to ban interracial adoption. After Colin Kaepernick, I'm almost with them there.
The cowardice of Roberts in the Obamacare case encouraged the "wise Lartina's " clerk to have a go at Roberts again.
My take. It can't be from one of the 5 justices hoping to hold the other 4 firm. For that to work, it would require that the leakee (i.e. the journalist at Politico) maintain secrecy. If secrecy could not be maintained, then the whole thing blows up.
We've already seen arguments about how the purported leaker shouldn't face justice for leaking if it saves Roe. The converse would be true as well. The leaker from the right would be targeted for the leaking. If it was a clerk, it would be insinuated that they were ordered to by a Justice (Alito, etc). With subsequent calls for impeachment of that Justice.
The narrative is all about how the leaker is a Hero though, so the leaker is from the left.
The theory about it being leaked to the WH first, and then leaked to the press doesn't hold water either. They can't control the narrative that well. If they could they wouldn't have the communication problems they have today.
The WH holding onto a secret for months? Just waiting for the right time? Nope, not going to happen.
Occam's razor, it's a small subset of people around the 4 justices purported to be on the Roe side (that includes Roberts).
I see DredScot redux >>> woman travels to state allowing abortion === goes into state prohibiting : then can claim right attached to her person / not dependent on location
If a woman travels to Clark County Nevada, it doesn't mean she can charge men for sex in Los Angeles.
I've been saying that I don't think a law clerk leaked it to politico. I think that Sotomayor leaked it to the WH to give them a heads up of what the vote and opinion were, and someone at the WH decided to leak it to politico, likely in order to change the narrative.
Ah, yes. The evil right-wingers made him do it.
Occam's Razor says that it was a liberal who leaked. The theory of liberal advantage is obvious. The theory of conservative advantage is based upon a complex causal scenario that would be counter-intuitive, given the fact that the immediate effect of the leak has quite predictably been to activate the Dem base, Dem donors, Dem politicians, and the punditsphere in unanimous outrage, condemnation, and calls (less than unanimous) for violence. A right wing leaker would see that coming a mile away.
I hope Adam Liptak is ready to publicly condemn the leak, and that if he discovered the identity of the leaker, he would not hesitate to reveal the leaker's name. I am being less than candid. I know that Liptak is delighted by the leak, and hopes that the leaker escapes.
A conservative might have floated a rumor, but it sounds like more than that was leaked, and released to the public at an opportune moment for the Democrats.
The idea that a constitutional right could be created or discovered 190 or so years after the Constitution was ratified and 100 or so years after the 14th Amendment suggests that it could just as easily be undiscovered or decay, as those new elements inevitably decay.
And really, the Rubicon was crossed with the Kavanaugh hearings. After that it was clear that something like this could and would happen.
So, what will Justice Brennan do about his law clerk Elizabeth Deutsch?
If it's up to Justice Brennan we could be waiting a long time for disciplinary action.
yo-lawyer person - tell me what to do
Pay grades, pay grades.
Politicians avoid having theological beliefs that conflict with their party's platform or their own political interests. Joe left the unborn children idea and the conviction that abortion is wrong a long time ago. At most abortion is like speeding or overeating or getting drunk, something you say people shouldn't do, but you do anyway -- or at least that's my intuition about his attitude.
If the leaker isn’t caught, we’ll know it was Roberts.
Planned parent/hood is affirmative exclusion of one of two parties to The Constitution based on a rite of privacy, essentially if you can get away with it, which is the heavy burden of humanity to mitigate the progress of abortions... homicidal choices, rape... rape-rape, Mengele mandates, and other wicked solutions exercised... demos-cracy exorcised in darkness.
Roe was wrongly decided. Even Lawrence and Plessy were better reasoned, though probably not Dred Scott. My dear friend Wm Van Alstyne (1934-2019) was an unabashed pro-choice liberal, but he was also a scrupulously honest scholar who freely acknowledged that abortion was not a matter of constitutional moment. Then again, Bill also had a profound affection for the First Amendment, indeed all our Amendments, even the Second! Today's Lefties would consider him a treasonous relic.
If Roberts truly cares about the legal, institutional and ethical integrity of the Court, he will join Alito et al to avoid a 5-4 (i.e., one vote) reversal of Roe.
I think we need more evidence to conclude there was a "leak" and not a hack. 12 federal agencies (including the US Court system) were hacking in 2020 alone (its more accurate to say we realized that 12 agencies had been compromised in 2020 as it appears the hackers were inside for months and years before they were detected). Most hackers create and leave paths to get back in as part of their nefarious activity. We need an investigation that includes a top to bottom forensic analysis of the court's electronic systems.
The leaker could be a righty.
Think about it. In response to overturning Roe and Casey, blue states will go crazy and implement very liberal abortion laws, red states will either outlaw abortion or impose some limits. Result: relatively more abortions among blue-staters than among red-staters. Demographic advantage: red states and the GOP. The sooner, the better! In fact, that should be the next conservative cause: blue baby lives don't matter. Dilemma for progs: do they love abortion more than power? Considering the toll among blacks, perhaps they do.
But, you're not concerned about the rights of the child, only about controlling the rights of women
Get over yourself.
Question for the legal eagles on this board: Does Stare Decisis apply to a prior ruling that was unconstitutional? If so, all the wailing about 50 years of constitutional right is a falsehood thrust on the U.S. by 7 men in robes who wanted an outcome that they couldn't square with the Constitution. Seems to me getting it right is more important than continuing an unconstitutional ruling.
SCOTUS has reversed itself over 150 times.... so what is the big deal?
This really is a states rights thing... the states should decide, not the federal government.
It's charming to me that Althouse seems think Joe is telling the truth about what he believes. There's certainly no evidence of such.
'Does Stare Decisis apply to a prior ruling that was unconstitutional?'
Precedent is precedent until it isn't.
Dershowitz has no more authority in this area than the average Althouse commenter, myself included. just a wild guess with dubious reasoning. the clerks know the justices the best.
Since we are all speculating . . .
The leaker was a lefty clerk. (S)he saw that none of the 5 who agreed in conference to overturn Roe was going to change to merely upholding the Mississippi law. So, having lost at SCOTUS on the ONE TRUE RIGHT, decided to go public to rally the other branches of government and the public she assumes is on her side to pressure someone! anyone! into preserving the right to abort. Preservation may take the form of federal or state legislation, but on the federal level, only if done RIGHT NOW because we all know what's going to happen in November. Therefore, can't waste any more time, and need to rally the addled POTUS, the Fake Indian, the Vermont Socialist, Pelosi, and all of the leftist House rabble into concerted action against the vile common enemy -- unborn babies. If she's going to lose, she'll go down fighting.
Just curious...does Ann Althouse think Roe was rightly decided? And has she read the draft opinion by Alito? What is her opinion of that?
victoria said...
My guess, a conservative law clerk or Roberts.
And your reason for this guess is?
Oh, wait, you're a Roe supporter, so you believe that nothing else matters once you've asserted that something is true.
to you all who oppose conserving reproductive rights, get the lead out and get some programs to take care of these children you are so concerned about. But, you're not concerned about the rights of the child, only about controlling the rights of women
1: There are no "reproductive rights" enshrined in the US Constitution
2: Women do not have some special "right" to kill their baby, so we're not "controlling" anything.
3: It's left wing "judges" that have worked so hard to screw up adoption, not the ones on the Right
. Like Mississippi which has NO programs to for early childhood education, child care or housing
The only thing that "early childhood education" supports is the adults paid to do it.
Pretty sure Mississippi has a welfare program, so your other two claims are total garbage
i am a women for women's rights, not men's rights to control women.
Your last three words are lies. What you are is "a women for women's rights, not men's rights".
Which is why you think that a woman who has sex and gets pregnant should have the absolutely right to kill the baby.
But a man who has sex and gets a woman pregnant should be on the hook for 18 years of shild support, even if he wants an abortion
So, let me answer you in small words, that are still true even if everything YOU said was true (your statements are false, but that's irrelevant here):
You don't care about our rights, so we don't, and shouldn't, care about yours.
Please no comments about libtards or being a liberal. i am a women for women's rights, not men's rights to control women.
Vicki from Pasadena.
**************
Poor Vicki. She doesn't see her lack of self-awareness in believing "women's right to control their own bodies" comes AFTER those same woman have demonstrated they cannot control their bodies' sexual urges.
Mark said...
Only a move as extraordinary as eliminating a constitutional right in place for half a century
Just like the 13th Amendment.
**********
What enumerated right in the Constitution did the 13th Amendment eliminate?
https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/slavery-and-the-constitution
Question for the legal eagles on this board: Does Stare Decisis apply to a prior ruling that was unconstitutional?
ask Dread Scott
Jim at said...
But, you're not concerned about the rights of the child, only about controlling the rights of women
Get over yourself.
5/4/22, 1:38 PM
Sounds to me like he or she is over themselves. They care about the millions of babies that have been torn apart piece by piece and sold to the highest bidder. Some day, we will be looked at in horror that we could kill so many of our own children and sell their parts. The selfish ones who are in it for themselves are the baby killers and their fans.
I'm not a bonafide constitutional law scholar, but it seems to me that Roe v. Wade was bad simply from:
1. The Constitution is silent on abortion.
2. The 9th & 10th Amendments cover all the things the Constitution is silent about.
3. The Constitution itself provides a remedy for the things that aren't in it or are in it and the people want changed - the amendment process.
If the people want abortion to be a constitutional right then the people should work to amend the Constitution to enshrine that right. Just like should be done for all the other things that the federal government does that the Constitution is silent on. The "general welfare" and "commerce" clauses have been stretched past breaking and we can see evidence of this in the current size and scope of the federal government. That's not the way to do it - it's an end run around the rules, just like Roe v. Wade.
Democrats haven’t been this upset about possibly losing the right to kill black babies since we took away their right to enslave blacks in general.
That’s what PP is all about, after all: murdering black people in masse. To the loud cheers of (white) leftists.
"Only a move as extraordinary as eliminating a constitutional right in place for half a century could transform the court into an institution like any other in Washington, where rival factions disclose secrets in the hope of obtaining advantage...." – isn’t that pretty much what most Democrats said when Plessy v. Ferguson was effectively overturned by Brown v Board of Education?
Sounds to me like he or she is over themselves.
No, she's not. She thinks the world revolves around her and her vagina, and hates men for pointing out it doesn't.
And also notice she laments a lack of more government programs as some sort of shaming to those opposed to abortion. Because of course the taxpayer should be on the hook for her mistakes.
The WSJ editorial board used to be a beacon of reason. This editorial follows the pattern of the left since Trump won in 2016 - the situation is so bad that it justifies our horrid actions. We’re the good guys because the other side is the worst. Isn’t that also a common defense of fascists and common criminals? That’s the suit of clothes that leftists dress in these days.
"Question for the legal eagles on this board: Does Stare Decisis apply to a prior ruling that was unconstitutional?"-- Yes, in cases where people have relied on that prior ruling to structure their lives. The gay marriage decisions is a good example. It was probably wrongly decided, but we now have millions of people who have gotten married as a result of that decision, and their lives would thrown into disrepair and turmoil if the case were overruled. Why should they suffer because a prior court made a mistake? But there are no reliance issues with respect to abortion (or contraceptives or sodomy) so stare decisis is not as strong in those cases.
I think this was leaked to Politico AND to activists.
Problem is, the outcome will be outrage fatigue.
Marsha Blackburn: What if Dems try to seat Jackson while Breyer is still on the Court to stop Roe from being overturned?
======
great minds etc...upthread I opined
... all they have to do is increase enough to seat already confirmed on the bench into play
Post a Comment