Roe v Wade overturned????? Draft says so

Do you agree wt the draft majority opinion

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 20.0%

  • No

    Votes: 28 80.0%

  • Not sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    35
BigRedBuster said:
It’s going to be interesting to see what affect this has on the mid terms. 
Click to expand...
I'd guess it's somewhat minimal. Even popular issues - which Democrats already dominate - doesn't really help them. Increased polarization, gerrymandering, and the geographic nature of the Senate and Electoral College mute a lot of the backlash. 

 
Without 60 votes, it will fail. Even attempts to alter the filibuster will fail. Democrats are smart to get voters on record concerning this; but it doesn't really matter much. 

 
Archy1221 said:
No
Click to expand...


While I think the leak was from the progressive side (see the 1st argument in this link) there is a scenario where one could argue that someone from the conservative side could have been the linker - see  below. 

This thought from the link. 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/supreme-court-alito-abortion-opinion-leaker-identity-theory.html

Scenario Two: A conservative justice leaked it, possibly through a clerk.

This isn’t necessarily the likeliest outcome, but of all the options this would seem to me to be the shrewdest tactically. First, it wouldn’t make any sense for a clerk who opposed Roe to leak this without the permission of his or her boss. It would not only put this person’s career in jeopardy, it would also put at risk a legal victory that conservatives have been working toward for decades.

However, it would make perfect sense for a conservative justice to leak this opinion, either themselves or through a clerk, if for some reason they thought one of the five votes was still on the fence to pressure that fence-sitter to stay on the team. Even if that vote was not on the fence, a conservative justice leak would make sense in that it might preempt any sort of last-minute squishiness, as Roberts apparently experienced in the Obamacare decision. The message would be: We’ve gone this far, and now all we have to do is the final step. If you back down now, everybody will know that you went soft and you will be a pariah among conservatives even worse than Roberts was after Obamacare.

In this possibility, the leak would serve other major tactical purposes. It turns attention away from the monumental—and likely to be deeply unpopular—ruling itself, and toward what conservatives are portraying as a dastardly and corrupt breaking of the norms. On her show, for instance, Ingraham complained that “the protesters are enraged at that leaked ruling from Politico tonight regarding Roe v. Wade—they’re outraged not about the leak, they’re outraged about what’s in the decision.” If the attention can be turned to the protesters, and not the ruling overturning Roe in the most forceful terms possible—which polls have consistently showed the public is against—then that is a political victory for those who realize how unpopular the stance is with the general public.

The leak could also serve the purpose of ripping the Band-Aid off. The possible political pain of the decision might be lessened in this way, because the public has their expectations set for when the ruling is official and it will be treated as a less significant story then. Critically, if a justice leaked this, it’s unlikely to ever come out, as there likely won’t be the sort of investigation that will force justices to divulge anything they don’t want to. Tactically, it would make some sense for a conservative justice to leak this news.
Click to expand...

 
The progressive leaker idea from the link above


 


Scenario One: A progressive clerk leaked the opinion on their own.


The Occam’s razor answer—and the one spreading quickly in conservative media after the leak—is that an angry clerk of one of the progressive justices leaked the opinion to prepare the public for the end of Roe hoping to potentially galvanize opposition against the decision and to take one last desperate attempt to change one of the five votes to overturn Roe. Again, this was the theory that animated conservative media in the hours after the news, which practically described the leaker as a traitor to the country:

Laura Ingraham described the leak in her Fox News show in apocalyptic terms. She called it “the end of the court” and argued that Chief Justice John Roberts needed to enlist the FBI to unmask the leaker, with her guests speculating that the person had done it to earn cult-hero status in progressive circles. “This is the worst type of attack you can launch against the integrity of the Supreme Court,” her guest Jonathan Turley said

According to this thinking, a progressive clerk would have been so desperate to try to prevent the end of Roe that they would risk their entire professional career on a frantic gambit with virtually no chance of success. It’s possible the person behind the leak bet it would generate enough outrage around the decision to change the outcome in their favor. But if a clerk was really trying to convince a fence-sitter, it seems like this sort of institutional attack on the court would have the opposite effect, convincing any wavering justices in the majority that they should not back down. If this was calculated as a gambit by a clerk, it seems like a poor one. Which brings us to the second possibility.
Click to expand...


The other 2 options:


 


Scenario Three: A progressive justice leaked the news.


Consider the reasons for this to be a combination of Scenario One and Scenario Two. A progressive justice might have leaked this knowing it was unlikely for them to be caught—as in Scenario Two—and in order to try to put one last final push of pressure on any potentially wavering justices, as in Scenario One. Again, it does not seem like this would work, but if anyone would be privy to the possibility that another justice might be swayed to change his or her mind about ending Roe by a massive public backlash to this draft opinion, it would be another one of the justices. Perhaps a progressive justice noticed that one of the five in favor of ending Roe was soft and decided this was the last best chance to sway them.


 


 
Scenario Four: Chief Justice John Roberts leaked the news.

This seems like the least likely of the four scenarios emerging because of how intensely Roberts has sought to portray himself as the protector of the court’s legitimacy. Still, it’s worth considering. Shortly after the draft opinion itself leaked, CNN also reported the full details of Roberts’ private deliberations on this case. As CNN reported:

John Roberts did not want to completely overturn Roe v. Wade, meaning he would have dissented from Alito’s draft opinion, sources tell CNN, likely with the court’s three liberals. Roberts is willing, however, to uphold the Mississippi law that would ban abortion at 15 weeks of pregnancy, CNN has learned.

This second leak around Roberts sounds more likely to have come from a justice with insight into his mindset than from a clerk, which would imply that it was potentially a justice who leaked the bigger news. Which leaves the door open for Roberts. Perhaps the chief justice so believes that striking down Roe in this way—and after Republicans in essence stole a seat from President Barack Obama by blockading his Merrick Garland nomination in his final year in office and appointing Amy Coney Barrett in the final months of President Donald Trump’s term—would cast such a pall over the court that it might not recover. In that case, perhaps he would leak the news in an effort to convince one of either Justice Brett Kavanaugh or Justice Barrett to join him in an opinion maintaining Roe in name only, while upholding the Mississippi abortion ban. Again, this seems like the least likely outcome, as the legitimacy of the court has suffered a devastating blow tonight that was not at all helped by the nature of the release of this news—an outcome Roberts surely would have wished to avoid at all costs.
Click to expand...

 
I'd like to start out by pointing out that we told you this is what would happen when McConnell wouldn't allow Garland a hearing, and when they rammed Kavanaugh and ACB down our throats. These people lied to get on the Court for a reason, and here is (a part) of the fruit of those machinations.

But it will not end here. This is not only not the end, it is the foundation of the beginning of the damage this Court intends to wreak upon the progress of the last century.

Here's a thread about how Alito is setting out the future playbook.


There's much that's still unknown about what Alito's leaked draft overturning Roe means. But one thing is indisputable: The man is a deplorable misogynist who clearly thinks of women as fleshy applicances instead of people.






Samuel Alito's leaked anti-abortion decision: Supreme Court doesn't plan to stop at Roe Alito sneers at rights after "the latter part of the 20th century" — inviting the reversal of 70 years of progress https://www.salon.com/2022/05/03/samuel-alitos-leaked-anti-abortion-decision-doesnt-plan-to-stop-at-roe/






Alito's language may be less crude than Trump's "grab 'em by the pu&&y" rant, but the logic is the same: If someone else wants to use your body, women have a duty to hand it over, regardless of how they feel about it.
The conservatives on the court continue to argue that pregnancy has no inherent burden on a person, a view that only makes sense if you simply don't think of women as people, but more as appliances that are simply performing a function.
The other aspect of this draft that should alarm everyone: Alito repeatedly invokes the idea that any rights established "in the latter part of the 20th century" are illegitimate. Which covers most of the rights.
The claim that this opinion doesn't threaten LGBTQ rights or the right to birth control is flat out false. Huge chunks of the decision are given over to arguing that those are based on bad arguments that should be thrown out.
Seriously, you can take this paragraph, replace "Roe" with "Griswold" or "Lawrence" and it would be the same argument. Alito does not hide that he thinks there is no right to birth control, sexual privacy, etc. None. Zero.
Republicans want to undo 60, 70 years of social progress. Alito basically said as much in this draft opinion. Anyone who says otherwise is arguing in bad faith or in denial.
This is what Republicans believe has more rights than a living, breathing woman. They are hateful misogynists, and there's no use sugarcoating it. (Credit: buzzfeednews.com/article/piapet…)

[spoiler for graphic image of an aborted fetus]







Many Abortion Images Are Misleading Or Manipulative. These Photos Show The Reality. "Most people don't know what a fetus looks like. Abortion takes place behind closed doors — for medical privacy and for safety — but I also believe something is gained by creating visuals for this pro… https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/piapeterson/photos-abortions-reality






One other thing that's crucial to understand: Alito explicitly argues that there should be no limits on state interest in protecting "potential" life. Which is an argument that could easily be used to argue against legal contraception or homosexuality.
• • •

 
Last edited by a moderator:


I'm sure she's terribly concerned. 

This is where having politicians who give hollow justifications that don't pass the smell test so they can tow the party line comes back to bite us in the a$$.

Bonus points to Justice Kegstand, among others, who used the phrasing "settled law" to lie through their teeth at their job interview (and pass) and now are planning to decree their true beliefs at the first available opportunity.

 
Back
Top