Wrote Ian Millhiser, of Vox, quoted in "Before Finally Overturning Roe, Supreme Court Must Block Yet Another Insurrection Attempt" by Mollie Hemingway (at The Federalist).
Hemingway continues:
Brian Fallon, the former Hillary Clinton campaign spokesman who became the leader of a dark money group behind the fight against the nomination of Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, issued a pretty clear call for intimidation of the court: “Is a brave clerk taking this unpredecented [sic] step of leaking a draft opinion to warn the country what’s coming in a last-ditch Hail Mary attempt to see if the public response might cause the Court to reconsider?”
“All Democrats need to show the same urgency as the clerk who apparently risked his or her career to sound this alarm. Those on the inside know best how broken the institution is. We should listen,” he added.
Crowds comprised of many staffers from abortion groups gathered at the Supreme Court immediately after the leak. “Chants of ‘fascist scum have got to go,’ interspersed with the names of the conservative justices,” noted one reporter. Signs included, “F-CK SCOTUS,” and “Sam Alito Retire B-tch.”
Why does the headline say "Another Insurrection Attempt"?
The Supreme Court was attacked by a crazed mob in the aftermath of the Kavanaugh confirmation. Hundreds of raucous protesters tried to break down the 13-ton bronze doors. They scaled the building and its statues and threw tomatoes and water bottles at the cars of justices who had attended his swearing-in. The mob even went after Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan.
I had to look it up. The protest was entirely outside the court building, and there was pounding on the doors:
Everyone chooses what evidence to point to and when to emphasize similarities and when to emphasize differences. You've got the anti-Kavanaugh protest at one building and the January 6th protest at another. They are alike and different, and the likenesses and differences are perceived through a partisan lens.
As for leaks, there are lots of leaks. But this leak of the opinion draft — how different or similar is it from other leaks we have known and loved or hated?
Those who care about norms, decorum, civility, institutions, and rule of law — or claim to — must hold the leaker and any co-conspirators fully accountable for this egregious breach. At the very least, they should be disbarred. Criminal charges might also be in order.
Cite and quote the criminal statute. I'm coldly resistant to arguments that something must be a crime because it gives you that crime-y feeling. There are lots of leaks in Washington, but somehow some people seem to think that the Supreme Court is extra-special when it comes to how much it deserves freedom from leakage. Why? Is it because the side you prefer is hurt by this leak? Is it because your side has such a hefty majority at the moment?
Meanwhile, Ian Millhiser and his ilk are hurting. Millhiser called for destruction of the building by fire. He despairs that the Supreme Court will favor his side anytime soon, so he calls for zero respect for the institution. He's cheering on the leaker. The Supreme Court, in his view, doesn't get special deference among the institutions, and the leaker can be another national hero in the tradition of Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden.
Posts
78 comments:
These people are advocating for insect politics.
They are going to get insect politics.
They are incompatible with a free high trust society.
It is time for suppression of the incompatible.
Things will get very bad. I expect the worst.
What would stop the usual BLM and Antifa people from conducting riots all over the nation? Isn't this - in their minds - worse than the death of George Floyd?
Frankly I am not at all surprised at your reaction to the leak, but I am appalled and disappointed.
Can we dispense with the absurdity of "Cruel Neutrality" now?
I am unbothered by the leak in and of itself, but then I have always been unbothered by leaks. In this case I don't think it is a crime, though it may be a cause for disbarment if the leaker is identified.
As for motive, that is clear, as long as the draft opinion is authentic and reflects the outcome- to intimidate the court into backing down. I don't think it will work out that way, but it might. The bigger danger is that some lunatic will now assassinate one or more of the justices in order to scuttle the decision. If I were Roberts, I would issue the decision today- don't wait another minute because each minute is one more that put his colleagues in extra danger.
Going after the leaker may damage the legitimacy of the arguments put forth for overturning Roe/Casey. It shouldn’t, but we’re dealing with mostly soap opera audience, as Rh is constantly reminding us.
As soon a blue state legislatures start acting, the attention will turn.
In some cases to the extremism of the pro-abortion bills that are proposed.
Most states will eventually land somewhere in the middle.
Liberals love 'burning things down' but their only solution to build something back up inevitably involves fascism and government control...
How is calling for literal, physical, not metaphorical, destruction of the Supreme Court by fire not "insurrection?"
At the very least incitement to insurrection.
John LGKTQ Henry
Cite and quote the criminal statute.
Agree. Either it violates the law or it doesn't. Bring forth the law or risk making yourself look foolish. Your choice.
As for disbarment, that's a no brainer. Dishonesty and breaking confidence entrusted to you because of your promise of allegiance, absent which you would not have the information, should be a slam dunk.
If the SC isn't using "canary traps" in the documents it distributes among itself, to allow determination of leak sources, they should start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_trap
Cite and quote the criminal statute.
I don't think that the statement you seem to be referring to ("Those who care about norms, decorum, civility, institutions, and rule of law ") is referring to criminal law, but to an act that undermines the SC by undermining the spirit of collegiality and respect that characterizes disinterested legal judgment.
As for "national heroes" Ellsberg and Snowden, both were charged with espionage, so not exactly an argument for being all law-di-dah about this leak.
Bed-wetter Brian Fallon says, "Those on the inside know best how broken the institution is."
The definition of "broken institution" to a Progressive means, "We are no longer in control." Unless they can determine 100% of the outcome of a given system, Progressives call it broken or corrupt or decayed or substandard. They cannot accept that in a nation of nearly 350 million people there are those who hold opinions different from them and are still allowed to voice such opinions.
That's why the fight over Roe and Casey is really a proxy for the fight to keep free speech and the other Bill of Rights we all (incorrectly) assumed were actual rights we possessed. To the Woke, all rights are revocable except the ones they like.
"and the likenesses and differences are perceived through a partisan lens"
The big difference is that one lens is backed by power.
The US Supreme Court took over all abortion decisions from the state legislatures and from the electorate because PRIVACY was a Constitutional right provided by various "emanations and penumbras".
If PRIVACY is such a crucial right, then how come this leaking of a private document is being glorified?
On the other hand, anyone who crosses the barricades should be held in prison indefinitely until the system gets around to trying them. 18 months or so in jail sounds about right, then we can decide their guilt or innocence (as if). Isn't that how we do it now?
And the GOP congressional investigations into all the personal communications of the supposedly dissenting Justices and their clerks and staffers, not to mention WH personnel, as well as the quick-out-the-gate pundits will have the support of all the leftists. Right?
And exactly what crime has been committed by leaking this draft decision? Someone could certainly (and probably should) be fired, but what is the crime? I would bet the leader is Breyer. Seeing how batshit crazy the conservative justices have become probably drove him mad and into retirement.
I think the Supreme Court decision should be unanimous. Especially if the justices support federalism.
Let the states decide. let the people who live in the states who elect their own representatives - the them decide.
We don't know the "from whom", but we certainly know the "from whence." Look left for the lack of integrity displayed by this leak. Likely also, look female, whether clerk or justice.
Democrats corrupt everything.
Huge SF Chronicle headline: ROE V WADE TO FALL.
Not a word how, if the Court acts upon this leaked document, abortion will be available in every state whose citizens vote for it. It's the perfectly-timed 'mid-term crisis' the Dems needed. With the added bonus of 'Trump-appointed justices'.
There's an alternative possibility: that it was a conservative clerk who leaked. Why leak a draft from February? Well, maybe Barrett or Kavanaugh is waffling, and the conservatives are about to lose their majority, such that Roe would survive. So someone leaks Alito's full-throated draft, and now no one can back out from Alito's majority without looking like they were pressured.
So far as I have read the thinking is: send it back to the people. And why not? Why riot because an issue is going back to the people? If they don't want it, surely they'll vote against it.
Moreover, this is a different kind of leak. This leak is trying to ensure that the law is determined by mob rule rather than by calm deliberation on the Constitution. Other leaks were trying to expose existing secret policies such as rendering, not trying to install mob rule in place of the rule of law. I expect to find out soon, that the person working for mob rule is in an important post in the Court system but, being a Dem, [preferred pronoun not yet known] does not support the rule of law. Let's hope this latest Dem initiative proves abortive.
I think people are bored by mobs and disgusted by attempts to shut down all voices but one just as they, almost universally, silently hated masks. And they won't forget gas and food prices just because a mob makes it hard to get to the grocery store and gas station. And the sight of mobs is what will affect November voting, not the abstract justice of the question of returning the abortion question to the people at the state level.
I checked in expecting a full-throated condemnation of the leak.
I was wrong.
One problem with this leak is that a group (the SCOTUS justices) that has maintained a facade of courtesy and collegiality is breaking down and breaking up. The leaked draft will now be submitted to the deleted, augmented, and replaced analysis relative to the final opinion that will inflame both sides further. That is not a good development.
The other thing is the betrayal of trust implicit in this leak. Trust is the essence of commercial and civic life. High trust societies can accomplish a lot (see studies on Scandinavia and their high trust societies). All the folks here who regularly denounce the GOPe— you are going to like a society run by the Dems a lot less. I know. I live in Illinois. Institutions that lose the trust of the public are through. Think about the public health authorities and how they have destroyed trust under the covid regime.
Althouse, I disagree with your anodyne dismissal of the Kavanagh unrest. What happed there was a disgrace. Now we have this Vox clown suggesting that the Supreme Court be burned down because the law governing abortion is being returned to the states.
Well, abortion rights advocates will always have CA, CO, IL, NY, and MA. Maybe they can lure people back.
Wow. Depends on whose insurrection it is.
"You've got the anti-Kavanaugh protest at one building and the January 6th protest at another. They are alike and different" "there was pounding on the doors" How are they different, really? Because the latter group was able to breach the doors?
Jonathan Turley, re potential consequence to leaker, https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/03/leaked-dobbs-draft-opinion-rocks-the-court-and-washington/:
"The question is how the FBI and the Court will proceed in the investigation. Anyone taking this deeply unethical act is likely to have taken steps to hide their tracks. I would be surprised if there were a paper trail or email record. However, anyone who would take such a reckless act may have been equally reckless in the means used to violate the Court’s rules.
If the culprit is a lawyer, disbarment would seem a virtual certainty. This person may be a hero in the eyes of some, but will remain a pariah in the eyes of any ethical lawyer. Yet, disbarment could be the least of the problems. If a suspect lies to the FBI, there could be prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 1001.
Thus, the culprit will have to make a decision today of whether to radically increase the potential costs of this act. There are a relatively small number of individuals with access to these drafts. It is likely that the culprit will be contacted quickly with others by investigators. That will prove a critical moment that could transform an unethical into a criminal act."
Brian Fallon wants to be the next John Brown.
The comments by Fallon and Millhiser are wonderful. Not unexpected --such events attract such comments-- but really wonderfully useful in helping us define more precisely and richly the term "self-righteous pr**k".
The FBI should start with interviewing all the law clerks, secretaries and admins, and lawyers working at the Court, followed up by lie detector tests for all of them. I say that as a former clerk. The leaker must be identified and punished. That might or might not include prosecution, I don’t know what criminal laws apply. But it should certainly include summary dismissal, and, if the leaker is a legal professional, disbarment and blackballing from any kind of future legal employment.
The wicked solution is socially forward thinking. Deja vu.
The opinion will be an interesting road sign to the November election. The reaction might backfire on the Democrats. Or maybe it will help them.
'If the SC isn't using "canary traps" in the documents it distributes among itself, to allow determination of leak sources, they should start.'
It has always been my impression that government in general, and SCOTUS in particular, are run like musty old country clubs. The kind your grandparents would have frequented had they been well-off.
I'd be shocked if they had anything other than bare-bones security that's built into laptops and phones...
Don't we just love civil disobedience when our ox is gored?
Shout out to insurrection!
"You've got the anti-Kavanaugh protest at one building and the January 6th protest at another. They are alike and different, and the likenesses and differences are perceived through a partisan lens"
The difference is, the anti-Kavanaugh protestors were banging on the doors and actually stopping a vote....whereas the January 6th protesters were ushered in by the same Capitol police who ended up killing 2 of them...whilst the rest are rotting away in Nancy's political gulag in DC. The left gets away with ALL the damage and violence.....remember the limo fires, and business on fire the night of Trumps inaugeration?? Neither does anybody else because the media ignored it, and they got slaps on the wrist for all the damage. We are getting closer and closer to a civil war than ever before in my lifetime...
What is the crime?
Well -- obstruction of justice, theft of government property, conversion and misappropriation of government property, insurrection, sedition, and contempt of court. Of course, the Court has its own inherent power to punish contempt committed against it and to do so summarily.
There are two differences between Kavanaugh and 1/6: 1/6 the doors were left open and many participants appear to have been virtually invited in. Kavanaugh, doors remained closed & locked. 1/6, by far the majority were neither violent nor destructive. Kavanaugh the mob was hysterically violent and destructive.
Each circulated document doesn't have an individual "rabbit" or "canary trap"? That's freshman year Security 101.
Insurrections for me but not for thee....
Careful what you wish for, leftists.
You just might get it.
The spy-banger Swalwell is tweeting that the republicans will ban interracial marriage next (really).
But that will never happen.
If TV commercials are anything to go by, interracial marriages are the majority in this country, so it seems pretty popular : )
Its interesting that the same people who decry the right is 'breaking norms' and thus 'destroying democracy', think breaking norms is worth cheering when done in the service of their goals.
@Mark, I too thought of seditious conspiracy. But seditious conspiracy requires "force" to be used. Unless this leak occurred in a very different way than we suspect, that won't apply.
However, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 USC 1030(a)(2) criminalizes access of government computers if it "exceeds authorization." While justices and clerks are likely authorized to review draft opinions, if someone else, such as a staffer of the Court or another agency, was the leaker then they could very well be subject to the CFAA.
What a shame. What ever happened to personal integrity? First the leaker violated the trust given to them. Then the hyperventilating about how terrible the ruling will be when the in fact very little will change. I’m so tired of all the little babies throwing temper tantrums when they don’t get their way. Anyway, what’s so terrible about maybe reducing the baby slaughtering a little bit?
Prof Orin Kerr (Berkeley Law) discusses some possible applicable criminal statues in his thread here:
https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1521335708593573888
He says it's probably not a federal crime to have leaked the draft but behavior around the leak might be criminal. He also tweets:
"@martensmatt1 asks if it might be conversion of federal property under 18 U.S.C. 641, on a theory that the person had access to the draft but converted it to the his own use or the use of the publication (or the public). That's a good question"
and notes that the DC circuit has held that information can be considered a "thing of value," so it's possible that law could be stretched to apply here.
Anyway, that's kind of a cite of a criminal statute. Hope everyone is doing well!
OK. If abortions are needed to please career women, then can equal protection law be applied requiring an equal number of each sex and race be slaughtered. A computer algorithm can draw the names of those to lose their lives “equally.” Think of it as a death lottery.
My presumption was that it was leaked by a liberal in order to generate public pressure on the justices to change their minds. So far, it has worked half way. The public pressure is building. We'll find out soon enough if it changes any minds.
"Meanwhile, Ian Millhiser and his ilk are hurting.
Are they? Some of them probably are, but is Milhiser *hurting*?
I remember with disdain GWBush's "when people are hurting government's got to move" but maybe my opinion is a minority one.
There is a problem in using 'canary traps' in legal opinions or legal documents. In those documents, every word and it's exact placement matters and in Supreme Court opinions that are mulled over for decades and centuries, even more so. Very different than a policy paper or a classified analyst report, which can have words tweaked and paragraphs reoriented without losing its meaning.
Fallon is just another example of a lefty anti-American encouraging actions that should result in prison time. Again, this is how these assholes roll.
Our Democracy is too important to let the people decide such an important issue.
As for the Kavanaugh protests, didn't some protestors corner a Senator in an elevator and get him to move for a delay? That may not qualify as an insurrection, but it's more than just pounding on doors.
Blogger Howard said... Don't we just love civil disobedience when our ox is gored?
Actually, this is just a sign of the times. Sotomayor's clerk is a Yale LS grad and has the mentality of one. The decline of institutions once revered.
If it was a clerk, the clerk was willing to abandon the confidentiality expected of him or her to support a cause. There may not be a criminal statute which covers the leaking of the opinion to the press. However, whether because of this event or the end of the term, the clerk's employment with the Supreme Court will come to an end. Any future employer chances a repeat of the clerk's abandonment of confidentiality when and if a more important cause comes along. One wonders who is willing to take that chance. One wonders what clients would put their confidences in such a person.
Millhiser called for destruction of the building by fire. He despairs that the Supreme Court will favor his side anytime soon, so he calls for zero respect for the institution
Cool! Let's ALL have "zero respect" for SCOTUS.
So, let's toss Roe, Lawrence v Texas, and Obergfell. Because those are all SCOTUS impositions on the States, and a SCOTUS that has no respect shouldn't be able to do that, right?
Millhiser is an incoherent moron. He lived by the sword, now he's crying like a baby because he's dying by it.
Wah!
Cite and quote the criminal statute. I'm coldly resistant to arguments that something must be a crime because it gives you that crime-y feeling. There are lots of leaks in Washington, but somehow some people seem to think that the Supreme Court is extra-special when it comes to how much it deserves freedom from leakage. Why?
Every single clerk had to sign an employment agreement, and I'm positive that agreement included a requirement to never leak.
Since it's a government agreement, it quite probably carries criminal penalties.
The leak is a violation of the leaker's legal ethics, which justifies the disbarment
But I do think we're going to find that this leak helps the Right.
1: Every pro-Roe legal mind in America now has access to the decision before it's final. If there are legal flaws in it, they can point them out.
When they completely fail to find any legal or historical flaws, or misquotes, or anything else, this will lead people to understand that, like it or not, the ruling IS correct
2: This is going to spread out the "impact" of the decision. The emotional hit is now in May, instead of July. Which means that by the time the November election roll around, this will be old news.
Unlike the inflation that hits people in the grocery store every time we go, with new things having higher prices
"Meanwhile, Ian Millhiser and his ilk are hurting."
Poor Ian! now when he fucks young girls, it might be harder to get an abortion if they screw up the birth control!
Wo, wo
"Meanwhile, Ian Millhiser and his ilk are hurting."
Why? They live in NY and DC. Are you seriously trying to claim that either is going to outlaw abortion?
Their only "hurt" is that their ability to bully the rest of us is getting smaller.
That's not a legitimate hurt
"A witty comment at WaPo: "It’s almost as if the Supreme Court believes it has a right to privacy….""
The Supreme Court does have a right to privacy, right now the justices may feel as if this right extends to strangling a certain clerk in chambers. When they cool-off they will realize that privacy doesn't include the right to commit murder.
Mike Sylwester said...
The US Supreme Court took over all abortion decisions from the state legislatures and from the electorate because PRIVACY was a Constitutional right provided by various "emanations and penumbras".
There is no doubt that the right to privacy is a preexisting right under the 9th and 10th amendments. The stretch was using that to cover abortion- because as mentioned, that same stretch could be used to cover euthanasia- killing off the old and useless, as long as it's done "in private".
Don't believe that privacy is a preexisting right? Read the 4th amendment. It pretty much covers it without using the words private or privacy.
Joe Smith said...
The spy-banger Swalwell is tweeting that the republicans will ban interracial marriage next (really).
But that will never happen.
If TV commercials are anything to go by, interracial marriages are the majority in this country, so it seems pretty popular : )
5/3/22, 1:18 PM
Clarence Thomas is pointing and laughing at him!!!
Maybe they can get the leaker to plead guilty to “parading”, but you know he or she is going to hold out for a “Clinesmith” resolution.
Blogger Lewis said... What a shame. What
ever happened to personal integrity?
First the leaker violated
the trust given
to them. Then the
hyperventilating about how terrible
the ruling will be when in
fact
very little will change.
I’m so tired of all the little babies throwing temper tantrums
when they don’t get their way. Anyway, what’s so terrible
about maybe reducing the baby slaughtering a little bit?
I loved that girl.
I will always miss her.
Prague is a place of infinite
mystery.
5/3/22, 1:43 PM
Everyone is a hypocrite.
"They are going to get insect politics."
Hahaha we long ago got insect politics.
"The bigger danger is that some lunatic will now assassinate one or more of the justices in order to scuttle the decision."
All the assassination in the history of the abortion debate has been done by those trying to stop abortion. But sure why not, go Pelican Brief on us...
"To the Woke, all rights are revocable except the ones they like."
Said on the day we learn the Supreme Court's right wing is revoking a right, filling decades of conservative effort to do so.
"Not a word how, if the Court acts upon this leaked document, abortion will be available in every state whose citizens vote for it."
Oh are we still pretending Republicans' next move isn't a federal ban?
"the ruling IS correct"
It ain't math, it's an OPINION. "Correct" is not a relevant word.
"Then the hyperventilating about how terrible the ruling will be when the in fact very little will change."
From 0-30 days after the release of the ruling, the law will change in the majority of states. To the extent that little will change in some of those states, it's because they've done a good job of denying realization of this right in practice already.
"I checked in expecting a full-throated condemnation of the leak."
People who care about the leak rather than the text of the opinion:
-disinterested court watchers
-august editorial boards
-civility bullshitters
-peope who don't want it to imperil overturning Roe and Casey.
Trouble in death-a-dice.
@JonathanTurley
Biden's defense of "aborting babies" is not exactly how the Democrats want to frame the issue. Notably, Biden once opposed Roe as going “too far” and said that a woman shouldn’t have the “sole right to say what should happen to her body.”
1: Every pro-Roe legal mind in America now has access to the decision before it's final. If there are legal flaws in it, they can point them out.
When they completely fail to find any legal or historical flaws, or misquotes, or anything else, this will lead people to understand that, like it or not, the ruling IS correct
Thats a good point, and really, they've already started to accept this. With Schumer and Sanders running to podiums insisting on a vote, they have accepted the ruling and not even attempted to point out any flaws. In fact, they re-enforced many findings in the majority opinion.
"It ain't math, it's an OPINION. "Correct" is not a relevant word."
The same can be said about the original decisions. If it's just about power then it's just about power. Trying to claim the moral high ground by claiming rights are being taken away is disingenuous.
"The same can be said about the original decisions. If it's just about power then it's just about power. Trying to claim the moral high ground by claiming rights are being taken away is disingenuous."
Free speech is not "correct". Freedom to bear arms is not "correct". Yet they are rights. I do not understand your point. Except that it is indeed about power, and the right has carefully built up the power over the last 50 years to remove this right via the Supreme Court.
Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...
I think the Supreme Court decision should be unanimous.
==========
could the leak bring that about? as a way to put all this behind!
Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...
I think the Supreme Court decision should be unanimous.
==========
could the leak bring that about? as a way to put all this behind!
Well, assassinations aside, Daniel12, the death count is still 30+ million to, what, 10-20 worldwide? The anti-abortionists have a long, long way to catch up in the killing.
"A witty comment at WaPo: "It’s almost as if the Supreme Court believes it has a right to privacy….""
That's would be 1/2 "witty"
Since the "my body, my choice" people spent the last two years saying "your body, the government's choice" when it came to any government "Covid" restrictions
Daniel12 said...
"the ruling IS correct"
It ain't math, it's an OPINION. "Correct" is not a relevant word.
It's a legal ruling, about what the Constitution and law say.
If it were merely an "opinion", then no one would be bound by it.
So, Obergfell is merely an "opinion", and it's not really true that gays have a "right" to same sex "marriage"?
Or did you not think of that before you started babbling?
John Fisher: To create a canary trap and know who leaked a document, each person accessing the document has to see and possess a document different from all others. These unique documents don't need to differ in text, but perhaps in layout, typesetting, a comma in a in a reference instead of a semicolon, a word hyphenated at the end of one line versus a different word hyphenated at the end of a different line. The process can be automated and tracked for document downloads or even continued as transfers of drafts occur between individuals or offices.
I'd bet that a careful analysis of drafts produced and circulated and commented upon will narrow the possible leakers to a very small number of people, even without prior, purposeful insertion of unique identifiers in document versions.
"It's a legal ruling, about what the Constitution and law say.
If it were merely an "opinion", then no one would be bound by it.
So, Obergfell is merely an "opinion", and it's not really true that gays have a "right" to same sex "marriage"?
Or did you not think of that before you started babbling?"
Are you asking whether, on the days after (and before) we saw the draft majority opinion eliminating the right to abortion, I thought of the precariousness of other rights that the majority of this Court is very clearly hostile to?
Yes, yes I did.
It's not debatable that it's an opinion because it is and it says it is on the top of the fucking document (twice), and that this opinion will (if issued) become law does make it not an opinion. An opinion that in my opinion, and many others', including a minority of the Court who will no doubt express their thoughts in a dissenting opinion, is very clearly terrible, in argumentation, outcome and consequences. It should not be issued, if it is it should be quickly overturned, Congress should make a law rendering it irrelevant, and the President, governors, legislatures, service providers, etc. should do everything legally possible to ensure that every single person in this country has access to safe abortion.
Others who do not believe there is a right to abortion, and who disagree with the opinions that decided Roe and Casey, have made similar arguments and acted accordingly. This is how our system works, and to demand some sort of respect for the immutable correctness of this particular opinion, which none of you give to other Supreme Court opinions that you disagree with, is convenient bullshit.
Cite and quote the criminal statute.
18 U.S. Code § 401 -
A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—
(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.
The leak covers all 3.
Just because you don't want it to be criminal doesn't mean it isn't...
Daniel12 said...
It's not debatable that it's an opinion because it is and it says it is on the top of the fucking document (twice), and that this opinion will (if issued) become law does make it not an opinion.
The stupidity you babble is you "opinion".
The dictates issued by SCOTUS are called "Opinions", but the reality is that they are law.
For you to pretend that the concepts are the same, simply because the same letters are used in both cases, is asinine to the highest degree
An opinion that in my opinion, and many others', including a minority of the Court who will no doubt express their thoughts in a dissenting opinion, is very clearly terrible, in argumentation, outcome and consequences
1: Argumentation: So, what, precisely, is wrong with its "argumentation", other than that you don't like it?
2: "outcome and consequences": That's politics, not the Constitution or the law
So, what it comes down to is that some black robed thugs decided to illegitimately impose political decisions on the rest of us that you liked. And now you're whining and butthurt over the fact that a different group of five black robed people are going to reverse that illegitimate imposition of raw judicial power.
Or, tl;dr: you have no principles, just a lust for power and getting your own way, and are unhappy you're not getting your own way.
Wah
Congress should make a law rendering it irrelevant
Congress can NOT make a "law rendering it irrelevant", and any attempt to do so will be immediately struck down, because abortion is not a Federal issue, it's a State one.
President, governors, legislatures
Dear numb nutted ignoramus: What this decision does is make it so that the Governors and Legislatures finally get to make their rules, rather than your rules
to ensure that every single person in this country has access to safe abortion.
Because requiring people to be responsible adults is just outside your realm of possibility?
Others who do not believe there is a right to abortion
That's because there isn't, and never has been.
You are free to tell us which part of the Alito "opinion" that deals with that subject is factually wrong. If you can't, my statement stands.
And you can't
This is how our system works, and to demand some sort of respect for the immutable correctness of this particular opinion, which none of you give to other Supreme Court opinions that you disagree with, is convenient bullshit.
No.
The legitimate nature of our system is that we have a written Constitution, and written laws. And that judges and justices are bound by those written documents, not by their personal political desires, no matter how prettily they dress up their exercise of raw judicial power.
Roe v Wade and Casey are, were, and always will be utterly illegitimate decisions wrongly imposed on the American people. This is not a matter of "opinion", it's a matter of reality. Which is why none of you whiners have so much as a single legal / judicial / historical attack on the document released
No America has a "right" to control his or her body. If we did, and the Left agreed we did, there would have been NO Covid "vaccine mandates" or "vaccine passport" requirements issued by any Democrat at any level, and no Left wing judge would have voted to uphold such mandates when they were offered.
Roe/Casey are not about privacy, liberty, or any of the other BS you on the Left have claimed, it was about abortion, and about a woman's, but not a man's, "right" to be free from the consequences of having sex.
And sunshine, that's just not a right actually provided by the US Constitution
Sorry who binds the Supreme Court to those written documents?
Everything you say before you get to your actual point at the end -- abortion sucks and it's gone gone gone -- is the nonsense Federalist Society bullshit we've heard over and over again at confirmation hearings. What's it like to be so vehemently spouting pablum that was expressly designed to obfuscate the actual purpose of removing the right to abortion?
And abortion is currently a right provided by the US Constitution.
Daniel12 said...
Sorry who binds the Supreme Court to those written documents?
Well, if they're moral and ethical people, what binds them is their oath of office.
But you don't understand those concepts, so I'm clearly trying to discuss the different between "red" and "green" with someone who's blind
Post a Comment