Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (1 Viewer)

[LovesMusic7360]

Not long ago Kari Lake proclaimed Arizona's abortion law was a great law and wanted it the law of the state.

Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.

As I have been saying since 2022, the overwhelming vast majority of women aren't going to vote for the man who proudly boasts that he got rid of Roe V. Wade. Nor are those women going to vote for a forced birther politician.

Turns out, republican belief in "pro life" was all just lies to get votes. Who is surprised? I sure am not.

How many forced birthers will do the same about face?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ka ... r-BB1ltx3I.

Arizona Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake is actively lobbying state lawmakers to overturn a 160-year-old law she once supported that bans abortion in almost all cases, a source with knowledge of her efforts told CNN.

 

[Optimus Prime]

There is a separate right of that is long-standing, well defended, and historically based.

I hope you’re right

but wasn’t this true of abortion just 24 hours ago?

 

[superchuck500]

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.

I do know that the legal rationale in Roe and Casey has always been considered weak in the context of constitutional law - this was always the elephant in the room of pro-choice legal advocacy. Constitutional law classes struggle to distill it in a manner that law students can fit into the rest of all of constitutional law. Conceptually the right of the person's autonomy over their body seems uncontroversial if not fundamental but how it fits into a constitutional framework is complicated and the most rudimentary descriptions fall into rights of privacy and autonomy (which lack much textual basis).

Other rights lack those legal weaknesses. Free movement, for example, is considered a fundamental constitutional right since at least 1823 and flows from the privileges and immunities clause, Art. IV, Sec. 2.

 

[superchuck500]

I hope you’re right

but wasn’t this true of abortion just 24 hours ago?

No.

 

[coldseat]

I do know that the legal rationale in Roe and Casey has always been considered weak in the context of constitutional law - this was always the elephant in the room of pro-choice legal advocacy. Constitutional law classes struggle to distill it in a manner that law students can fit into the rest of all of constitutional law. Conceptually the right of the person's autonomy over their body seems uncontroversial if not fundamental but how it fits into a constitutional framework is complicated and the most rudimentary descriptions fall into rights of privacy and autonomy (which lack much textual basis).

Other rights lack those legal weaknesses. Free movement, for example, is considered a fundamental constitutional right since at least 1823 and flows from the privileges and immunities clause, Art. IV, Sec. 2.

So are you saying that because of this court's re-interpretation of the law, we do not have any rights to privacy or autonomy? It's even worse than I imagined.

 

[superchuck500]

So are you saying that because of this court's re-interpretation of the law, we do not have any rights to privacy or autonomy? It's even worse than I imagined.

No, I didn't say that.

 

[coldseat]

No, I didn't say that.

I'm confused by what you're saying then. In order to overturn Roe and Casey, it seems that the conservative justices had to pretty much state that we have no right to privacy or personal autonomy and that the individual State can decide those rights for us. Is that not what the conservative justices are doing?

We either have a right to privacy and personal autonomy or we don't. The reversal or Roe and Casey clearly makes it obvious that we do not according to this court.

 

[superchuck500]

I do know that the legal rationale in Roe and Casey has always been considered weak in the context of constitutional law - this was always the elephant in the room of pro-choice legal advocacy. Constitutional law classes struggle to distill it in a manner that law students can fit into the rest of all of constitutional law. Conceptually the right of the person's autonomy over their body seems uncontroversial if not fundamental but how it fits into a constitutional framework is complicated and the most rudimentary descriptions fall into rights of privacy and autonomy (which lack much textual basis).

Other rights lack those legal weaknesses. Free movement, for example, is considered a fundamental constitutional right since at least 1823 and flows from the privileges and immunities clause, Art. IV, Sec. 2.

Just to clarify this for interpretation purposes and the record, I'm not saying I agree with the Alito draft or any of its rationale. My only observation here relates to the relative (legal) strength of constitutional rights based on how they are framed and supported.

 

[MT15]

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.

What would be the basis for disbarment? What part of the disbarment criteria applies in this case? Do you really think the FBI needs to investigate this at all, let alone using all the tools at their disposal? People who plotted to overthrow a legal certified election haven’t been interrogated by the FBI and you want to interrogate law clerks?

 

[el caliente]

If the perpetrator of the leak is exposed and they are of the preferred demographic, it will sure as heck play into the "we need to rethink the Supreme Court process" narrative. If they're conservative, it will just be an act of domestic terrorism.

 

[superchuck500]

I'm confused by what you're saying then. In order to overturn Roe and Casey, it seems that the conservative justices had to pretty much state that we have no right to privacy or personal autonomy and that the individual State can decide those rights for us. Is that not what the conservative justices are doing?

We either have a right to privacy and personal autonomy or we don't. The reversal or Roe and Case clearly makes it obvious that we do not according to this court.

Can you not think of things you don't have "privacy and personal autonomy" to do? Asserting that it is some binary question (you can do anything you want or you can do nothing) is nonsense. Any right to personal autonomy (freedom or liberty or however one wishes to express it) is contextual.

There are many things we don't have liberty or personal autonomy to do. American law, based on Supreme Court precedent (from 1973 and 1992), held that the Constitution prohibited states to outlaw abortion in most cases based on the privacy and personal autonomy (liberty) interests of the woman/mother. The opposing view is rooted in the idea that there is another interest involved (the fetus) that provides the context upon which that personal autonomy may be limited by the state.

You can disagree with that notion entirely. But refusing to recognize the context from which it arrives leads to nonsensical conclusions like "this means we no longer have personal autonomy in America". We never had unrestricted personal autonomy - this isn't controversial. Some things fall within that purview and some do not.

 

[samiam5211]

Would this decision make it possible for states to ban forms of contraception?

 

[MT15]

I think this court has definitely bent to public opinion - it’s just their base’s opinion, not the majority opinion. This is the culmination of years long politicization of the court by the Republican Party and religious interests. So any drivel by Alito about public opinion rings extremely hollow to me. Rs have skewed the court and thus politicized it purposefully over the years with the two most egregious examples being denying Garland a hearing and ramming through Barrett even while early voting for President was actually happening. It’s the height of hypocrisy for Alito to try to claim some sort of moral high ground of being above the fray of politics in this case.

Is this the first time the SC has overruled precedent to take away civil rights from citizens?

 

[MT15]

Can you not think of things you don't have "privacy and personal autonomy" to do? Asserting that it is some binary question (you can do anything you want or you can do nothing) is nonsense. Any right to personal autonomy (freedom or liberty or however one wishes to express it) is contextual.

There are many things we don't have liberty or personal autonomy to do. American law, based on Supreme Court precedent (from 1973 and 1992), held that the Constitution prohibited states to outlaw abortion in most cases based on the privacy and personal autonomy (liberty) interests of the woman/mother. The opposing view is rooted in the idea that there is another interest involved (the fetus) that provides the context upon which that personal autonomy may be limited by the state.

You can disagree with that notion entirely. But refusing to recognize the context from which it arrives leads to nonsensical conclusions like "this means we no longer have personal autonomy in America". We never had unrestricted personal autonomy - this isn't controversial. Some things fall within that purview and some do not.

This is a particularly harsh restriction on personal autonomy for half the population. I don’t think there is anything that is even close that would compare.

 

[superchuck500]

What would be the basis for disbarment? What part of the disbarment criteria applies in this case? Do you really think the FBI needs to investigate this at all, let alone using all the tools at their disposal? People who plotted to overthrow a legal certified election haven’t been interrogated by the FBI and you want to interrogate law clerks?

A lawyer that intentionally publishes privileged material can be disbarred. I said I didn't know how all of that would go down - meaning if there was a disciplinary process, what would the case be and what would the arguments in defense be, I don't know, but I do know that intentional wrongful handling of information is an area for lawyer discipline that can include disbarment. I don't know what privilege or security protocols go with draft Supreme Court opinions and this is obviously extremely rare to the point of effectively unprecedented - so it could be one of those areas that lacks definition because behavior was simply just understood. But assuming that there is no privilege or treatment under federal material handling laws or rules seems dubious.

When I say "using tools at their disposal" I mean a full investigation (that could include electronic forensics and whatnot), shouldn't any matter worthy of investigating use those tools? Perhaps it doesn't need to be the FBI if, for example, there is a proper OIG to investigate. I think we would have to start with what a draft SCOTUS opinion is, and how it fits into a framework of privilege or federal records security but if there is a basis in federal law, yes it should be investigated. The functioning of the Supreme Court unfettered by the noise or possible attempt at influence by the public or political interests in the pre-decisional process seems basic.

Why would you think that the FBI hasn't interrogated people who plotted to overthrow a legal certified election? It's a massive investigation and thousands of people have been interrogated. If you're talking about the political process involving elected officials and their role, the primary investigation there is being performed by a political body with full referral power to the FBI should the investigation find probable cause of violating federal law.

 

[RobF]

Can you not think of things you don't have "privacy and personal autonomy" to do? Asserting that it is some binary question (you can do anything you want or you can do nothing) is nonsense. Any right to personal autonomy (freedom or liberty or however one wishes to express it) is contextual.

There are many things we don't have liberty or personal autonomy to do. American law, based on Supreme Court precedent (from 1973 and 1992), held that the Constitution prohibited states to outlaw abortion in most cases based on the privacy and personal autonomy (liberty) interests of the woman/mother. The opposing view is rooted in the idea that there is another interest involved (the fetus) that provides the context upon which that personal autonomy may be limited by the state.

You can disagree with that notion entirely. But refusing to recognize the context from which it arrives leads to nonsensical conclusions like "this means we no longer have personal autonomy in America". We never had unrestricted personal autonomy - this isn't controversial. Some things fall within that purview and some do not.

It's not an absolute, but if the right to privacy was previously seen by the Supreme Court as substantial enough to justify Roe, but that has now been rejected, wouldn't that suggest that any other rights that were similarly reliant to the right to privacy for justification could also be seen as less secure?

 

[coldseat]

Can you not think of things you don't have "privacy and personal autonomy" to do? Asserting that it is some binary question (you can do anything you want or you can do nothing) is nonsense. Any right to personal autonomy (freedom or liberty or however one wishes to express it) is contextual.

I can certainly think of areas where there are competing or mutual rights to the limits of privacy and personal rights, sure. The Roe and Casey decision set out such a limit in the viability of the fetus. But it seems here that Alito and the other conservatives are having to say that the woman has no such rights to privacy and personal autonomy when it comes to pregnancy in order to allow states to totally ban it. Or that the federal government can't acknowledge any such rights in the context of the textual/original interpretation of the constitution.

There are many things we don't have liberty or personal autonomy to do. American law, based on Supreme Court precedent (from 1973 and 1992), held that the Constitution prohibited states to outlaw abortion in most cases based on the privacy and personal autonomy (liberty) interests of the woman/mother. The opposing view is rooted in the idea that there is another interest involved (the fetus) that provides the context upon which that personal autonomy may be limited by the state.

You can disagree with that notion entirely. But refusing to recognize the context from which it arrives leads to nonsensical conclusions like "this means we no longer have personal autonomy in America". We never had unrestricted personal autonomy - this isn't controversial. Some things fall within that purview and some do not.

I guess my question would be where in the original constitutions text does it grant such competing rights to the fetus before birth?

 

[MT15]

A lawyer that intentionally publishes privileged material can be disbarred. I said I didn't know how all of that would go down - meaning if there was a disciplinary process, what would the case be and what would the arguments in defense be, I don't know, but I do know that intentional wrongful handling of information is an area for lawyer discipline that can include disbarment. I don't know what privilege or security protocols go with draft Supreme Court opinions and this is obviously extremely rare to the point of effectively unprecedented - so it could be one of those areas that lacks definition because behavior was simply just understood. But assuming that there is no privilege or treatment under federal material handling laws or rules seems dubious.

When I say "using tools at their disposal" I mean a full investigation (that could include electronic forensics and whatnot), shouldn't any matter worthy of investigating use those tools? Perhaps it doesn't need to be the FBI if, for example, there is a proper OIG to investigate. I think we would have to start with what a draft SCOTUS opinion is, and how it fits into a framework of privilege or federal records security but if there is a basis in federal law, yes it should be investigated. The functioning of the Supreme Court unfettered by the noise or possible attempt at influence by the public or political interests in the pre-decisional process seems basic.

Why would you think that the FBI hasn't interrogated people who plotted to overthrow a legal certified election? It's a massive investigation and thousands of people have been interrogated. If you're talking about the political process involving elected officials and their role, the primary investigation there is being performed by a political body with full referral power to the FBI should the investigation find probable cause of violating federal law.

At the risk of derailing I’m not talking about elected officials, but rather other prominent people who have publicly advocated for overturning the election. As far as I know, we have not yet reached the level of any interviews with these people going on two years after the election.

 

[superchuck500]

It's not an absolute, but if the right to privacy was previously seen by the Supreme Court as substantial enough to justify Roe, but that has now been rejected, wouldn't that suggest that any other rights that were similarly reliant to the right to privacy for justification could also be seen as less secure?

I think we're substantially over-simplifying here. The opinion is 67 pages of Supreme Court analysis that includes five major sections - and it is a draft. I think it is more complicated and heavily tailored to the abortion issue itself (which again, is highly contextual and rooted in the fundamental issue of how to define the rights, if any, of the fetus) than would support the kind of discussion based on "the Court is rejecting privacy and personal autonomy rights in America so what is next?"