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Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.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

 

[zztop]

what does it say about the that judges flat out lie in order to secure enough votes to get appointed to a lifetime position?

 

[MT15]

 

[MT15]

Ah fair enough, I misread your first post.

Your premise is the Supreme Court declaring that a fetus is a person for purposes of the 14th Amendment. I don't know, I'm sure there's some good reading on that question and the principles that apply to it.

It's an interesting question. My gut is that they wouldn't do it on their own, but given the right statute before them, I could see something like that happening. Sorry for the confusion on my part.

I read an opinion on Twitter from a legal person that said Alito’s language in this ruling is clearly setting up exactly that - that an embryo or fetus is fully human.

Claire McCaskill said on TV that MO has a law ready to go that will make IVF procedures illegal as well. They are fully radicalized and mean to punish women. I fully believe Obergefell is next.

 

[J-DONK]

I read an opinion on Twitter from a legal person that said Alito’s language in this ruling is clearly setting up exactly that - that an embryo or fetus is fully human.

Claire McCaskill said on TV that MO has a law ready to go that will make IVF procedures illegal as well. They are fully radicalized and mean to punish women. I fully believe Obergefell is next.

Why is IVF bad? That's almost completely couples, in stable relationships with tons of extra income trying to have children. Why would the state want to stand in the way of that? That's who you want to have children.

I sometimes think the bar to become a fast food worker is higher then a state senator.

 

[MT15]

You have such an uncanny ability to mock what you do not understand, JDonk.

There are embryos that are destroyed very often during IVF. They are left over after the couple is successful, they are judged to be nonviable, or less than ideal by the rating system. Not every embryo gets implanted.

 

[MT15]

 

[J-DONK]

You have such an uncanny ability to mock what you do not understand, JDonk.

There are embryos that are destroyed very often during IVF. They are left over after the couple is successful, they are judged to be nonviable, or less than ideal by the rating system. Not every embryo gets implanted.

I'm not religious. l forget sometimes that people will stand in the way of their own goal because of that. That's what banning IVF would do essentially.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

I don't think it's that deliberate. I think they're just doing what the base wants, which right now, is owning the libs.

But governance based on pure ideology and not pragmaticism isn't sustainable and will always backfire. And it's why ruby red Louisiana has a two term democratic governor right now.

Edwards is pro-life. As are a ton of Louisiana democrats. Funny enough, there is an older statute from 2006 authored by a Democrat and signed off on by Kathleen Blanco that would prohibit all abortion in Louisiana with the only exception being life of the mother (i.e., wouldn't exclude rape or incest). The statute is worded such that whenever Roe/Casey is repealed, it goes into automatic effect.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Get out and protest and or vote when possible:

Obamas issue strong statement on leaked Roe v. Wade opinion​

.................................................snip..........................................

“We’re asking you to join with the activists who’ve been sounding the alarm on this issue for years — and act. Stand with them at a local protest. Volunteer with them on a campaign,” the couple’s statement said.

“Join with them in urging Congress to codify Roe into law. And vote alongside them on or before November 8 and in every other election. Because in the end, if we want judges who will protect all, and not just some, of our rights, then we’ve got to elect officials committed to doing the same,”

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-kn...trong-statement-on-leaked-roe-v-wade-opinion/

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Also, some general thoughts/responses as this thread moved a lot in the morning/afternoon when I was at work:

* I can't recall if I mentioned it before but I think it is highly likely the draft was leaked by a law clerk of one of the liberal Justices. As to why you have to understand that the people hired for these positions are young-ish, highly intelligent, and opinionated people only a couple of years removed from law school having clerked for federal appellate judges (usually ones who are known as 'feeder' judges, i.e., prominent federal appellate judges who the Justices respect). A clerk for a liberal Justice is going to be VERY opinionated on the topic of abortion. Make no mistake, that this leaked is far more shocking than the draft opinion itself. This is a serious breach of protocol and ethics. If it was a clerk, they will assuredly be fired and, as mentioned, possibly disbarred. This is something law clerks simply should not do under any circumstance. Which is why I say it must be one of the liberal Justices law clerks because they probably understood the risk and, if discovered, would be okay being a martyr of sorts.

* Chuck already posted a good summary of the process: a Justice is assigned to 'author' an opinion -- this is usually by random allotment regardless of an initial headcount. That Justice drafts the opinion (usually with 90% of the work being done by law clerks) and circulates it to all other Justices so that those Justices can decide if they want to sign on to the opinion, offer edits, draft their own concurrences, or draft their own dissents. That said, after oral argument, an informal headcount is usually taken so its generally known whether an opinion will pass or fail to get a majority. I doubt anything in that opinion changes much. The votes are there.

* What effect this has on the mid-term is hard to say. Mid-terms usually have lower turnout... so maybe this helps Democrats get butts to the polls and stave off what is predicted to be a GOP favored midterm? But gas prices, inflation, etc., continue to be a major issue and there's quite possible a lot of independent voters who simply don't care about abortion rights.

* Also that Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowksi feign ignorance/shock at this is laughable. You are United States Senators but don't understand the obvious fact that a conservative Justice will vote to overturn Roe/Casey regards of what bullshirt they spin at the hearings? They can't be that naive.

 

[MT15]

Saul - I actually think the rationale works much better for a leak from one of two sets of clerks: either Alito or Thomas. They are the hard-liners, and the timing of the leak suggests that one of the other justices was maybe getting cold feet and considering joining Roberts in a more moderate ruling rather than the scorched earth thing that Alito penned.

The liberals have had this since February- what could have happened now to make them leak it?

The main thing the leak accomplishes is that it freezes this opinion as written - they will not change it now because if they do everyone will know exactly what was changed and why. The liberals could most probably accomplish more behind the scenes than with this leak. The leak favors the right wing, it gives them the leak to focus on to draw attention away from the ruling. It pulls focus from the actual release in June. It definitely favors the hard-line conservatives.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

what does it say about the that judges flat out lie in order to secure enough votes to get appointed to a lifetime position?

That the person that does has no integrity!!! But it's all good because the people that voted for them don't have integrity either.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Saul - I actually think the rationale works much better for a leak from one of two sets of clerks: either Alito or Thomas. They are the hard-liners, and the timing of the leak suggests that one of the other justices was maybe getting cold feet and considering joining Roberts in a more moderate ruling rather than the scorched earth thing that Alito penned.

The liberals have had this since February- what could have happened now to make them leak it?

The main thing the leak accomplishes is that it freezes this opinion as written - they will not change it now because if they do everyone will know exactly what was changed and why. The liberals could most probably accomplish more behind the scenes than with this leak. The leak favors the right wing, it gives them the leak to focus on to draw attention away from the ruling. It pulls focus from the actual release in June. It definitely favors the hard-line conservatives.

For a clerk to leak this means they risk their entire career as an attorney. Wouldn't surprise me if they were equivocal about whether or not they should do it for quite a while. I don't see any benefit to a conservative leak. Even assuming Roberts was on the fence, they don't need his vote. The next possible 'iffy' vote would be Gorsuch... maybe? And that's a huge stretch. To me there were always five clear votes for reversal as soon as Ginsberg died and Barrett was appointed.

I also don't see it pulling attention away from the actual release of the opinion, because then it will be very real. And you will see in short order all of the conservative states start implementing draconian abortion laws.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

And to clarify, I'm not making any kind of ethical judgment on the leaker, just noting it's a pretty shocking development and will have huge ramifications for them personally. As for the Supreme Court itself -- and the rest of the federal judiciary -- it has long since lost any integrity it has once had thanks to hyper-partisanship of the nominating and confirmation process.

There need to be some major reforms in the guise of term limits (maybe 10 years) and 2/3rd confirmation vote by the Senate for the federal judiciary to get its credibility back.

 

[MT15]

Jon Stewart certainly has a way of crystallizing things:

 

[MT15]

For a clerk to leak this means they risk their entire career as an attorney. Wouldn't surprise me if they were equivocal about whether or not they should do it for quite a while. I don't see any benefit to a conservative leak. Even assuming Roberts was on the fence, they don't need his vote. The next possible 'iffy' vote would be Gorsuch... maybe? And that's a huge stretch. To me there were always five clear votes for reversal as soon as Ginsberg died and Barrett was appointed.

I also don't see it pulling attention away from the actual release of the opinion, because then it will be very real. And you will see in short order all of the conservative states start implementing draconian abortion laws.

Kavanaugh was theorized as the one wavering. If they lose one, Roe is upheld, at least in some form, possibly just as Roberts would prefer.

I think the two hard-line Justices are the ones who I would look at. This is just the type of hardball move that would be encouraged by clerking for someone who either wrote the opinion and didn’t want to lose it, or by someone who clerks for a person who thumbs his nose at a situation which demands recusal.

 

[zztop]

The leak favors the right wing, it gives them the leak to focus on to draw attention away from the ruling. It pulls focus from the actual release in June. It definitely favors the hard-line conservatives.

Yeah, I think if anything it will embolden republicans. Embolden them to try to carve out more, pass more laws that align with their ideology

 

[MT15]