Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (2 Viewers)

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Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.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

 

[el caliente]

Christopher must have learned early in life that when fighting with clowns, you always go for the juggler.

 

[el caliente]

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

Don’t all parties try passing more laws that align with their ideology?

 

[MT15]

Christopher must have learned early in life that when fighting with clowns, you always go for the juggler.

This is hilarious, but I’m not sure if it’s intentional or unintentional.

 

[superchuck500]

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.

I still think any conclusions about the politics of the leaker remain wild speculation - but the more I think about it, the more I tend to agree with MT15 that it seems to make more sense that the leaker was a supporter of the Alito draft rather than an opponent.

We have heard from the Chief Justice that he did not agree with the full opinion and it's only a first draft. We know from anecdote that the justices' views on decisions are malleable, votes do change during this process. It's also foundational at the Supreme Court that outside influence, political or public, should not be part of the process and should be shut out with all professionalism and protocol. So what would an opponent of the decision seek to gain from publishing it, apart from precipitating crisis? I don't think it's realistic to think that publishing the draft would make one of the conservatives less likely to remain supportive of the opinion. And if the concern is to alert the public to the coming result, why wait until May when the draft was circulated in February?

But it does seem more plausible to me that an advocate of the opinion - a conservative hard-liner - could be concerned that the position staked out in the draft (one that is unequivocal in its complete rejection of Roe/Casey) could be watered down through the revision and final vote process, especially where the Chief Justice doesn't want it to be so dramatic. Based on that fear, the person could want to try to freeze the revision process by releasing the draft now . . . especially if the continued discussion raises fear that the draft opinion may be softened. Releasing it now could be an attempt to lock-in votes for the opinion by raising the risk for any conservative judge that may not be committed to it to waver on that position (e.g. Gorsuch).

Of course, one could just as easily say that if we presume the justices won't be swayed by reaction during this part of the process, what difference does it make? And if you concede that there are still reasons why an opponent of the result would leak it, that remains a possibility. So it is still wildly speculative.

And I still think anyone out there going on about how this was the work of ______ for X reasons that show why they're so bad is just foolish, tribal, and superficial.

 

[zztop]

Don’t all parties try passing more laws that align with their ideology?

sorry, I guess I should have been more specific. More of their shirtty, backwards ideology.

edit: that reminds me, I should probably start watching handmaid's tale

 

[SamAndreas]

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.

Both you and MT15 are using motive to guide your speculation. However both of you have constrained that examination of motive to have been that of a law clerk.

Why?

I would point out that Justice Alito might have a most compelling motive to leak his own draft to insure that his vision prevails without it being bent and edited in a conference meetings by any of the other justices on the bench.

Alito is probably the most impassioned, if not fanatical, justice on the bench about this issue. He has been like this from the day he was appointed.

He gets to write the majority opinion and I would think he might hold the view that this opinion will stand out as the signature achievement of his life. It may be that he could not stand to allow even one word of that opinion to be altered.

What better way to fix that opinion in stone than to leak it so it will be more difficult for the others to modify it.



Think about how this Wintergatan guy would react to a suggestion to change any aspect of his creation. He would claw your eyes out if you tried.

​

 

[superchuck500]

Both you and MT15 are using motive to guide your speculation. However both of you have constrained that examination of motive to have been that of a law clerk.

Why?

I would point out that Justice Alito might have a most compelling motive to leak his own draft to insure that his vision prevails without it being bent and edited in a conference meetings by any of the other justices on the bench.

Alito is probably the most impassioned, if not fanatical, justice on the bench about this issue. He has been like this from the day he was appointed.

He gets to write the majority opinion and I would think he might hold the view that this opinion will stand out as the signature achievement of his life. It may be that he could not stand to allow even one word of that opinion to be altered.

What better way to fix that opinion in stone than to leak it so it will be more difficult for the others to modify it.



Think about how this Wintergatan guy would react to a suggestion to change any aspect of his creation. He would claw your eyes out if you tried.

​

I agree that it definitely should not be dismissed that a justice leaked it or authorized it. I think that would be truly deeply damaging to the court and would be terribly disappointing, but it cannot be dismissed.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

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.

Kavanaugh laid the blueprint for overturning stare decisis in his Ramos v. Louisiana concurrence. He's basically the architect of overturning Roe/Casey. For a more detailed look, check out pages 35+ here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf

I still think any conclusions about the politics of the leaker remain wild speculation - but the more I think about it, the more I tend to agree with MT15 that it seems to make more sense that the leaker was a supporter of the Alito draft rather than an opponent.

We have heard from the Chief Justice that he did not agree with the full opinion and it's only a first draft. We know from anecdote that the justices' views on decisions are malleable, votes do change during this process. It's also foundational at the Supreme Court that outside influence, political or public, should not be part of the process and should be shut out with all professionalism and protocol. So what would an opponent of the decision seek to gain from publishing it, apart from precipitating crisis? I don't think it's realistic to think that publishing the draft would make one of the conservatives less likely to remain supportive of the opinion. And if the concern is to alert the public to the coming result, why wait until May when the draft was circulated in February?

But it does seem more plausible to me that an advocate of the opinion - a conservative hard-liner - could be concerned that the position staked out in the draft (one that is unequivocal in its complete rejection of Roe/Casey) could be watered down through the revision and final vote process, especially where the Chief Justice doesn't want it to be so dramatic. Based on that fear, the person could want to try to freeze the revision process by releasing the draft now . . . especially if the continued discussion raises fear that the draft opinion may be softened. Releasing it now could be an attempt to lock-in votes for the opinion by raising the risk for any conservative judge that may not be committed to it to waver on that position (e.g. Gorsuch).

Of course, one could just as easily say that if we presume the justices won't be swayed by reaction during this part of the process, what difference does it make? And if you concede that there are still reasons why an opponent of the result would leak it, that remains a possibility. So it is still wildly speculative.

And I still think anyone out there going on about how this was the work of ______ for X reasons that show why they're so bad is just foolish, tribal, and superficial.

I don't think the leak has anything to do with revising/softening or safeguarding the opinion. All of that can be horse-traded behind closed doors without bothering with the public's reaction. This strikes me as more of a personal reaction by someone who wanted to motivate the electorate for the midterms. It's more a court of public opinion thing.

Both you and MT15 are using motive to guide your speculation. However both of you have constrained that examination of motive to have been that of a law clerk.

Why?

I would point out that Justice Alito might have a most compelling motive to leak his own draft to insure that his vision prevails without it being bent and edited in a conference meetings by any of the other justices on the bench.

Alito is probably the most impassioned, if not fanatical, justice on the bench about this issue. He has been like this from the day he was appointed.

He gets to write the majority opinion and I would think he might hold the view that this opinion will stand out as the signature achievement of his life. It may be that he could not stand to allow even one word of that opinion to be altered.

What better way to fix that opinion in stone than to leak it so it will be more difficult for the others to modify it.

I cannot conceive a Justice leaking the opinion. That would grossly undermine their reputation and legacy regardless of anything they've authored in the past or future. Regardless of political leanings, the Justices all have egos to a certain degree. You simply don't get to those positions without being a Type A personality. The damage to their individual reputation would be mortifying.

 

[Bolo]

One things for certain, should they kick abortion back to the states to put it up to a vote or just flat out ban it. You know Louisiana will be one of the first to ban it and we'll never get another superbowl, final four, national title game or any other national sporting event.

 

[SamAndreas]

I cannot conceive a Justice leaking the opinion. That would grossly undermine their reputation and legacy regardless of anything they've authored in the past or future. Regardless of political leanings, the Justices all have egos to a certain degree. You simply don't get to those positions without being a Type A personality. The damage to their individual reputation would be mortifying.

I would suggest reading this Twitter thread which has been retweeted by SCOTUS Blog.



In the fifth tweet of that thread it says:

Historians have speculated that these leaks came from Justice John McLean, who authored the first bridge opinion before dissenting in the second one, as well as Dred Scott.

I hadn't read these tweets before I wrote my initial post, or had read your reply about it, I just happened to stumble across it while I was still thinking about how to reply to your post. Coming across that thread at that moment was serendipitous.

It's interesting that those unnamed historians that Johnathan Peters mentioned who have speculated about that 170 years ago leak of his draft, did it in a way that it almost exactly parallels my speculation about Alito being the one who leaked this draft.

One thing to take away from this is no one really knows who leaked that 1852 draft opinion, and I would think it will be unlikely that anyone will ever find out who leaked this one.

Your rebuttal of my speculation is premised upon the idea that a justice would never do that because of the consequences of it becoming known that they had leaked such a draft when what is more likely is that a justice would assume that he could leak a draft and never be found out for having done it.

Justices' are very tight lipped individuals who are experienced in not talking to others about things related to the work they do, so they would be better able to not expose themselves than most criminals would be. It's within the nature of human beings to think they can get away with misadventures and crimes.

I doubt we'll ever find out who did it.

 

[MT15]

Yes, if the person who leaked doesn’t come forward from what I have been reading it’s doubtful that we will find out who it was. I did read that the leak was in the form of a physical copy, so doubt there is an electronic trail.

 

[MT15]

Wow, just now seeing McConnell clips from yesterday. I don’t think I’ve seen him so defensive before. He was visibly uncomfortable when pressed about public outrage over no exceptions for rape or incest. I think he knows how radical that seems to a pretty large majority of people in this country. This gives me hope that this decision will hurt Republicans in the fall.

Also, interesting to see clips from Hawley just flat out saying if a Justice leaked, they should be impeached. Wonder if he will change his tune if it turns out to be one of the majority. What am I saying? Of course he will just pretend he never said it.

As for the motivation for the leak being to juice voters for the midterms, why do it now? You get the same reaction when the opinion comes out in June - which is closer to the midterms. Coming out now may actually blunt the reaction by November. I just don’t see that as a valid reason for the leak - or rather a sensible one. Of course, it could be the act of someone who is outraged by the opinion, but it was coming out in June anyway, why risk everything you have worked for to gain one month?

The more I think about it - I think it could have been a Justice. They feel immune, untouchable. And I think it was someone who didn’t want the decision diluted at all, wanted to freeze it.

 

[el caliente]

Yes, if the person who leaked doesn’t come forward from what I have been reading it’s doubtful that we will find out who it was. I did read that the leak was in the form of a physical copy, so doubt there is an electronic trail.

I don’t know, my company tracks what work items are copied. Hell, they fired a guy who downloaded a client list to a USB drive. I am sure that they can track this down over time, no?

 

[el caliente]

Wow, just seeing McConnell clips from yesterday. I don’t think I’ve seen him so defensive before. He was really visibly uncomfortable when pressed about public outrage over no exceptions for rape or incest. I think he knows how radical that seems to a pretty large majority of people in this country. This gives me hope that this decision will hurt Republicans in the fall.

Also, interesting to see clips from Hawley just flat out saying if a Justice leaked, they should be impeached. Wonder if he will change his tune if it turns out to be one of the majority. What am I saying? Of course he will just pretend he never said it.

I believe if the leaker is ever uncovered, depending on the side of the aisle, the person will be viewed as a villain or a Saint (see Snowden).

 

[MT15]

I don’t know, my company tracks what work items are copied. Hell, they fired a guy who downloaded a client list to a USB drive. I am sure that they can track this down over time, no?

I obviously don’t know anything about the interior security at SCOTUS, I am just going by people writing who know something about it. What I read indicated it wouldn’t be unusual to not find out.

 

[MT15]

Opinion piece, have only read excerpts, but want to read it when I have the time:

 

[el caliente]

I obviously don’t know anything about the interior security at SCOTUS, I am just going by people writing who know something about it. What I read indicated it wouldn’t be unusual to not find out.

If they can’t uncover the leaker we need to defund the NSA, and we all deserve a refund.

 

[coldseat]

I get all of the intrigue about the leaker, but the "we need find out who it is so we can tar and feather them" is way over the top. This isn't a matter of national security. Personally, I don't mind a leak here and there for the sake of transparency. I could really care less who leaked it and what their motivation was. The SC doesn't need to be as secretive as it is in the first place.