Just Wow! Draft Supreme Court Opinion

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Charles Fout, May 3, 2022.

  1. Charles Fout

    Charles Fout Active Member

    Draft Supreme Court Opinion?
    I don't recall seeing that before.
  2. Charles Fout

    Charles Fout Active Member

    Politico EXCLUSIVE!

  3. Dustin

    Dustin Well-Known Member

  4. Charles Fout

    Charles Fout Active Member

  5. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    I speculate leaked by opponents who want to sabotage and prevent the overturn roe ....

    The purpose of leaking is to prevent, create pressure and resistance, protests before the official opinion is released in effort that the opinion will be folded or DOA.
  6. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    Yes it is - devastating. I despise men who tell women what to do with their bodies. I'd hate them , but they're not worth such a fine emotion. I read the document and I note that Justice Scalia is repeating the false line, often used by conservatives of all colors, that Margaret Sanger (Planned Parenthood) was in favour of limiting - or even eliminating the Black race. I have read - and I believe - she was invited into Black communities to help women in their struggle against the slavery and debilitation of constant motherhood.

    Yes, she did make some statements on eugenics that are deservedly unpopular today - but nothing like THAT. Here's an article (good source) on the things she really said - and the reasons she might have said them. Maybe Justice Scalia should read it. https://time.com/4081760/margaret-sanger-history-eugenics/

    This forum has been so full of the most horrible news lately. It's nobody at DI's fault, but I may have to take some more time off - till 2023 at least. It's making me crazier than the pandemic. I have other stuff a-plenty to do. Some days, I can't believe how much, and how good it feels.
    Last edited: May 3, 2022
    Mary A, Dustin and Rachel83az like this.
  7. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    Oops sorry. I wrote "Justice Scalia" twice. Not him. Should have been "Justice Alito." 10-minute timer got me again.
  8. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    While I agree with your likely guess that it was leaked by an abortion rights side of the debate, I think it's practically impossible that it will change the outcome significantly.
  9. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    There is a bigger concern here, and I hope our resident attorney will weigh in.

    By ditching precedence so vociferously, it screams that the court will do it again on other issues. Why not Loving v Virginia (interracial marriage)? Or Obergfell v Hodges (same-sex marriage)? Why not Griswold v Connecticut (contraception)? Heck, why not take a swing at Brown v Board of Education? If stare decisis no longer matters, and if the criterion used is whether or not the Constitution is explicit on the matter, why not toss out any inconvenient precedent? (And no, this isn't a slippery slope argument. None of those decisions are on any more solid ground than was Roe v Wade.)

    Up next: Republican control of Congress and the White House, elimination of the filibuster, and a nationwide abortion ban. After that, the sky (or hell) is the limit. Welcome to minority rule, folks. Shoulda gotten out to vote.
  10. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Oh, and in his confirmation hearing, Brewsky McKegger clearly stated that Roe was settled law, that when it was reviewed in 1992 in the Planned Parenthood case, stare decisis was reviewed in every aspect and was clearly upheld. Except no more, huh? Thanks, Susan Collins! Right again.
    Dustin likes this.
  11. Rachel83az

    Rachel83az Well-Known Member

    IIRC, PoC not actually being considered PEOPLE was also settled law for long after the Civil War. Until after it was eventually overturned with many court decisions. So, there is technically legal precident for this kind of decision, but that doesn't mean that the decision itself is right or just.
  12. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Protests started quickly as expected.

  13. Rachel83az

    Rachel83az Well-Known Member

    Good. From what I've seen, they're overturning Roe vs. Wade by stating that there is no right to privacy. That impacts a lot more than just whether or not women can get abortions.
    Bill Huffman, Rich Douglas and Dustin like this.
  14. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    First, friends, read the draft before you decide what you think. It is long but not too technically difficult and you will be rewarded (I think) with some idea of the future of this court's decision making. Also keep in mind that it is a "draft". It might emerge as quite a different beast.

    Second, understand that this opinion is not exactly about abortion. Rather, it is about, and opposed to, the recent history of what many see as "legislation from the Bench".
    The underlying idea is that the people in their states should decide for themselves what should and should not be allowed.

    Finally, pay attention to what this draft decision does not do. It does not confer "personhood" on the unborn. It does not make any effort at all to create any federally constitutionally protected right on anyone, born or unborn.

    Now, justices don't think like normal people. They tend to be legally consistent even if the results are occasionally uncomfortable. This draft decision signals the Court's intention to back away from creating rights that are not explicitly grounded in the constitution text or which are so fundamental and ancient that their existence cannot be questioned.

    So, as extreme examples, no state could re-erect any form of slavery because the Thirteenth Amendment specifically forbids it. Similarly no state can impose clearly excessive fines for criminal convictions because ancient precedent long ago outlawed it.

    The Court is also hinting that it probably won't uphold other federally protected "privacy rights" in the absence of federal or state legislation. On the other hand, it probably won't strike down such legislation where it exists.

    I am especially interested in what becomes of Texas' law creating a private right to sue anyone who assists anyone to leave the state to obtain an abortion. I think it will be struck down as an unconstitutional burden on the specifically protected federal right to travel.

    First impressions only, here, and keep in mind that this thing is still a "draft".
  15. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    There's a lot of buzz about whether the federal constitutional right to gay marriage will survive. That's a legitimate concern because nothing in the text of the U.S. constitution mentions marriage at all. Period. Domestic relations has always been the sole province of State governments, so much so that it surprised me that the Supreme Court declared that right at all.

    Furthermore sexual orientation is not a suspect class like race is. Racial discrimination is specifically forbidden.

    Here's something else to ponder...does Congress have authority to legislate on the questions of personal status other than to outlaw racial (or national origin or religion etc.) discrimination? A strictly textual approach would say "No." I think.
  16. Acolyte

    Acolyte Active Member

    Something to consider - while we have been pursuing "diversity" in representation in all walks of American life - we have not done so in the Supreme Court. 7 out of 9 of our justices...are Catholic.
  17. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Rich Douglas likes this.
  18. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    So, having both Alito and Sotomayor on the court means there isn't diversity?
    Acolyte likes this.
  19. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Penal "slavery" is a serious issue.
    Jonathan Whatley likes this.
  20. Tireman 44444

    Tireman 44444 Well-Known Member

Share This Page