Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (3 Viewers)

[Brennan77]

Forgive me for posting this given that I'm not a regular participant.

Exclusive: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court.

www.politico.com

Read Justice Alito's initial draft abortion opinion which would overturn Roe v. Wade

Read the full 98-page initial draft majority opinion.

www.politico.com

 

[Andrus]

I've moved the discussion to a new thread. I apologize for the inconvenience. As I stated in the thread the posts were moved from, breaking news like this should reside as standalone threads and not posted within ongoing threads that are vaguely relative.

 

[Bolo]

What a shocker. /sarcasm.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

 

[MT15]

It’s shocking really, has it ever happened before?

I read a thread from someone who has researched it, it has happened, but you have to go back to the 1850’s for this exact scenario. However, leaks of the internal debates and the horse trading inside the SC are much more common after the fact.

 

[MT15]

I am sickened by the absolutely racist targeting on the right about the leak. They have convicted Sotomayor and I even saw someone post a picture of one of her clerks stating this is the leaker. All with zero evidence, mind you.

Because of course they are outraged at the POC, to the point of a long thread from lawyers on the right trying to scare up a law that could apply if you twist it enough. Believe me they were trying hard to make this leak prosecutable. And every person involved should be disbarred.

People on the right are demanding that Sotomayor resign, saying she needs to be disbarred, along with the clerk. The FBI needs to seize all the computers and interrogate the justices and clerks. All with no law broken. This tells you everything you need to know about the people on the right. There’s a word for this blood lust to imprison people who don’t agree with you.

also this:

 

[samiam5211]

I think this will end up helping the democrats in the mid terms. The pink hats will all be voting this year.

 

[el caliente]

I think this will end up helping the democrats in the mid terms. The pink hats will all be voting this year.

I am interested to see how this impacts the elections, if it does at all. There are several months before mid-terms, and a lot of things will shock and upset people between now and then to the point where this will be nearly forgotten.

I would love to know who leaked this, and to what end.

 

[samiam5211]

I am interested to see how this impacts the elections, if it does at all. There are several months before mid-terms, and a lot of things will shock and upset people between now and then to the point where this will be nearly forgotten.

I would love to know who leaked this, and to what end.

Whoever leaked it should lose their job.

The actual decision probably won't come out until mid June. So if the rage starts to wane between now and then, it will just get reignited when they announce the decision.

I also believe that no matter what happens between now and then, this will be the biggest issue driving many women to vote in the mid terms. This isn't just some temporary media created crisis. The enforcement of abortion laws in some states will be a constant reminder.

 

[B4YOU]

It'll never happen, but I think age limits should be in place. I dislike the idea of old, set in their ways 70+ year olds sitting around and making decisions to affect the rest of the country for decades. What do they care if they'll tear shirt part? They won't be around much longer to see what happens in the years to come

Alito specifically states that the SC shouldn’t care if they tear shirt apart.

“We cannot allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public’s reaction to our work,” Alito writes. “We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today’s decision overruling Roe and Casey. And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision.”

 

[J-DONK]

Whoever leaked it should lose their job.

The actual decision probably won't come out until mid June. So if the rage starts to wane between now and then, it will just get reignited when they announce the decision.

I also believe that no matter what happens between now and then, this will be the biggest issue driving many women to vote in the mid terms. This isn't just some temporary media created crisis. The enforcement of abortion laws in some states will be a constant reminder.

How does everyone know this wasn't a trial balloon?

 

[samiam5211]

How does everyone know this wasn't a trial balloon?

I guess we don't, but i can't imagine it was intentionally leaked by the justices on the majority to just see what would happen.

Especially, since what would happen was easily predictable without leaking anything.

 

[superchuck500]

Whoever leaked it should lose their job.

I think the FBI will investigate, using all of the tools at its disposal. The leaker will definitely lose their job and if the leaker was a lawyer, that person will likely face bar disciplinary measures that could include disbarment, though I'm not sure how all of that would go down. It's possible that some kind of federal criminal statute could apply but I can't imagine that the penalty would be harsh.

Of course the identity may never be known; it's highly unlikely that Politico would cooperate. The worst scenario would be that a staffer is identified and then that person credibly shows that a justice or justices knew of and endorsed the leak . . . that would be very, very sad.

 

[Optimus Prime]

roe v wade us overturned and it’s now up to the states to decide to allow abortions or not

How exactly is it legal to say you can’t travel from a state that doesn’t allow them to one that does?

Did any state make it illegal to travel to a state that allowed marijuana if it wasn’t legal there?
=====================
As abortion bans proliferate in states around the US, some state legislatures are likely to go even further than just ending abortion in their jurisdictions – taking aim at the growing numbers of people seeking procedures and medications out of state, experts warn.

If the supreme court weakens or overturns Roe v Wade – the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion – in an upcoming decision on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban, states will be left with a confusing patchwork of laws that will likely lead to legal challenges.

A fresh wave of restrictions will probably center around patients who leave their state to obtain legal abortions in other states, or who order medications to manage their abortions at home……

US states could ban people from traveling for abortions, experts warn

If supreme court weakens Roe v Wade, some states will take aim at people seeking procedures and medications out of state

www.theguardian.com

 

[superchuck500]

Alito specifically states that the SC shouldn’t care if they tear shirt apart.

“We cannot allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public’s reaction to our work,” Alito writes. “We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today’s decision overruling Roe and Casey. And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision.”

As a fundamental matter, I agree with this. How can it be that the Court comes to one conclusion based on the Court's process for determining legal results, but then changes that result based on reaction from the public? How is that even defined, as there is no unified "public" and the reaction of some element of the public, as loud or violent as they choose to be, should not dictate results at the Supreme Court. If the "public" is a majority of Americans, they should leverage that majority through the representative process.

 

[superchuck500]

roe v wade us overturned and it’s now up to the states to decide to allow abortions or not

How exactly is it legal to say you can’t travel from a state that doesn’t allow them to one that does?

Did any state make it illegal to travel to a state that allowed marijuana if it wasn’t legal there?
=====================
As abortion bans proliferate in states around the US, some state legislatures are likely to go even further than just ending abortion in their jurisdictions – taking aim at the growing numbers of people seeking procedures and medications out of state, experts warn.

If the supreme court weakens or overturns Roe v Wade – the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion – in an upcoming decision on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban, states will be left with a confusing patchwork of laws that will likely lead to legal challenges.

A fresh wave of restrictions will probably center around patients who leave their state to obtain legal abortions in other states, or who order medications to manage their abortions at home……

US states could ban people from traveling for abortions, experts warn

If supreme court weakens Roe v Wade, some states will take aim at people seeking procedures and medications out of state

www.theguardian.com

We have to be careful to keep all of this straight. There is a separate right of free travel among the states that is long-standing, well defended, and (for Justice Alito) historically based. Laws that penalize free travel among the states (for [insert any purpose]) are inherently suspect and likely to fail.

The answer is that it is not legal for a state to criminally penalize a state resident for traveling to another state to obtain an abortion that is legal in the other state. It may take some time to have that provision struck down but it will be.

 

[samiam5211]

Of course the identity may never be known; it's highly unlikely that Politico would cooperate. The worst scenario would be that a staffer is identified and then that person credibly shows that a justice or justices knew of and endorsed the leak . . . that would be very, very sad.

Would justices not in the majority even have access to a decision at this point in the process?

 

[superchuck500]

Would justices not in the majority even have access to a decision at this point in the process?

EDIT - There's a stamp on the top right of the image of the opinion that says it was circulated February 10, 2022. Link at bottom.

Without knowing exactly what "this point in the process" was, here in this particular instance, we can't say for sure, but yes, the draft opinion is circulated to all of the justices (and that means their law clerks and other relevant staff) - because when the final opinion is announced and released, it comes with dissenting and concurring opinions. Those don't come later. So yes at some point well before the opinion is published it is circulated to the whole court so that the other justices can decide if they want to stand by it or write (or join) a separate opinion. This draft appears very mature, complete - so I don't see any reason to think that it would not have been circulated to the whole court. (See below).

But to your point, if this draft had not been circulated to the full court, I think that narrows the investigation substantially. I suspect, however, that it had been.


From some quick research:

The Court's calendar is arranged around oral argument periods. After two weeks of oral argument, the Court breaks from that routine to work on writing opinions. To this end, at the end of each oral argument period, the Chief Justice circulates an assignment sheet, which lists the cases for which each Justice is tasked with writing the majority opinion for the Court. When the Chief Justice is in the majority at the conference discussion, the chief has the prerogative to assign the task of writing the majority opinion to another Justice in the conference majority. When the chief Justice is in the conference minority, the senior associate Justice in the majority makes the opinion assignment. The assignment sheet clearly denotes which Justice made the assignment.

The assigned author then begins work on a draft opinion. Justices either take the lead in writing a first draft or delegate that responsibility to a clerk. Even in the latter case, the Justice will play a major role in drafting the opinion. When the Justice is satisfied with the draft, he or she will circulate it to the other Justices. At this point, Court custom is for Justices to respond to the opinion draft by "joining" the opinion, expressing reservations with the opinion draft, indicating that they plan to write a separate opinion, and so on. This interaction occurs in memos written to the author with a copy usually sent to the other Justices (what they call the Conference). At the end of this process, each Justice will either write or join an opinion. When every Justice has joined or authored an opinion, the Court announces its decision to the public.

The Supreme Court Opinion Writing Database

The Burger Court Opinion Writing Database

supremecourtopinions.wustl.edu

Read Justice Alito's initial draft abortion opinion which would overturn Roe v. Wade

Read the full 98-page initial draft majority opinion.

www.politico.com

 

[coldseat]

We have to be careful to keep all of this straight. There is a separate right of free travel among the states that is long-standing, well defended, and (for Justice Alito) historically based. Laws that penalize free travel among the states (for [insert any purpose]) are inherently suspect and likely to fail.

The answer is that it is not legal for a state to criminally penalize a state resident for traveling to another state to obtain an abortion that is legal in the other state. It may take some time to have that provision struck down but it will be.

How can you be so confident in anything that this court will do to restrict or not restrict abortions? I mean, they're currently allowing bounties in Texas against people seeking abortions. I have not such confidence with the erosion of personal rights that is ongoing.