Roe v Wade overturned?

[flockofseagulls104]

Apparently, Politico is reporting that it got word that Roe v Wade will be overturned.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-AAWRg7O

I do not trust anything reported in the media, as you know. But it is being reported.

[Bob78164]

Apparently, Politico is reporting that it got word that Roe v Wade will be overturned.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-AAWRg7O

I do not trust anything reported in the media, as you know. But it is being reported.

Politico is reporting that it got its hands on a draft opinion from February squarely overruling Roe v. Wade.

This would be unprecedented. I have never heard of a draft Supreme Court opinion leaking before. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Apparently, Politico is reporting that it got word that Roe v Wade will be overturned.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-AAWRg7O

I do not trust anything reported in the media, as you know. But it is being reported.

Politico is reporting that it got its hands on a draft opinion from February squarely overruling Roe v. Wade.

This would be unprecedented. I have never heard of a draft Supreme Court opinion leaking before. --Bob

Well, leaks have sprung up everywhere else. Except in John Durham's investigation. Mueller's was a river.
But that's beside the point.

[silverscreenselect]

Well, leaks have sprung up everywhere else. Except in John Durham's investigation. Mueller's was a river.
But that's beside the point.

It's pretty hard to leak something when you've uncovered nothing worth leaking.

[silverscreenselect]

This would be unprecedented. I have never heard of a draft Supreme Court opinion leaking before. --Bob

Supposedly, Alito's opinion represents the opinion of the four other conservative justices, while the three liberals will be drafting one or more dissents. Roberts has not made a final decision in the case. That draft opinion is real; nobody is going to issue a 98-page fake opinion. But it's not final. The initial draft is circulated for comment, and sometimes the justices will tweak it to more accurately reflect the concerns of one or two justices. And sometimes, justices find they can't agree with the final decision and change their minds. The language in this opinion is especially harsh, saying that Roe was "egregiously" decided. Reportedly, the Supreme Court was going to overrule Roe in 1992 in the Planned Parenthood case and Rehnquist had already drafted a majority opinion. But Justice Kennedy couldn't go along with it at the last minute and Rehnquist's majority opinion became instead the dissent.

The prevailing opinion is that one of the conservatives leaked the opinion to try to lock the votes of the others in place, and that Roberts may be trying to lobby one or two others to craft an opinion that would leave Roe intact in some form. Word now is that Roberts would uphold the Mississippi law, which would ban abortions after 15 weeks, but leave Roe intact. He's obviously trying to get one or two of the other conservatives to go along with this compromise. Roberts doesn't want to be remembered as the 21st century version of Roger Taney.

The most famous instance of the Court changing its mind happened in Brown vs. Board of Education. The case was argued once, while Fred Vinson was Chief Justice and the Court split 4-4-1 (Justice Frankfurter would have struck down Separate but Equal in the DC case but allowed it to stand in the state cases). Realizing how sensitive the issue was, the Court then rescheduled arguments for the next term. Vinson died, and Earl Warren was appointed. He lobbied each of the former dissenters and was able to get them to go along with what became a unanimous opinion in the final decision.

[kroxquo]

On NPR this morning, long-time SCOTUS correspondent Nina Totenberg commented that if this leak is a fake, it is a "masterful" one and said that she is absolutely convinced it is real. She also said that a leak of this kind is unprecedented, at least in modern times. Also, she said that this is going to have long-term ramifications on the Court itself because until now there was an understanding of trust and confidentiality among the Justices and their clerks that this broached. There will probably be an internal investigation and if the leaker is discovered, it would be a "career-ender" for them.

[BackInTex]

if the leaker is discovered, it would be a "career-ender" for them.

It should be much more than career ending.

The prevailing opinion is that one of the conservatives leaked the opinion

The prevailing opinion of whom? You could make a case for motive on both sides. No one but the leaker knows who they are. At this point it is just a guess and guesses are being made up to either rile up the opposing side or to start the "championing" of the leaker. Guesses have no positive reason to be made.

[flockofseagulls104]

https://twitter.com/johnkruzel/status/1 ... 06/photo/1


The statement also included remarks from Roberts, who condemned the leak and said the Marshal of the Court will investigate the matter

“To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. The work of the Court will not be affected in any way,” Roberts said.”Court employees have an exemplary and important tradition of respecting the confidentiality of the judicial process and upholding the trust of the Court. This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here.”

[Ritterskoop]

I'm wondering if the leak was designed to help anyone during primary season. It could get some voters more fired up to participate than they normally would be in the spring (most voters only show up in November during Presidential election years, then fewer for the midterms, and hardly anyone for primaries).

Roomie and I voted early in the NC primary today, but we'd had that scheduled even before the leak, which I don't think affected our choices, but really, might affect a few in the new couple of weeks.

[silverscreenselect]

I'm wondering if the leak was designed to help anyone during primary season. It could get some voters more fired up to participate than they normally would be in the spring (most voters only show up in November during Presidential election years, then fewer for the midterms, and hardly anyone for primaries).

Roomie and I voted early in the NC primary today, but we'd had that scheduled even before the leak, which I don't think affected our choices, but really, might affect a few in the new couple of weeks.

This leak or the decision itself, which will probably be issued at the end of June, won't have much of an effect on primary voting, since most Republican candidates and Democratic candidates share the same points of view on abortion as each other. It could well have a difference in the general election.

[BackInTex]

I'm wondering if the leak was designed to help anyone during primary season. It could get some voters more fired up to participate than they normally would be in the spring (most voters only show up in November during Presidential election years, then fewer for the midterms, and hardly anyone for primaries).

Roomie and I voted early in the NC primary today, but we'd had that scheduled even before the leak, which I don't think affected our choices, but really, might affect a few in the new couple of weeks.

This leak or the decision itself, which will probably be issued at the end of June, won't have much of an effect on primary voting, since most Republican candidates and Democratic candidates share the same points of view on abortion as each other. It could well have a difference in the general election.

And the decision will have been given by then so if you're right, the primaries were not the motivation. My feeling is that whomever did it does not agree with what was written so wanted to get it out to put intense social pressure on a court that many see as influenceable by social media.

[Spock]

SSS>>"The prevailing opinion is that one of the conservatives leaked the opinion"<<<<

There is some tough competition, but bar none, this is the biggest line of bullcrap you have ever spouted here and possibly the biggest line of bullcrap ever spouted here.

It is an absolute made-up lie.

[Ritterskoop]

Yeah, with some time to think about it, I now think it was leaked so that the reaction would have time to ease up before the midterms.

I have no opinion on who leaked it, though; could see it going either way. People who say it was obviously a [xxx] or a [xxx], I don't get it. It could be either.

We need to get better at seeing other points of view.

[Bob Juch]

From my cousin's wife:

I'm not pro-murdering babies.

I'm pro-Becky, who found out at her 20-week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life-sustaining organs.

I'm pro-Susan, who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to realize that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.

I'm pro-Theresa, who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child.

I'm pro-little Cathy, who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust, and her 11-year-old body isn't mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal.

I'm pro-Melissa who's working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her.

I'm pro-Brittany, who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or physically able to raise a child.

I'm pro-Emily, who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction to ensure her safety and a SAFE number of fetuses.

I'm pro-Jessica, who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster's child.

I'm pro-Vanessa, who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat.

I'm pro-Lindsay, who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.

I'm pro-Courtney, who just found out she's already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube, so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding.

You can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:
I'm pro-life.

Their lives.

Women's lives.

You don't get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted. It's not about which stories you disagree with. It's about fighting for the women in the stories and the CHOICE that was made.

Women's rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!

Overturning Roe does not stop abortions; it stops SAFE abortions!

I copied and pasted. Feel free to do the same.

[silverscreenselect]

SSS>>"The prevailing opinion is that one of the conservatives leaked the opinion"<<<<

There is some tough competition, but bar none, this is the biggest line of bullcrap you have ever spouted here and possibly the biggest line of bullcrap ever spouted here.

It is an absolute made-up lie.

Obviously, none of the commentators or the politicians know who leaked it, but the timing suggests it was one of the conservatives. The draft opinion was dated February, yet whoever leaked it waited over two months. One would think that an outraged liberal would have leaked it much sooner in the process. On the other hand, this is about the time that the justices are drafting their concurring and dissenting opinions. Roberts seems to want to keep Roe intact in some form and has been lobbying to win at least one other conservative over to his side. The leak may have been intended to freeze the justices in place less they appear to cave in to public pressure.

[Estonut]

SSS>>"The prevailing opinion is that one of the conservatives leaked the opinion"<<<<

There is some tough competition, but bar none, this is the biggest line of bullcrap you have ever spouted here and possibly the biggest line of bullcrap ever spouted here.

It is an absolute made-up lie.

Obviously, none of the commentators or the politicians know who leaked it, but the timing suggests it was one of the conservatives. The draft opinion was dated February, yet whoever leaked it waited over two months. One would think that an outraged liberal would have leaked it much sooner in the process. On the other hand, this is about the time that the justices are drafting their concurring and dissenting opinions. Roberts seems to want to keep Roe intact in some form and has been lobbying to win at least one other conservative over to his side. The leak may have been intended to freeze the justices in place less they appear to cave in to public pressure.

If you don't know who leaked it, how can you know when they got their hands on it? You just keep making shit up.

[flockofseagulls104]

SSS>>"The prevailing opinion is that one of the conservatives leaked the opinion"<<<<

There is some tough competition, but bar none, this is the biggest line of bullcrap you have ever spouted here and possibly the biggest line of bullcrap ever spouted here.

It is an absolute made-up lie.

Obviously, none of the commentators or the politicians know who leaked it, but the timing suggests it was one of the conservatives. The draft opinion was dated February, yet whoever leaked it waited over two months. One would think that an outraged liberal would have leaked it much sooner in the process. On the other hand, this is about the time that the justices are drafting their concurring and dissenting opinions. Roberts seems to want to keep Roe intact in some form and has been lobbying to win at least one other conservative over to his side. The leak may have been intended to freeze the justices in place less they appear to cave in to public pressure.

If you don't know who leaked it, how can you know when they got their hands on it? You just keep making shit up.

It's just the stalker's opinion. Currently, he is entitled to it.

However, going forward into the utopia the people he votes for want to establish, his opinion would have to be checked to see if it contained disinformation. That will be determined by whoever runs the Ministry of Truth. What will happen if it is determined to be disinformation remains to be seen. Probably based on how egregious the disinformation is. The Rulers of Social Media have been doing a dry run on the process for years, but they don't have the power of the Central Government behind them. Their remedies are limited to what they can do within their own platforms. The Central Government will not have any limits.

So let him express himself now, while he can do so in relative safety.

[flockofseagulls104]

Actually, I'm not sure why we are surprised by this.

When I was young, Court cases were handled by the courts, and the press was fairly cognizant of that, in their way. Our system of justice is flawed, but it's the best that any culture has come up with so far.

But now, every important and controversial case is uber-sensationalized down to the minutia by the press and by politicians, and the case is tried in the court of public opinion, and those that don't like the outcome of the case never accept the outcome of our process of justice.

Why are people now upset that it has happened to the SCOTUS?

[silverscreenselect]

If you don't know who leaked it, how can you know when they got their hands on it? You just keep making shit up.

We don't know the individual, but these opinions are only circulated among the justices and their clerks, which is a small number of people in total. It's not like a major law firm where dozens of people can see a memo.

[silverscreenselect]

However, going forward into the utopia the people he votes for want to establish, his opinion would have to be checked to see if it contained disinformation.

Flock seems very upset about this "Ministry of Truth" but he hasn't said one word about how the "Ministry of Women's Health" will now be able to decide what medical procedures women will and will not have access to. Or that the "Ministry of Acceptable Personal Behavior" will start passing laws again prohibiting gay marriage and banning contraception. Heck, in Missouri, they want to ban travel to other states to get an abortion.

The guy who goes off on a dime railing about how evil the government is has been strangely silent about all of this.

[BackInTex]

If you don't know who leaked it, how can you know when they got their hands on it? You just keep making shit up.

We don't know the individual, but these opinions are only circulated among the justices and their clerks, which is a small number of people in total. It's not like a major law firm where dozens of people can see a memo.
[/quote]

Here is a bit of timing to consider then....Newly confirmed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The draft opinion was not leaked before she had an opportunity to see it. Hmmmmmm.....

[silverscreenselect]

Newly confirmed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The draft opinion was not leaked before she had an opportunity to see it.

She is not a member of the Court yet. She can't wander through their offices any more than any more than Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders can. Her appointment takes effect at the end of the term when Justice Breyer's retirement becomes effective.

[flockofseagulls104]

If you don't know who leaked it, how can you know when they got their hands on it? You just keep making shit up.

We don't know the individual, but these opinions are only circulated among the justices and their clerks, which is a small number of people in total. It's not like a major law firm where dozens of people can see a memo.

Here is a bit of timing to consider then....Newly confirmed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The draft opinion was not leaked before she had an opportunity to see it. Hmmmmmm.....
[/quote]

See, it's starting already in this little Petrie dish called the Bored.

[Estonut]

If you don't know who leaked it, how can you know when they got their hands on it? You just keep making shit up.

We don't know the individual, but these opinions are only circulated among the justices and their clerks, which is a small number of people in total. It's not like a major law firm where dozens of people can see a memo.

Are you willfully ignoring the point, or just ignorant?

The draft opinion was dated February, yet whoever leaked it waited over two months. One would think that an outraged liberal would have leaked it much sooner in the process.

You cannot possibly know whether the leaker waited two months or two minutes, since you don't know when they got their hands on it.

[silverscreenselect]

You cannot possibly know whether the leaker waited two months or two minutes, since you don't know when they got their hands on it.

Again, only a limited number of people have access to these opinion drafts. Those who COULD have leaked it had access to it in February.