SCOTUS Watch

[stessier]

No need to fear - we will still have all the rights "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."

Edit: It's fascinating how close the opinion comes to some of Sorkin's script.

[Smoove_B]

I'm more and more convinced we're living in a simulation. After hearing countless people crying about their "body autonomy" with respect to masks and vaccinations for the last 2+ years to then have this specific decision dismantled after 49 years is...it's unreal.

EDIT: Backsliding democracy. That's what's happening here in our timeline.

[hepcat]

Also honestly, every time shit like this happens I recurse the name of Ginsburg, who in her arrogance decided that she couldn't be replaced, and whose decision directly led to Barrett now being on the court. It's not totally fair that she was in that position, but she was, and she didn't listen to the allies who warned her.

I hate to say this considering how much good she put in this world, but I have to agree. She saw the writing on the wall (how could she not?) and should have stepped away to keep the integrity of the SCOTUS intact.

[malchior]

I'm more and more convinced we're living in a simulation. After hearing countless people crying about their "body autonomy" with respect to masks and vaccinations for the last 2+ years to then have this specific decision dismantled after 49 years is...it's unreal.

EDIT: Backsliding democracy. That's what's happening here in our timeline.

Yeah it is disconcerting to see backsliding with a whole helping of reactionary revolution. They are doing this because they know they can get away with it. The point is to show us who has the power.

[malchior]

Also as an aside, Susan Collins must be very concerned right now.*

Spoiler:

*She's not. She knew what she was doing.

[Octavious]

So what's on the magic list of things they will overturn? Fun times.. Every day seems to be worse than the last.

Gay marrage
Obamacare
Social Security?

[stessier]

Social Security?

Social Security is a law, not a constitutional question.

[Octavious]

Social Security?

Social Security is a law, not a constitutional question.

Ya well I just meant in terms of everything they will want to do over the next 3-5 years. Republican wish list.

[malchior]

Social Security?

Social Security is a law, not a constitutional question.

This isn't accurate. There was a 1930s era case challenging it's constitutionality and there are people still making the case it runs afoul of the 10th amendment. However, I find it unlikely they'll go after it.

Edit: Link to the case

[stessier]

Social Security?

Social Security is a law, not a constitutional question.

This isn't accurate. There was a 1930s era case challenging it's constitutionality and there are people still making the case it runs afoul of the 10th amendment. However, I find it unlikely they'll go after it.

Edit: Link to the case

If they go after the taxing power of the federal government, it's all over.

[Exodor]

I'm appalled, fucking angry, and very fearful for the future of the US right now, more so than I was a few days ago.

I realized this morning that I really need to get a passport for my almost-17 year old LGBTQ daughter. We're living through the period in "The Handmaid's Tale" they show in flashbacks just before the rise of Gilead - I need her to be prepared to flee if things continue down this path.

[malchior]

Also as an aside, Susan Collins must be very concerned right now.*

Spoiler:

*She's not. She knew what she was doing.

Ah yes - as expected.

[malchior]

Social Security?

Social Security is a law, not a constitutional question.

This isn't accurate. There was a 1930s era case challenging it's constitutionality and there are people still making the case it runs afoul of the 10th amendment. However, I find it unlikely they'll go after it.

Edit: Link to the case

If they go after the taxing power of the federal government, it's all over.

Sure. I think it's far more likely IMO (mostly because they've said it out loud) that they will go after Chevron. This taxing stuff is a side story to the SCOTUS re-work of our democracy. Aka effectively they are working toward closet de-Federalization. The tax stuff will come later when they've dismantled the need for the tax stuff.

[Zaxxon]

So what's on the magic list of things they will overturn? Fun times.. Every day seems to be worse than the last.

Gay marrage

Gay marraige is more or less directly in the line of sight using the same logic being applied to Roe.

Here's me from ~1.5 years ago after RBG passed on:

If Democrats seriously attempt to add Supreme Court justices I'm done with them too.

How do you expect them to not address the forced imbalance? The instability this court will bring will be untenable long-term. They will eventually do something radical. What happens then? Shrugging?

This. The system is broken. I'm open to hearing alternative ideas (eg the 5-5-5 option I've seen discussed). But if the Ds control all three branches, something absolutely needs to be done. The GOP behavior with Garland and now ACB is unacceptable (and I mean that in the literal sense--it cannot be accepted).

[Edit to expand on this--it's one thing for us cis white guys to shrug, but this behavior has had and will continue to have extreme negative consequences on a lot of folks. That they were appointed undemocratically for likely decades-long terms is, again, literally unacceptable.]

We are so far past the red line here and on more than just this front, that I'm not even sure what to say anymore.

Also, in poorly-aged things...

There's not any evidence, yet, that the conservative court is going to be a disaster. You don't go changing your government on hunches.

PS - Fuck Susan Collins all the way outta here.

[hepcat]

I was willing to give Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt when he claimed that Roe v Wade was precedent and made it seem like he wouldn't overturn it. I felt a bit badly about his life being raked over the coals during his confirmation hearing. Now? That lying son of a bitch got off easy, in my current opinion.

[malchior]

PS - Fuck Susan Collins all the way outta here.

It appears we are in good company on this one. I've never seen this statement from him but it's absolutely vital to understand it. This is about raw power. And this is a display of that power.

[Lassr]

I'm appalled, fucking angry, and very fearful for the future of the US right now, more so than I was a few days ago.

I realized this morning that I really need to get a passport for my almost-17 year old LGBTQ daughter. We're living through the period in "The Handmaid's Tale" they show in flashbacks just before the rise of Gilead - I need her to be prepared to flee if things continue down this path.

I just printed out my passport paperwork this morning. I had one that i let expire many years ago.

[Holman]

One note about all of this how absolutely *enraged* all of right-wing punditry is about this leak.

You'd think they'd be taking a victory lap with high-fives all around, but they know how unpopular a repeal of Roe will be, and they wanted to wait until after the midterms.

[malchior]

One note about all of this how absolutely *enraged* all of right-wing punditry is about this leak.

You'd think they'd be taking a victory lap with high-fives all around, but they know how unpopular a repeal of Roe will be, and they wanted to wait until after the midterms.

I don't think this is quite right. This was going to come out in June/July at the latest. I think it's more likely they're angry because this is what they are. They are cultivating an angry mob. They try to twist every event to their advantage. It is the outrage of the moment that they use to keep their mindless base fed with red meat.

[Holman]

One note about all of this how absolutely *enraged* all of right-wing punditry is about this leak.

You'd think they'd be taking a victory lap with high-fives all around, but they know how unpopular a repeal of Roe will be, and they wanted to wait until after the midterms.

I don't think this is quite right. This was going to come out in June/July at the latest. I think it's more likely they're angry because this is what they are. They are cultivating an angry mob. They try to twist every event to their advantage. It is the outrage of the moment that they use to keep their mindless base fed with red meat.

Yeah, I just now read that the opinion was due for release this summer. Wrong assumption on my part.

This is an interesting thread:

[Dogstar]

A quick reading sees that he calls out other opinions slated for reversal such as Obergefell and even Lawrence vs. Texas. It is hard to overstate how out of control things might get with this court in the next few years Also important to note this is just what we believe to be a draft of Alito's majority opinion. We don't know who voted for it and it doesn't have any of the probable dissents.

This. Alito is basically arguing against any unenumerated rights (not entirely surprising, since I think he falls on the strict constructionist-end-of-the-scale), leaving the matter to the states, which potentially unravels a boatload of decisions.

[stessier]

I don't understand the long historical perspective he takes on this. Like, how does he square this with the idea that slavery shouldn't be a thing?

A quick reading sees that he calls out other opinions slated for reversal such as Obergefell and even Lawrence vs. Texas. It is hard to overstate how out of control things might get with this court in the next few years Also important to note this is just what we believe to be a draft of Alito's majority opinion. We don't know who voted for it and it doesn't have any of the probable dissents.

This. Alito is basically arguing against any unenumerated rights (not entirely surprising, since I think he falls on the strict constructionist-end-of-the-scale), leaving the matter to the states, which potentially unravels a boatload of decisions.

Any unenumerated rights without a long historical tradition. I mean, is there anything more descriptive of a conservative than that?

[Zaxxon]

[malchior]

I don't understand the long historical perspective he takes on this. Like, how does he square this with the idea that slavery shouldn't be a thing?

A quick reading sees that he calls out other opinions slated for reversal such as Obergefell and even Lawrence vs. Texas. It is hard to overstate how out of control things might get with this court in the next few years Also important to note this is just what we believe to be a draft of Alito's majority opinion. We don't know who voted for it and it doesn't have any of the probable dissents.

This. Alito is basically arguing against any unenumerated rights (not entirely surprising, since I think he falls on the strict constructionist-end-of-the-scale), leaving the matter to the states, which potentially unravels a boatload of decisions.

Any unenumerated rights without a long historical tradition. I mean, is there anything more descriptive of a conservative than that?

I think this is a misread. Especially in the frame that abortion does have a long historical traditional foundation. It was legal during the founding! The Alito draft says there is no common law foundation for it. That's incorrect. We inherited from English common law the understanding that abortion wasn't legal after the 15th to 20th weak (fetal heartbeat). That was baked into previous opinions written by actual conservatives.

In other words, this isn't conservatism. Conservatives would recognize that this has been the law of the land for 50 years. This is instead the very definition of reactionary politicking. More so conservatives have long admitted that there were unenumerated rights and new situations had to be interpreted in modern contexts as the landscape changed. This instead is a relatively new judicial line of thought that very much seems aligned to political convenience. I think it is a construction to justify the ends.

[stessier]

I don't understand the long historical perspective he takes on this. Like, how does he square this with the idea that slavery shouldn't be a thing?

A quick reading sees that he calls out other opinions slated for reversal such as Obergefell and even Lawrence vs. Texas. It is hard to overstate how out of control things might get with this court in the next few years Also important to note this is just what we believe to be a draft of Alito's majority opinion. We don't know who voted for it and it doesn't have any of the probable dissents.

This. Alito is basically arguing against any unenumerated rights (not entirely surprising, since I think he falls on the strict constructionist-end-of-the-scale), leaving the matter to the states, which potentially unravels a boatload of decisions.

Any unenumerated rights without a long historical tradition. I mean, is there anything more descriptive of a conservative than that?

I think this is a misread. Especially in the frame that abortion does have a long historical traditional foundation. It was legal during the founding! The Alito draft says there is no common law foundation for it. That's incorrect. We inherited from English common law the understanding that abortion wasn't legal after the 15th to 20th weak (fetal heartbeat). That was baked into previous opinions written by actual conservatives.

Where do you get the view of it ever being legal? His opinion points out there is no evidence it was legal at the founding and several cases where even "pre-quickening" it was considered a crime and punished.

He also mentions that the Court is not putting any weight in it's decision on when a fetus gains rights - just before mentioning that personal privacy rights is a game of balance and so the woman's right to choose has to be weighed against the fetus'.

[Kurth]

Also honestly, every time shit like this happens I recurse the name of Ginsburg, who in her arrogance decided that she couldn't be replaced, and whose decision directly led to Barrett now being on the court. It's not totally fair that she was in that position, but she was, and she didn't listen to the allies who warned her.

Supreme Court Justices are just people. They make mistakes. She made a big one. Cursing her name is way over the top, IMHO. Putting this on her is like putting the Sox 1986 World Series loss on Bill Buckner. It may feel right, but it’s not.

[El Guapo]

Also honestly, every time shit like this happens I recurse the name of Ginsburg, who in her arrogance decided that she couldn't be replaced, and whose decision directly led to Barrett now being on the court. It's not totally fair that she was in that position, but she was, and she didn't listen to the allies who warned her.

Supreme Court Justices are just people. They make mistakes. She made a big one. Cursing her name is way over the top, IMHO. Putting this on her is like putting the Sox 1986 World Series loss on Bill Buckner. It may feel right, but it’s not.

I mean, I know it was a well intentioned mistake. But god damn was it a big and foreseeable one. It doesn't really matter anyway, it just destroys her legacy as far as I'm concerned.

[El Guapo]

Meanwhile...



This is going to be a giant social / political experiment.

[malchior]

Where do you get the view of it ever being legal? His opinion points out there is no evidence it was legal at the founding and several cases where even "pre-quickening" it was considered a crime and punished.

From experts on abortion. He (or his clerks actually writing the draft) is cherry-picking. Frankly I think there is a good chance this draft was prior to final research was conducted because it's completely inaccurate. It wasn't illegal in most places but it wasn't socially acceptable either. A very big difference.

He also mentions that the Court is not putting any weight in it's decision on when a fetus gains rights - just before mentioning that personal privacy rights is a game of balance and so the woman's right to choose has to be weighed against the fetus'.

So what? It doesn't make it this decision any less radical.

[Drazzil]

This is happening right now. The big news is someone leaked a draft of the opinion on *the complete overturn* of Roe in advance - most likely penned by Alito. Just to be clear someone felt it was important to *leak an internal draft opinion in advance*. As far as I know nothing like this has ever happened. In any case the language is stark. We are watching a SCOTUS that doesn't care about legitimacy. It'll be interesting if the language in the politico piece survives because it is inflammatory and reactionary.

The Supreme Court has voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by POLITICO.

The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision – Planned Parenthood v. Casey – that largely maintained the right. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito writes.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” he writes in the document, labeled as the “Opinion of the Court.” “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

Yeah. I'm firmly of the opinion that the POTUS needs to blow off the SC. Fuck these guys; they all need to go away. The sooner the better for the nation. The SC appointed themselves the supreme arbiter in the US. They had NO authority to do so.

For those of you who DON'T think we should do this; how many freedoms will you guys lose before you conclude that we would be better off without these rodents gnawing away at our country? Cause we're gonna be frozen like it's 1900 till we fuck the SC off.

[malchior]

Yeah. I'm firmly of the opinion that the POTUS needs to blow off the SC. Fuck these guys; they all need to go away. The sooner the better for the nation. The SC appointed themselves the supreme arbiter in the US. They had NO authority to do so.

So a dictatorship. Looks like you're getting your wish sooner than later. It won't turn out the way you hope.

[malchior]

Roberts just confirmed it was a true leak and they are investigating. He says it won't change the operation of the Court. Good luck with that, Roberts.

Edit: In other news, Biden made a long extemporaneous statement today about this and it largely mirrors what I think. He actually said this is a ruling that would be word for word what Bork might have wrote.

(To paraphrase) "If this is the decision as it stands, then it is quite a radical ruling and changes jurisprudence dramatically in the United States". The key part is what is the voted on opinion and how it is actually drafted. We have time to wait for that to come but this is a pre-quake for potential radical change in our legal system. We don't know if it'll stand but there is a risk of massive consequences on the horizon if it happens and based on how it was accomplished. We were already burning down foundational stuff here, and it isn't hard to liken this to being like pouring gas on a flame.

[Drazzil]

Yeah. I'm firmly of the opinion that the POTUS needs to blow off the SC. Fuck these guys; they all need to go away. The sooner the better for the nation. The SC appointed themselves the supreme arbiter in the US. They had NO authority to do so.

So a dictatorship. Looks like you're getting your wish sooner than later. It won't turn out the way you hope.

My wish is a healthy unfucked democracy. Barring that I think the party that crosses the Rubicon first will be the one who hangs onto power. I'd rather it be President Redford then the KKK dude. What about you? Also; which party do you think would give up power more easily when our OBVIOUS constitutional crisis is over?

[malchior]

Yeah. I'm firmly of the opinion that the POTUS needs to blow off the SC. Fuck these guys; they all need to go away. The sooner the better for the nation. The SC appointed themselves the supreme arbiter in the US. They had NO authority to do so.

So a dictatorship. Looks like you're getting your wish sooner than later. It won't turn out the way you hope.

My wish is a healthy unfucked democracy. Barring that I think the party that crosses the Rubicon first will be the one who hangs onto power. I'd rather it be President Redford then the KKK dude. What about you? Also; which party do you think would give up power more easily when our OBVIOUS constitutional crisis is over?

You're missing the point. That point was in the past. It's already happened. We're not getting a health democracy anytime soon. And the mechanisms to fix ourselves are impossible to use. We're looking at a period of chaos and there is nothing we can do to stop it. In any case, a dictator on the left isn't going to happen and even if they showed up I still think it wouldn't work out the way you think it would. Dictatorships rarely are predictable.

[Drazzil]

And as far as democracy is concerned. Our population as it exists is too stupid, divided and up their own assholes for democracy to work.

Furthermore; democracy's been dead in the US for a long time. The second that the SC overstepped itself in 2000 and handed the election to that cheating piece of shit Bush the lesser; and Clinton let it happen? I knew Democracy was dead. That minute.

Its all over but the crying. We don't have an ideal situation here; we have to work with what we got. What we have is a SLLLLLLIM chance to do things NOW; while the democrats are still in power.

The high level D's have already made a deal with the R's though. Permanent minority status in return for them and theirs to get golden parachutes.

Someone should clue the Dem's in tho. The Republicans don't keep their promises.

[El Guapo]

[Kurth]

At this point I'm ready for the Union to be dissolved. Let these Bible-thumping fucksticks go form their own territory and leave the sane folks alone.

I would at this point also prefer to see the union dissolved or a constitutional convention that'll revert to some regional model or whatever will keep the peace. That won't happen, elections will still result in little change while the word advances, and we will may very well see the first generational living standards decline. I don't know what it'll look like exactly but none of this is trending towards stable or anything representing democratic values.

I don’t really understand all these calls to dissolve the Union in response to Roe v. Wade being overturned. What exactly would that accomplish?

Look at the map from the NYT article Where Abortion Access Would Decline if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned from last May.

According to the article:

The Supreme Court’s decision Monday to hear a case about a Mississippi law that would ban most abortions after 15 weeks could end up weakening or even overturning Roe v. Wade. Depending on the ruling, legal abortion access could effectively end for those living in much of the American South and Midwest, especially those who are poor, according to an analysis updated this week.

In more than half of states, though, legal abortion access would be unchanged, according to the analysis, a version of which we first covered in 2019. (We've updated our reporting along with the analysis.)

“A post-Roe United States isn’t one in which abortion isn’t legal at all,” Caitlin Knowles Myers, an economist at Middlebury College and a co-author of the research, said in our earlier report. She obtained and analyzed the new data for The New York Times recently. “It’s one in which there’s tremendous inequality in abortion access.”

So, the result of Roe being reversed is going to be that women living in much of the American South and Midwest will no longer have access to abortion, access which, others have pointed out is already so restricted as to be effectively prohibited today.

What do you think the result of dissolving the Union will be?

I hate that this is happening, and I think it is wrong. I’m incredibly concerned about the state of our country and feel like our three branches of government and the system they are supposed to work within have gone completely haywire.

But if the people in Mississippi want so badly to restrict abortion and now have the right to do so, it’s not going to convince me that those who are pro-choice should just take their ball and go home. It’s a feckless and pointless response.

[Octavious]

To me and a lot of us it's a warning shot of the many other horrible things to come. Anything and everything the R's want to get rid of will get accomplished. And when they take full control they will force it onto the entire country. We're fooked

[Blackhawk]

The urge to fight back is warring with the urge to bunker down and hope they don't start issuing jackboots before I die.

Also, can I claim refugee status and get aid in leaving Indiana?

[pr0ner]

Drazzil, please tell us what Bill Clinton could have done in 2000 after the decision in Bush v Gore that wouldn't have been a catastrophic constitutional crisis.