Politico reports with a link to a long draft opinion of the Court written by Justice Alito.
This is so shocking I have difficulty believing it’s real. The top of NYT is blithe coverage of the Met Gala, replete with a photo of Hillary Clinton in a shiny vivid red dress, Hillary who would have had 3 Supreme Court nominations giving the Court a 6-3 liberal majority averting this calamity… this seeming calamity.
ADDED at 8:41: The NYT is now covering the story in “Leaked Supreme Court Draft Would Overturn Roe v. Wade/A majority of the court privately voted to strike down the landmark abortion rights decision, according to the document, obtained by Politico.”
Deliberations on controversial cases have in the past been fluid. Justices can and sometimes do change their votes as draft opinions circulate and major decisions can be subject to multiple drafts and vote-trading, sometimes until just days before a decision is unveiled. The court’s holding will not be final until it is published, likely in the next two months.
The leak seems designed to create pressure on the Justices to step back from the precipice.
Posts
185 comments:
Doubt Kennedy would have retired for HRC.
If the purported leak is real, it's likely an attempt by a clerk to generate uproar that will persuade someone to switch his vote. I would not bet against the attempt working.
Making it legal to protect innocent human life is no calamity.
I and all my many women friends are all praying it is true and remains true when the judgment is handed down publicly.
“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
Somehow this doesn't seem like a calamity to me. In fact, it's pretty much what has existed throughout most of the rest of the world for more than 50 years now.
“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.”
This is indisputably true. And has nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of abortion. The whole penumbras and emanations BS produced corrupted legal reasoning for decades. However, it would be interesting to find out who leaked this and since the closest the Politico article comes to citing a source is "a person familiar" I will believe it when it is announced and not before.
Most civilized countries put some restrictions on abortion, generally 12-15 weeks is considered enough time for a woman to decide, and after that, the new life needs to be taken into consideration.
Its quite an extreme position to allow for abortion up to the moment of birth for any reason or no reason (as Colorado has recently affirmed).
It time for the US, as a civilized country, to set some limits.
Yes!
Let's hope and pray this happens.
A Hillary presidency would have been a calamity. This isn't.
And doesn't this move us towards Bill Clinton's goal of making abortion "safe, legal and rare"?
And why call it a calamity? Anyone who thinks that abortion on demand is a necessity to civilized society is free to argue that position, convince their neighbors and their political representatives of the correctness of their view and pass laws to legalize it wherever it may be prohibited. That will be a heavy lift because I doubt the actual popularity of that position but if it's that important to people, they will make the effort.
This is a shocking departure from the ethical practices that make USSC deliberation possible. Profoundly decadent.
Shocking? No. I expected this to happen with the three Trump Justices. This is what happens when we vote in people like Trump.
page 6: Alito:
It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. “The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.” That is what the constitution and the rule of law demand.
It goes to the states.
"The leak seems designed to create pressure on the Justices to step back from the precipice."
Is there a provision in the Constitution for putting pressure on justices to get them to rule the 'right' way? Or is a leak an artifact of an emanation/penumbra?
Asking for a friend...
lefty clerk? is that who leaked it?
Be pretty easy to find out who leaked this.
Roberts should retire before the midterms.
The leak seems designed to create pressure on the Justices to step back from the precipice
In other words, from one of the clerks of one of the justices on the left. Likely a Sotomayor clerk.
Hillary Clinton is a liar and a fraud. Not worth any issue.
Everyone is having a cow. This opinion merely sends the issue to the states.
Colorado just passed legislation on abortion allowing all abortions up until 9 months/birth. This SC decision will have no baring on it.
Shares of Pussy Hat, Inc. [NASDAQ: PSSY] up 11.7% after hours.
Link:
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000180-874f-dd36-a38c-c74f98520000
notice the date.
Getting rid of Roe is simply getting rid of an embarrassment. Frankly, it's about time. However I did not expect them to also overrule Casey at the same time. The fact that they did so leads me to believe that it has to be at least a 6-3 decision.
This leak is an outrage, and frankly I expect an immediate condemnation from a law professor, especially a Constitutional law professor. A continuing silence will be seen as an endorsement.
There is a chance this was a plant, intended to catch a suspected leaker.
A clear try at manipulating the court. I can't decide which is worse the leak, the person who leaked it, or the NYTimes for running with it.
Whoever leaked this should be disbarred, publicly censured, and never be allowed to work in the law again - and these consequences should not be controversial, on the right, left, or center! It’s a terminate-with-extreme-prejudice attack on the Court, and must not be allowed to go unpunished.
"Calamity"
?
I doubt many states are going to ban it outright. Many will have tighter time limitation based restrictions. Some states, run by leftists, will allow Gosnellian abortion at 9 months.
The difference between Roe v. Wade and Dred Scott is the Dred Scott decision actually had at least some textual basis.
Hillary who would have had 3 Supreme Court nominations giving the Court a 6-3 liberal majority averting this calamity
Far worse calamities would have followed an HRC presidency. Namely, the cover-up of spying on political enemies--Nixonian crimes which she condemned. I remain grateful that Trump buried her political hopes in 2016.
I hope that the leaker is discovered and then tarred and feathered.
Such a decision wouldn't be at all a "calamity", of course.
Take Roe v. Wade and drive a stake through its evil, black fucking heart.
So how do the prolifers bring pressure to make this happen? Only the death cult ever gets a say anymore. Let the states decide. Let Congress pass a law if you want it nationwide. The Supreme Court was wrong to create rights out of laws that were not applicable.
Jared Polis and his CO democrats just passed an abortion law that allows all abortion up until due-date and including due date.
I cannot stand Jared Polis, but I'd support him for president long before that corrupt lying old corrupt corrupt lying bitter money grubber, Hillary.
I like that the politico link photo is balanced with the women/people/signs in the crowd. That's exactly the mix of opinions that exist on the matter of abortion.
Althouse sounds like this is bigger than Jan6.
Nothing is bigger than Trump's insurrection of Jan6!
Nothing!
"This is so shocking I have difficulty believing it’s real."
Why? If real, it does seem unprecedented. But why shocking? A prog calculates progs may gain from the disclosure; therefore, it happens. And why not? You may need a confidentiality or tradition bullshit tag.
So, if real, will this convince you that progs will stop at nothing? They gamble that you and the nice women of America love Roe enough to keep letting them get away with their subversion of institutions. Will you?
Unpossible. The Trusted Media doesn't report on or print copies of leaked, hacked material. 50 former intelligence officers have stated this is Russian disinformation intended to cause alarm and distress.
my knee jerk liberal mom keeps saying that
a) the Overwhelming Majority of Voters support Abortion on Demand
b) we HAVE TO keep Roe v wade, because otherwise abortion law would be left up to the voters
she's been saying this for as long as i can remember. And for as long as i can remember i've been confused.
If a, then b ? Seems like i'm missing something; or things aren't quite how she portrays them
November elections might turn out closer ghan predicted. This is going to drive the vote.
The leak seems designed to create pressure on the Justices to step back from the precipice.
No.
You people need to learn to read.
Roe V. Wade is addressed in clear black and white language in the Constitution:
9: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of
certain rights, shall not be construed to
deny or disparage others retained by the
people"
10: “The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively...”
If you want abortion to be legal get your lazy ass down to the Wisconsin legislature.
It is time the ghouls, baby part sellers, and loudmouths started playing by the rules we all agreed to and justify chopping up babies and selling the parts in open honest discussions in every state capitol in the country.
ScotusBlog has it right: It’s impossible to overstate the earthquake this will cause inside the Court, in terms of the destruction of trust among the Justices and staff. This leak is the gravest, most unforgivable sin.
So does Ari Fleischer in characterizing this as an insurrection against the Court.
If this is real, they will track down the leaker. The law school they graduated from may as well close down their clerkship hiring program now. No judge, left or right, will ever hire from that school again. Every law school's clerkship program teaches (or used to teach) the importance of keeping the judge's thoughts to themselves as he comes to an opinion. Opinions often change as the judge reviews case law.
I suspect it was a liberal law clerk that wants pressure put on one or two judges to change their opinion. However, this may backfire. Bigly!
Now what about that leak?
Inga said...
Shocking? No. I expected this to happen with the three Trump Justices. This is what happens when we vote in people like Trump.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
It’s almost certain that it’s 5-4 with Roberts voting with the liberal justices to uphold Roe. When the CJ votes with the majority he gets to decide who writes the opinion of the court. And Robert’s never ever would have chosen Alito to write this opinion.
"...Hillary who would have had 3 Supreme Court nominations giving the Court a 6-3 liberal majority averting this calamity..."
It's only a calamity if you consider the legal wrangling over the endless flow of more and more restrictive legislation in the last several decades to be a good thing. The endless uncertainty in many states whether a woman would be able to get her abortion. Never mind the impact on "abortion doctors", some of whom have lost their lives over the issue.
Assuming abortion as constitutional right is to be overturned, let the issue be fought out in the states where it belongs.
A few days ago Ann told us that the main (only?) reason she did not like President Trump was because he was "divisive" (Her word)
She did not seem to have any big objections to any of his policies.
For this reason, she stood aside and let Joe Biden be elected with all the harm this has caused.
Roe v. Wade has been the most divisive controversy of the past 150 years. With the exception of slavery, perhaps the past 230 years.
So I imagine that Ann will be happy to see it overturned.
John LGKTQ Henry
pffffffffft
"notice the date."
Circulated February 10, 2022.
The leak was designed to start riots and physical intimidation of Justices at their homes. If the Left can protest in front of the Douglas County Attorney’s home for 36 days, they will do way more here.
I'm watching a female reporter on All In with Chris Hayes in quaking voice and near tears announcing this news, claiming it will make abortion "illegal in at least half the states". If abortion is as strongly supported as it's proponents say it is, it should be an easy thing to reinstate state by state.
Won't this just throw the issue back to the individual states?
The only USSC leak story I know of concerns Telex v IBM from seventies. The competitors in the peripherals market sued one another in Oklahoma federal court. Telex for antitrust, IBM for trade secrets. Bench trial. Both sides prevail on their claims, but with treble damages and larger size, 9 figure vs 8 figure damages. At 10th circuit Telex reversed, IBM affirmed. Cert petition by Telex, in danger of insolvency. Just before expected ruling, case settled as walk away. Rumors IBM knew what was coming. Several articles at the time, with rumors IBM knew summary reversal coming, or IBM knew cert denied that would destroy Telex and look bad for all the other pending antitrust litigation. One story that Telex contemplated a suit to unearth truth, but backed off when 2 senior justices gave assurances it was cert denied.
This is so shocking I have difficulty believing it’s real. The top of NYT is blithe coverage of the Met Gala, replete with a photo of Hillary Clinton in a shiny vivid red dress, Hillary who would have had 3 Supreme Court nominations giving the Court a 6-3 liberal majority averting this calamity… this seeming calamity.
At first I thought Ann was addressing the fact that a clerk leaked the decision.
But now I think she actually supports Roe v. Wade and is shocked that one of the most ridiculous and poorly reasoned decisions in the history of the court is getting struck down.
Ann taught CONSTITUTIONAL LAW for decades and thought that Roe v. Wade was a good decision.
Ann is no where near the average leftist law professor in this country and yet her objectivity and reasoning ability on subjects like this is completely nonexistent. Imagine what the average constitutional law class is like in our country.
Our university system is a complete joke.
The way this is written - so over the top - I struggle know how this is real.
This is the thing that snaps cruel neutrality.
“Almost all abortions would be illegal in Wisconsin if leaked Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe stands”
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
If this is true, it has to be 6-3. This isn't "What is the most I can get, and still get a fifth vote?" stuff.
I know Thomas was ill but I would have expected the man who’s race has suffered a literal genocide at the hands of abortion would write the opinion.
If it’s really. And I strongly suspect it’s not real.
Way too detailed not to be authentic first draft. No way minds changed by draft dissent(s). Remember being at law event during Kavanaugh hearings and audience gasping when guest of honor (retired NYT) confidently predicted that Roe would be overturned. Took a little longer. But shadow docket rulings this term made it obvious what was coming. Collins looks foolish but many Senators look foolish every other day.
I join with Achilles opinion….
The draft opinion was written in February for comment by other justices. We have no way of knowing where the justices stand at this time? There is a lot mention of quickening which might turn to a point of compromise.
Instead of photos (yuck) the draft includes the other fad, long written appendix. Because info not online?
I tend to think there will be little reaction from the Court, and little consequence for the leaker.
Roe v. Wade is a garbage decision. We all know the decision was made with no consideration of the Constitution, the law, or anything else other than the justices at the time really, really, really wanted it and they abused their positions to get it. Roe v. Wade was a calamity, an awful decision that turned the Supreme Court from a supposedly non-partisan, last resort of Constitutional questions into a corrupt quasi-legislature, a means for passing laws without actually making laws and, furthermore, putting important issues of the day outside the bounds of standard law making. It was one of the major events that gave us Trump, and put our nation on the very dangerous path it is on now. Everyone involved in that decision can be damned. They could not have done worse.
The States are deciding. SCOTUS can see the handwriting on the wall. There is little practical, the court can do.
Undoubtedly, the issue will ebb and flow within the States...as it always should have.
OR. Congress can do their job and legislate. But, alas, pols have no stomach do do their job.
I think the reversal of Roe v. Wade could be a calamity as well.
Not because abortion will be left to the States - where it was for almost 200 years pre-Roe - but because of the political and institutional repercussions that quite possibly would follow. Changes like Court packing, elimination of the filibuster, threatened or actual violence against Justices voting to reverse Roe as well as over other matters in the future, institutional changes at the Supreme Court due to failure of trust, federalization of elections and the lack of trust in the integrity in their results, etc. We may end up with Calvinball where the rules are constantly changing after every election where the majority changes.
Suspects,
#1, The Wide Latina
#2, Kagan
Like a Mafia don who didn’t do the dirty work, only ordering that it
be done, these two gave the wink & nod order to one of their clerks.
I don’t suspect Breyer. While I don’t like/agree with his thinking, I do think he has a certain degree of honor.
While Roberts and honor don’t mix, I wouldn’t think he would ever
want “his court” to be known as the first court to have allowed a leak.
The Supreme Court has Voted to Recognize the People's Right to a Limited Federal Government*.
Fixed it for them
* limiting the power of the judicial branch to legislate from the bench
At last!! At last!! Thank God Almighty!!
A modest proposal for abortion.
Since abortion supporters argue an aborted fetus is simply tissue, that tissue should be donated to high school biology labs for students to dissect. Think how much the students would learn about biology and humanity.
If this modest proposal seems horrifyingly cruel and disgusting, maybe it’s because that human tissue was once a human life.
"This is what happens when we vote in people like Trump."
Yep. Let's do it again!
(We should push for states to enact their own measures, and make abortion legal up to the age of 17. What a great way to get the kids to clean their rooms.)
"illegal in at least half the states" There are around 600,000 abortions annually in the US. What does it cost to fly a woman to a different state and back? Call it $500. That's $300,000,000 per year. On a national level, that's a rounding error. Ask Congress to cover it, or Bill Gates, or Elon Musk for that matter.
No way is this a Problem for All Women.
Would it be appropriate to call for journalists to track down the source of the leak?
The "calamity" is the leak, not the putative outcome, https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1521295411545260035 (“It’s impossible to overstate the earthquake this will cause inside the Court, in terms of the destruction of trust among the Justices and staff. This leak is the gravest, most unforgivable sin.”). And to be clear, I am myself unalterably pro-choice.
Assuming, that this is real.. WHY do y'all think it was leaked by a clerk?
Wouldn't a wise latinx be a Far More Likely leak?
You know; someone without morals, without intelligence, without anyhthing to lose?
Why is it a precipice? Why would you say that the decision is past the brink? What is it the brink of? What will be the extreme, irrevocable consequences of this decision? You make it sound so extreme.
Yes, I am leaning into the plate. Throw it.
Like many commenters here, I understood that overturning R v W simply ended the federally-supported mandate, reverting its administration back to state control. I'm not well versed on the economics and logistics of the abortion scene, but this sounds like the kind of outcome that would have people rolling up their sleeves together in their respective caucuses and hammering out a plan. Kind of like re-districting. Not shrieking, angst-ridden, hair-on-fire End of Days. I guess it's going to be an interesting few weeks now.
Isn't it a funny feeling when you don't know the plays, but absolutely unreservedly recognize the playbook, deep in your heart, when these things happen?
If this is real, how does someone change their mind without the claim that they changed their opinion because of the pressure to leak. None of the five can now change their mind, Kavanaugh and Barrett.
The possible decision is not the point here. The leaking of the draft decision is the main point. How often has a Supreme Court draft decision been leaked? Like never? Is this a signal That leaking future decisions will be SOP for the 'losing' side?
If story correct, Thomas assigned it to Alito.
Which "calamity" are you referring to? The calamity of the people in each state setting abortion policies through their elected representatives, or the calamity of leaking draft opinions from the Supreme Court, perhaps in an effort to pressure the justices to change their votes?
It is unlikely that justices appointed by HC would overturn Roe v Wade. Is it equally unlikely that draft opinions would be leaked if the course was largely controlled by liberal justices? Why?
OMG, if the babies are allowed to live then the market for slaughtered human body parts will go sky high. Inflationary pressure for sure.
Regardless, we did a pretty good job of adult abortion in hospitals last couple years. Next gen can't All be illegal immigrants.
To be clear about my earlier comment at 10:13, I'm not suggesting that a reversal of Roe should not happen because of the possible consequences. FWIW, I think a reversal would be the right decision under the Constitution. My point is just that the consequences of a reversal could be wide-ranging and pretty bad.
The mole hunt has begun. Interesting that THIS draft opinion was circulated on February 10, 2022, but only reported by Politico on May 2nd.
Looks like an insurrection...
God forbid the people’s elected representatives decide the law on a question not addressed by the Constitution. And God forbid that voters in some states decide that unborn children have rights that the law should recognize and protect. Voters elected representatives can and should decide what the law should permit.
Who are the Yale law clerks?
As a law student in the 1970's who was enamored with con law, I recall reading Roe v. Wade and thinking - "clunk, clunk, clunk". The logic was not there. It seemed to be a result in search of a reason. I wondered how Justice Blackmun could say that abortion was "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental" when most states had laws limiting abortion. And how he could fashion a decision based on tri-mesters even though the plaintiff did not claim such protection. It seemed egregiously arrogant - as in arrogating to himself, and through the majority, itself, the wisdom of the people. As a young adult, it was an awakening, slowly gained, as to how perhaps ignoble or misguided the institutional salon could be.
I think the whole thing is a lie. The Establishment has lost the suburban mom vote with the trans activism, and now they are using scare tactics against this once reliable vote.
Well played, Establishment.
Liberal state legislatures have had the power to prepare for this day for decades. Most have preferred instead to raise money and anger and keep the abortion issue alive. Now, the riots that ensue over this are on their hands.
I don't see how Roberts lasts past this October term. And rather than put pressure on the five to change their votes, this precious piece of 20-something leaking idiocy will cause, I predict, the five to dig their heels in.
I’m personally pro-choice, but also have always thought that Roe was a terribly weak decision. If Roe gets overturned, that is the consequence of issuing public policy from the courts instead of the legislature.
I’m personally pro-choice, but also have always thought that Roe was a terribly weak decision. If Roe gets overturned, that is the consequence of issuing public policy from the courts instead of the legislature.
Women AND MEN (The Humanity!) will have to have grown up conversations about the choices we make and what is the value of a human being.
I am so old, I remember that when one man could 'masterfully' decide whether another lived or died, it was considered a calamity.
But clearly they did not mean if one woman made that choice.
As a man seeing millions of the nations children killed without recourse or a voice, perhaps I have a slightly different opinion on what is or is not calamitous about this decision.
I have heard that the loss of privilege seems like oppression, particularly to the women with such monopolistic power about the life and death of children.
Maybe Alito leaked the draft because he felt his majority was getting wobbly, or maybe the wobbly member of his majority leaked it to see how it would be received. In any case, wouldn’t all major Supreme Court decisions benefit from being issued on a proposed basis with a notice and comment period? That would be more work for the justices, but should improve the quality of the product.
Get ready for another Summer of George in the blue cities. Let's watch it all get burned to the ground.
And if the extra workload is too much, we could always add more Justices.
First, slavery. Then, diversity. NOW, human sacrifice ("reproductive rites") for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes. Here's to progress.
There is no mystery in sex and conception, a woman, and man have four choices, self-defense through reconciliation. The nominally "secular" Pro-Choice "ethical" religion denies women and men's dignity and agency, and progresses human life as negotiable commodities. Here's to abortion of the wicked solution a.k.a. planned parent/hood.
“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
Yes, planned parent/hood (i.e. granny), planned parenthood (i.e. baby), and other homicidal choices (i.e. "burden" of all ages, colors, sexes, etc.) for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes. All are fair game under emanations from penumbras (i.e. Twilight fringe, Twilight amendment) of the Constitution. Diversity [dogma] (e.g. racism, sexism), Inequity, and Exclusion (DIE), too. Forward, to the past.
The court needs to up its security. It can't be understated that abortion proponents are most fanatical about murdering innocent humans simply for being inconvenient. They shouldn't be taken lightly. They're capable of anything.
I haven't seen Democrats this mad since Republicans told them they had to give up slavery.
How will they track down the leaker? I suspect it's not possible to do so. :(
Hmmm…this decision is going to have consequences that no one anticipates. The politics of 2022 are so different from the politics of 1972 that we are about to see another step — maybe much more than a step—down and away from good will and reasonable compromise.
Personally, I think our abortion laws should be like Sweden’s. Those who don’t know what they are may be surprised. Abortion is available with reasonable restrictions.
I don’t think that is where we are going.
As to the leaked opinion, I see a betrayal of trust that is shocking without being surprising. We have raised a generation of vipers. The worst are full of passionate intensity.
leak from trial balloon?
Great day in America! Finally
Blogger Achilles said...
The leak seems designed to create pressure on the Justices to step back from the precipice.
No.
You people need to learn to read.
Roe V. Wade is addressed in clear black and white language in the Constitution:
9: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of
certain rights, shall not be construed to
deny or disparage others retained by the
people"
10: “The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively...”
============
why can't Roe rest on 9A alone - others retained by the people aka women
without sending to states for 10A
there would be no shadow of penumbratory perturbations
"Shocking? No. I expected this to happen with the three Trump Justices. This is what happens when we vote in people like Trump."
A return to allowing the citizens of individual states to have a say in the great issues of the day? I admit I didn't see that coming when Trump was elected. You almost have me liking the guy, almost.
The only calamity is the leak itself. The push to delegitimize the Court and it's rulings continues a pace. The left will pay lip service to the injustice of the ruling, then turn around and use it to fundraise.
Can Of Cheese for Hunter said..I doubt many states are going to ban it outright. Many will have tighter time limitation based restrictions. Some states, run by leftists, will allow Gosnellian abortion at 9 months.
The Gosnellian states will see a higher volume of organs, organelles, and cells to part-out which will be win-win industrially for those states. Other states, not caught up in the baby part bonanza, will have to get by on moral superiority and perhaps marginally higher birthrates. But since people migrate towards vacancy, the abortion mills will continue to churn.
I'm more interested in how the protesters taking selfies inside the the building at 1 1st St. N.E., Washington, D.C. will be treated. Will a few die? Will a bunch of them end up in solitary confinement for over a year without charges?
Calamity Jane Roe
There might be more male support for these sort of seemingly draconian decisions if they had more skin in the game. I suggest giving men a 3/5ths or perhaps a half interest in the baby's fate.
There was intent and a goal behind this, but I suspect the outcome will not be at all what the perpetrators have desired. I expected riots this year and it seems we shall have them. I expected a different source. Well, what do I know, after all...
There may be a quiet riot behind the marble encrusted walls of a certain institution, and soon. Truly unprecedented.
Men: Stop letting women kill your children. Stop pretending your heirs are none of your business.
There are ways to track down the leaker. Soon the person will be bragging about it. Before the week is out, the leaker will be well-known a hero to the Dem Party for leaking truth to power.
Finally, the judicial comeuppance of the most dangerous man in American history - William Brennan. On any number of issues, Brennan jurisprudence was that if he disagreed with the public policy, it was unconstitutional, and he would find a way to overturn it.
Were I a state legislator, I would vote to permit abortions under reasonable restrictions.
Whomever leaked it should be hung for treason. Shame on them. And shame on all the people fighting to murder more babies.
Yancey Ward said...
Get ready for another Summer of George in the blue cities. Let's watch it all get burned to the ground.
5/2/22, 11:26 PM
Get your popcorn out. Alyssa Milano is tweeting out that they should be out in the streets!!! Real insurrections that the authorities ignore, and let happen.
On twitter, it's fun to watch the lefties cry and worry that they are going to stop gays from expressing themselves now. They are DEMANDING that the Jim Crow Filabuster be used, to codify Roe, so they can keep on murdering their babies forever....These people are nuts. The Supreme court isn't going to do anything to gays. For example...this guy says he is a law professor'''
Anthony Michael Kreis
@AnthonyMKreis
·
8h
The more I read the draft, the more it is apparent that the Court is a half step away from letting states criminalize same-sex sexual intimacy.
Not just gays....Now they claim the Supreme Court is going to ban interracial marriage??
These people are nuts.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kevin-tober/2022/05/03/msnbc-guest-overturning-roe-banning-interracial-marriage
Suddenly, Lefties everywhere love insurrections.....
Ian Millhiser
@imillhiser
Seriously, shout out to whoever the hero was within the Supreme Court who said “fuck it! Let’s burn this place down.”
As time goes on, the lies and logical fallacies necessary to maintain left wing ideas will collapse upon themselves.
What's the big deal? Don't we support a living Constitution?
Why fear democratic action, since abortion is so popular?
Perhaps the decision simply reflects the interests of all the men who, now that they can have abortions, are allowed to have opinions about it.
Might makes right.
Wait for the insurrection.
Down with the patriarchy! Of course this decision from a diverse group of Wise Justices is better than the previous one brought to us by a bunch of old white men.
The adults are back in the room, and with them all the norms.
What's wrong with back to the states? That in fact would favor democrats in state office, snatching republican defeat from republican victory in November as voters weigh on on what state policy should be, unless republicans know enough to shut up on the issue.
why can't Roe rest on 9A alone - others retained by the people aka women
without sending to states for 10A
Because, as the draft opinion states, when the 9th Amendment was written, abortion was a crime. There is no way you can make the argument that there was an intention to include abortion as a 9th Amendment right.
In any case, wouldn’t all major Supreme Court decisions benefit from being issued on a proposed basis with a notice and comment period?
That's almost as bad an idea as not voting for Trump because you desire boredom.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/05/02/hillary-alum-lauds-leaker-brave-clerk-may-be-warning-america-of-roe-overturn-in-last-ditch-hail-mary-attempt-to-stop-it/
Quite the headline.
Hail Mary, full of Grace…
“ Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her. ”
Luke 1:38
The Justices are doing their job by upholding Constitutional principles. We need this to be the norm and accept it, as it forces our legislators to do their jobs. If we have a stalwart USSC on this topic, hopefully it will inform lower courts of the bar on other topics, and reduce judicial activism in general. That is, once everyone calms down and see the Constitutional work they need to do.
I wonder what all the illegal immigrants think of this?
I wake up most days grateful I don't live in Colorado anymore. I felt it keenly this morning. It's no longer 1972. Women are capable of controlling their fertility without abortion.
Hallelujah!
Jack Posobiec ☦️
@JackPosobiec
It’s impossible to overstate how significant the leak of a draft Supreme Court ruling is.
It would be equivalent to a U.S. General coordinating with communist China’s military, for example by promising to give China advance notice of 🇺🇸 military actions.
10:23 PM · May 2, 2022
Would it be mean to hope that Michael Byrd has been reassigned to USSC security detail?
Planned Parenthood hardest hit.
The D’s have been desperate for an issue to prevent an election disaster. Potential nuclear war doesn’t seem to be working. It’s now time for abortion. If that doesn’t work they will have a cop kill a black person. This is a political stunt to give them hope for November
When The Supremes wrote that abortion decision in 1972 the consensus was that the biggest threat facing humanity was overpopulation. The consensus was wrong.
Gahrie said...
That's almost as bad an idea as not voting for Trump because you desire boredom.
hmmm, Professor Althouse? May i ask you a question? Is the world interesting enough for you now?
The Supreme court isn't going to do anything to gays. For example...this guy says he is a law professor'''...
The more I read the draft, the more it is apparent that the Court is a half step away from letting states criminalize same-sex sexual intimacy.
He's actually right. The sodomy cases do rely on the "reasoning" in Roe.
They declare that there is a right to define one's concept of existence, of meaning, or the universe, and of the mystery of human life,". Originally this "right" was found in emanations from a penumbra. Now apparently it comes from the 14th Amendment.
Sodomy (both heterosexual and homosexual) was illegal in every state until 1961. The idea that the 14th Amendment created a right to either abortion or sodomy is nonsense. If abortion is returned to the states, it is logical to assume that sodomy could also.
But is it real? Granted, in Roe. v. Wade, the majority violated their oaths of office to legislate from the bench (Rehnquist even admitted it later). And courts ever since have scaled it back, mostly because they lacked the courage to overturn it outright.
Have they now found the courage to do the right thing? Or has some enterprising activist desperately tried to get the Democratic base fired up over something so they will turn out in November?
I'm going with not real because, while I have no doubt enough people have access to the decision that one of them will be craven and selfish enough to leak it, I have no faith that the court has 5 courageous votes.
Jefferson's Revenge said...
. This is a political stunt to give them hope for November
WAIT a Minute!
Are you saying, that today is Primary Tuesday? And that it was released last night POLITICALLY?
nah!!!
The D’s have been desperate for an issue to prevent an election disaster. Potential nuclear war doesn’t seem to be working. It’s now time for abortion. If that doesn’t work they will have a cop kill a black person. This is a political stunt to give them hope for November
The problem is, those who will be outraged by this decision were already going to vote Democrat in November anyway. It wasn't the BLM riots that drove the 2020 results, it was massive fraud enabled by COVID restrictions. All accounts seem to indicate that November will be beyond the Democrats' ability to cheat.
What sickens me as a pro-choicer, is the patina of "safe and rare" from places like PP. Over the years I have learned that PP cares more about money than the safety or care of women. There is a reason why formerly pro-choice women (some who had abortions themselves) who worked for PP end up pro-life. The sterity of some clinics and the treatment of the women is bad. So, even if abortion stays legal in the state or is codified into federal law, women still get screwed.
What's sad is that I have to get this info from pro-life sites that want all clinics closed. I want abortion to be safe first, rare second, and then legal.
To read what I am talking about us https://abortionworker.com/quitter-stories/ and look up the women's
The track changes on the final decision versus the first draft will be interesting. Arrogating is an arrogant word for Alito to use. We’ll see if it stays in the final opinion.
Jason said...
I haven't seen Democrats this mad since Republicans told them they had to give up slavery.
Although black Americans comprise 13.4% of the U.S. population, they accounted for 36.0% of the abortions
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/since-roe-abortion-has-killed-more-black-babies-than-the-entire-black-population-of-the-u-s-in-1960
Makes you wonder, don't it?
The top suspect is a law clerk for SS. He’s a Yale Law alum named Amait Jain.
Fitting and not at all unexpected. The original Row v. Wade marked the start of ends-justify-the-means politics in the US. Abortion proponents indeed believed and still believe that the ends justify the means.
Still, a draft opinion from Alito might have been sitting on the shelf for untold years. He might have shared it as a starting point of discussion. Or, was this bait to discover leakers?
Mightn’t the leak get state legislatures to start acting so that between when an actual decision is released and the fall election the issue is a yawner except for national single issue zealots, especially when economic survival will be on the ballot come November?
In that sense, does this leak really hurt the overturn Roe side?
What if the leak to Politico didn't come from SCOTUS?
What if, instead, someone at SCOTUS leaked to the White House in order to give them a heads up, and it was the WH which decided to pass it along to Politico for a short-term political gain?
I think the leak is designed to give Congress time to pass a law codifying abortion rights nationwide. Be careful what you wish for.
Using very rough figures:
65 million abortions since RvW decision.
~35% black share of abortions = 22 million fewer black citizens.
x ~90% black vote =
20 million fewer (black) Democrat votes.
Think of what the Ds could do with 20 million more voters.
Democrats should be celebrating this decision.
What if, instead, someone at SCOTUS leaked to the White House in order to give them a heads up, and it was the WH which decided to pass it along to Politico for a short-term political gain?
Could be, given how they forced Breyer onto an icefloe when he mentioned retirement.
The more I think about it, the more I think the calamity is the ridiculous ends the Left will go to to make it a calamity.
I don't understand how Ann finds it "so shocking" that Roe is about to be overturned. Most observers on both sides have been saying this was the likely outcome of the Mississippi case. Or is she simply shocked that it was leaked - which I agree is very shocking. Her statement is uncharacteristically ambiguous.
jim5301 said...
I think the leak is designed to give Congress time to pass a law codifying abortion rights nationwide. Be careful what you wish for.
If you can get a nationwide law passed, sure, it will facilitate murder, but it doesn't need to be a half-century cyst on the body politic like Roe has been. Only short sighted narcissists and anarchists think that winning their pet issue is worth teaching generations of lawyers in training that the rule of law is situational.
Shocking? No. I expected this to happen with the three Trump Justices. This is what happens when we vote in people like Trump.
Yes, presidents like Trump who actual follow the Constitution and carry out their promises. Unlike the current occupant of the White House, Joe "Two Scoops" Biden. Two Scoops has never met a constitutional requirement that he wants to carry out. The Ministry of Truth is a glaring example of this. It's sole purpose is shut up dissent.
Or Two Scoops faithful enforcement of the immigration laws on the southern border. NOT!
The Roe decision was a load of B.S. 'Emanations' and 'penumbras' of the Constitution. They had to use that kind of language because there's no right to an abortion in the Constitution.
Contrast this with "Brown vs. Board of Education". That's a straight forward decision based upon the Equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Two words. One section. No hand waving required. Unlike Roe.
" Mr Wibble said...
What if the leak to Politico didn't come from SCOTUS?
What if, instead, someone at SCOTUS leaked to the White House..."
THIS is the most reasonable speculation I've read so far. Makes absolutely perfect sense.
If everyone is “having a cow” abort the cow!
Consistency is to be prized.
Killing our young has never been anything but evil, but with birth rates at levels that foretell of our demise, could it be any more moronic, as well?
Take a deep dive into your souls, pro-baby killers.
The demise of Roe v Wade will force liberals to defend their position on abortion in each of the 50 states. They desperately do not want to do that.
Roe v Wade has allowed them to to simply claim that legal abortion is the law of the land to shut down open debate. As we have recently witnessed, liberals don't want the free exchange of ideas. They can't control and manipulate 50 separate debates.
I am very skeptical that this leaked memo is legit. But note how the Press treats it as 100% legitimate. Whatever happened to skepticism?
Gilbar,
Please don't use the word latinx.
It is almost as bad as the n word in its racism.
Each time you use it you are committing a bit of cultural genocide. Perhaps you don't mean to, perhaps you don't know better. You ARE. Doesn't matter. It is still racist and genocidal.
Please stop
PS-Sotomayor is Puerto Rican. Nyorican, really, but one would be closer to the truth to call her that than some generic term like Latina.
John LGKTQ Henry
There's no pulling back from the precipice. We've been at the precipice for seven consecutive years, and leaks from bureaucrats are just one tactic to keep us there. The establishment media has shown its ability to embargo any story. That it's chosen not to do so in this case is proof enough that the leaker not a lone wolf, but is working hand in hand with our oligarchs to keep up in turmoil.
You keep talking using apocalyptic terms, leftwingers, and you’ll end up with an apocalypse.
Maybe this will create a large enough distraction that we can somehow get out of this war, but I have a feeling that as attention is diverted, the clowns in charge will drag us into WWIII, Guns of August style.
I always said that this is an issue for the legislature, so I am fine with it. If Democrats are so confident of the outcome, why are they so hot and bothered?
I was going to add my two cents to this national breathlessness but I'm sure my thoughts have already been stated in the 150 or so earlier comments. However, Mr. Wibble's comment at 7:12am caught my attention.
I suspect he's right on this. It makes more sense that this is the route the leak took.
The Dems have tried pretty much everything, including trying to get America into a war thinking it'll show great leadership to do that. (funny...there was Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Co in Ukraine over the weekend trying to look and sound like Statesmen/women). Nothing has worked to get the Dems or anyone else riled up enough to care to vote for them in Nov. This will. At least for a month. It'll raise a boatload of money over the summer. But...when the Southern border is overrun in June/July, when gas is averaging $5.50 nationally and over $6 in many states, when beef is too expensive, when the store shelves get empty, and when your paycheck covers half of what it used to cover, I don't know if people will much care that their right to kill the unborn has been put back down to the state level.
Those who want an abortion will still be able to find accommodation in any number of states. I'm sure California will have liberal abortion laws, just as I'm sure Texas will have laws favoring the yet to be born. Those opposed to it will know that there are states that no longer allow it. Those in some purple states, say Virginia, will find laws put in place that try to allow for abortion, but with some restraint. All of this is as it should be.
One last point. I know my Dems. They will not sit around getting red in the face. They will use this to push the envelope too far, once again. This is what they do and frankly, it's why their seeing so much push back as of late. The Dems will remove the Senate fillibuster, they will try to pack the court, and they will move to eliminate the Electoral College, all in the guise of 'saving Democracy'- whatever that means in their heads.
It'll be another overstep, and whatever enthusiasm gains they make on this Supreme Court decision, will be lost in their overstepping of liberty...again.
Chief Justice Roberts is likely to order a full investigation involving the FBI into the reported leak of a draft majority opinion, reports @JanCBS — as some question if it will throw the Supreme Court’s legitimacy into question. pic.twitter.com/rJsIlQqjEU
— CBS Mornings (@CBSMornings) May 3, 2022
Great idea. Invite the FBI to investigate private communications between the Justices.
What could go wrong?
I’m mildly surprised they had the guts to do it. Otherwise, it’s what you’d expect, given the coverage during oral arguments in January.
BTW, interesting you didn’t believe it when it was just POLITICO reporting it, but you seem convinced now that the Times repeats the story. Did they produce any additional evidence that the draft is authentic?
'The leak seems designed to create pressure on the Justices to step back from the precipice.'
Why is it a precipice?
Falling into a precipice is bad.
Overturning a lousy decision is the right thing to do.
Jason said...
The difference between Roe v. Wade and Dred Scott is the Dred Scott decision actually had at least some textual basis.
Actually, it didn’t. Taney made up his history, and ignored the fact that the Constitution protects the rights of “persons,” regardless of whether or not they are citizens.
John henry said...
Gilbar,
Please don't use the word "x"
It is almost as bad as the n word in its racism.
Each time you use it you are committing a bit of cultural genocide. Perhaps you don't mean to, perhaps you don't know better. You ARE. Doesn't matter. It is still racist and genocidal.
Well, i DID mean it to be insulting And rude... But i'll stop.
Is this a surprise? It was the goal of the previous president and the judges put on the SCOTUS to move toward this goal right? If this is true and a strong 1st draft is pretty potent, then goal achieved. Why the surprise, a little late for the what ifs.
I am interested to see when the final opinion is issued. Normally it would be among the last of the term, for reasons that have been disputed. But now I should think the justices will feel pressure to move it up in their queue towards the front.
Blogger Achilles said...
The leak seems designed to create pressure on the Justices to step back from the precipice.
___________________________________________________________________
Narayanan said...
No.
You people need to learn to read.
Roe V. Wade is addressed in clear black and white language in the Constitution:
9: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of
certain rights, shall not be construed to
deny or disparage others retained by the
people"
10: “The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively...”
============
why can't Roe rest on 9A alone - others retained by the people aka women
without sending to states for 10A
there would be no shadow of penumbratory perturbations
________________________________________________________________
You need to read the decision. It explicitly considers whether abortion is a right protected by the Constitution, and finds that it is not.
Good thing that the South seceded then, and the Civil War gave Lincoln the opportunity to emancipate slaves in insurrectionist states by executive order, or slavery based on property rights of slave owners might still be a thing here. I note that current thought holds that slavery is not at all about property rights, but about the individual rights of the human slaves.
So abortion, forced on the nation by the Supreme Court decades ago as a privacy right of the mothers, and ignoring the deaths of the unborn, may be returned to the legislative sphere of governance. About time. Balancing the infringement of the right to life of the unborn child against the privacy right of the mother seems an inherently legislative task.
And as I descended to the pavement this morning to be greeted with the wailing of our wymmon, the renting of garments and the casting of bones.
I do think that this draft decision is at least mostly legitimate. It was written by an abortion opponent. It could not have been written by a supporter. I don’t think that AA could have written it. Maybe I could have, if I had had the skill, as I am abortion law skeptic. I just remember too well my Con Law classes 30+ years ago covering Roe v Wade, taught by an abortion proponent. The feminists in the class got a petition together and marched on the administration in protest for the professor trying to get anyone in class to take the anti side. First example I ever saw in LS of the Heckler’s Veto being effective. I suspect that the prof was blindsided by their absolute determination not to hear, or even think about, the decision’s weaknesses. I know I sure was. I was ready to argue the other side (I am neither for nor against abortion, as a guy, but thought it a badly reasoned case), and become even less popular with that segment of that class, but thankfully, I think, for my safety, the professor, suitably cowed, quickly switched directions.
In any case, wouldn’t all major Supreme Court decisions benefit from being issued on a proposed basis with a notice and comment period? That would be more work for the justices, but should improve the quality of the product.
Sure. After all there is no mechanism for political opinions (phrased in legalese) to be put forth is , say, arguments before the court/sarc.
Why not just eliminate the Supreme Court entirely and rule by referendum? A high "quality" product would ensure indeed.
This is what happens when we vote in people like Trump.
You're welcome.
I 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
Left Bank of the Charles,
In any case, wouldn’t all major Supreme Court decisions benefit from being issued on a proposed basis with a notice and comment period? That would be more work for the justices, but should improve the quality of the product.
And with a follow-up that, with so much more work, maybe the Court should be expanded. But of course!
LBOTC, the idea of "separation of powers" is that the executive, legislative, and judiciary have separate functions. If you make "major Supreme Court decisions" (and how in hell you would define them, I don't know -- did Chevron v. NLRB or US v. Carolene Products look like "major decisions" from the get-go?) subject, effectively, to a preliminary up-or-down vote by the most interested 1% of the public, any notion of an independent judiciary will go "poof!" It'll be just another constituency to lobby.
Of course, "minor" decisions would get no such distinction. I mean, they also might involve large sums of money, or many jobs, or the government of this or that whole city, but someone has to do the winnowing, and who better than yourself?
I think that Ann needs to explain why this is a "calamity". As far as I can tell it is the correction of some pretty weak legal reasoning in Roe, but I would like to see her defense. As far as I am concerned this will return the oversight of abortion to the people of the various states where it should have been all along. Had the Court left it there to evolve based on the desires of each state's citizens would have saved a lot of angst over the last half century.
"averting this calamity"?
"It's been 50 years of reliance, including 30 years of relying on that once novel concept of reliance"
Except no one has actually "relied" on it.
Or, maybe I'm wrong. Please tell us the other cases where this has been used. in particular, tell us any case where this "novel concept of reliance" was used to advance a conservative win.
Because if the answer is "this novel concept of reliance only helps the Left", then obviously it's politicized garbage
To put it another way:
The sole effect of this "new reliance interest" is to say that "when the Left makes a ruling, it can't be overturned. but when there's a ruling the Left hates, it can be"
And that's bullshit.
Wickard v Filburn overturned a real "reliance interest", all those framers who previously hadn't had the Feds screwing up the works for them.
Post a Comment