US Supreme Court Discussions

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That and five bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Collins has become a parody of herself.

As I anticipated when I first put together the New Bill of Rights, the only answer is a constitutional amendment. Calling for Joe Biden to issue an executive order is definitely not the answer. That's what Trump would try to do. As concerned as I am Roe being reversed, that would be a solution worse than the problem, because it was start a slippery slope towards dictatorship. Easy answers are almost never the right ones. Do I see a path forward to the passing of a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right of privacy including reproductive rights? Not a swift one, but it still is the only answer.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Chief Justice has (surprisingly, at least to me) confirmed that leaked draft is authentic.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ss-release

[Frelga]

Collins has issued a statement which says: "If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office."

And? Is she concerned? Perturbed?

Is she ready to commit to joining the 48 Democrats in overturning the filibuster and passing the right to abortion into law? No? Then she can go take the Russian warship with the rest of them.

And V, as someone who would literally not survive a pregnancy, I don't have time for a long, polite, pointless process.

Screenshot_20211206-053925.jpg (46.29 KiB) Viewed 1957 times

[RoseMorninStar]

The privacy of one's health care, including reproductive rights, should be paramount. It's cliché, but if men could get pregnant, I am almost certain this would never happen.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It has nothing to do with politeness.

[N.E. Brigand]

As I anticipated when I first put together the New Bill of Rights, the only answer is a constitutional amendment. Calling for Joe Biden to issue an executive order is definitely not the answer. That's what Trump would try to do. As concerned as I am Roe being reversed, that would be a solution worse than the problem, because it was start a slippery slope towards dictatorship. Easy answers are almost never the right ones. Do I see a path forward to the passing of a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right of privacy including reproductive rights? Not a swift one, but it still is the only answer.

I know, I know, it's just: they keep cheating and getting away with it.

By all rights, the Court should have eight Democratic appointees and one Republican appointee at this point.

What Constitutional amendment would have prevented Bush v. Gore or would have forced Mitch McConnel from blocking Merrick Garland or would have kept Vladimir Putin from installing his candidate as POTUS?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The Sixth New Bill of Right (the 33rd Amendment):

Sixth (33rd Amendment)
Section 1
Notwithstanding the First Amendment protection of free speech, the United States and all the states have the power to regulate independent political spending and the financing of election campaigns by appropriate legislation.

Section 2
The provisions of Article II, Section 1 and Amendment 12 providing for the election of the President and Vice President by electors chosen by the states are repealed and replaced by a national popular vote administered by the states on the first Tuesday of November of the last year of the current President’s and Vice President’s term. Any person running for the office of President or Vice President is required to publicly reveal their tax returns filed with the United States Internal Revenue Service for the previous ten years no later than two months before the date of the election.

Section 3
Political districts may not be drawn to favor or disfavor any political party, incumbent legislator or individual. Districts must be drawn to respect the boundaries of cities, counties and towns. Districts must not be drawn to abridge minority communities’ ability to elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be compact and contiguous, not far-flung or disconnected.

Section 4

All citizens of the United States who are otherwise qualified by law to vote at any election by the people in any State, Territory, district, county, city, parish, township, school district, municipality, or other territorial subdivision, shall be entitled and allowed to vote at all such elections, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; any constitution, law, custom, usage, or regulation of any State or Territory, or by or under its authority, to the contrary notwithstanding. The United States has the power to regulate this provision to the full extent provided by the provisions of 52 U.S. Code § 10101 (The Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended.)

Campaign for a New Bill of Rights

[N.E. Brigand]

As I anticipated when I first put together the New Bill of Rights, the only answer is a constitutional amendment. Calling for Joe Biden to issue an executive order is definitely not the answer. That's what Trump would try to do. As concerned as I am Roe being reversed, that would be a solution worse than the problem, because it was start a slippery slope towards dictatorship. Easy answers are almost never the right ones. Do I see a path forward to the passing of a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right of privacy including reproductive rights? Not a swift one, but it still is the only answer.

I know, I know, it's just: they keep cheating and getting away with it.

By all rights, the Court should have eight Democratic appointees and one Republican appointee at this point.

I clicked the like button on your response, V, but I still feel like this:



Although I've never been quite convinced by Patrick Stewart's delivery in that scene.

[N.E. Brigand]

Whoever leaked it, I'm glad and would welcome more Supreme Court leaks. (Some interesting history on past leaks here and here.)

Also the outrage from Republicans about the leak is hilarious (per Matt Walsh, the "leak is an an actual insurrection"; Matt Schlapp says that when Republicans again control Congress, there should be "impeachment implications ... for potential violation of a Justice's oath," and Ben Shapiro feels the leak is intended "to create threat to the life and limb of any justice who signs onto the majority opinion" and deserves "prosecution to the full extent of the law") and, as The Daily Show notes, ironic: "Weird, it's almost like those Supreme Court justices think there's some kind of right to make decisions in private."

Someone who agrees with me: The Leak Is Good, Actually (New York Magazine)

The one thing the Court apparently can’t control, however, is how much the public knows about its deliberations. The leaker — whoever it is and whatever their motivations — has done a public service, both by giving Americans who support reproductive rights a head start on mobilizing for a post-Roe legal order and by damaging the Court’s mystical aura of legitimacy at precisely the moment when it deserves to be damaged. If the Court is going to function as a partisan institution, then the public should know at least as much about how it works as we know about any other branch of government.

[RoseMorninStar]

Adam Liptak, NYTimes’s Supreme Court Reporter wrote a column today and it's his opinion (and that of several others) that it was likely leaked by conservative justices to lock in votes.

A Supreme Court in Disarray After an Extraordinary Breach
The leak of a draft majority opinion overruling Roe v. Wade raises questions about motives, methods and whether defections are still possible.

(...)

The point of the leak, then, may have been to lock in the five-justice conservative majority.

“I would be wary of jumping to a conclusion that the leaker is necessarily someone who opposes overturning Roe v. Wade,” said Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine.

Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said the source was probably trying to increase the price of switching positions.

[N.E. Brigand]

Some observers are now pointing out that a Wall Street Journal editorial last week speculated that:

(1) Roe v. Wade was likely to be overturned, but a "ferocious lobbying campaign" was underway to sway Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett;
(2) Chief Justice Roberts wanted to find a compromise (CNN reported something similar late last night) to avoid political backlash; and
(3) Justice Alito was likely to write the final 5-4 decision.

Does that suggest that details about the deliberations, if not the draft itself, have already been circulating among conservatives?

[N.E. Brigand]

It was reported just a few days ago that Peter Brimelow, the founder and owner of the racist VDARE website, is a Fox News employee who reports directly to Rupert Murdoch.

Today, Brimelow tweeted out his glee about Roe being overturned, and added: "Next stop Brown vs. Board!"

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I am constantly amazed at the lengths that people on the left will go to pretend that it only people on the right that do bad things.

[N.E. Brigand]

I would never say "only," but even just in the context of the two "bad things" under discussion at the moment:

1. In my opinion, Republicans are much likelier than Democrats to curtail people's rights, which is what Alito's opinion would do. It's effectively a violent attack on women.

2. I believe both sides are equally likely to share private documents with the free press. Is that a bad thing? As I said, I favor openness and thus welcome the release of draft opinions and details of deliberations. The Supreme Court pretends to different from the other branches of government. I don't believe it is, and I think it would be healthier for society if the public understood that. On the other hand, Matt Yglesias, for instance, argues that we need more backroom deals whose details remain secret. He thinks more would get accomplished that way. I can understand that opinion, even if I don't share it. In this case, I think the odds are about 50/50 that this release came from the right or the left. Given that there are fewer liberal justices, that means on an individual basis, it's likelier to have been a liberal clerk. (One good thing for the left from the release is that abortion providers have time to prepare for what's coming.) But I think it's important to note there are good reasons to think it could have come from the right, and it is remarkable how quickly the right settled on the release as being more important than the decision, so much so that I will entertain the possibility that it was coordinated specifically for that reason.

[RoseMorninStar]

I don't think any one 'side' has a corner on finger-pointing. Or wrong-doing. However, I live in a very Republican area and I am endlessly told that the Republican party is the 'responsible' party of 'grown-ups' and one of 'family values' (while Democrats are the opposite). I'm not buying it.

[Frelga]

We must be balanced. After all, while the right is winning the fight to strip access to life-saving care, violate religious freedom, and endanger the lives of millions of Americans, the left, too...

Um.

*checks notes*

Ah. The left continues to sit on its ass and talks about trusting in processes and systems that were designed to be discriminatory from the start and have been largely demolished by the right except where it benefits the reactionary agenda.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

If the initial draft opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius had been leaked there would almost certainly be know ACA for the Pat ten years and many millions of people would have been without health care and many of them would have died or suffered unnecessarily.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

And if so-called progressives had not refused to vote for Hillary Clinton for reasons that were - to put it mildly - self-defeating, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

[Frelga]

It all comes down to privilege. Many well-off voters who think of themselves as progressive believed they were going to be ok no matter who was in power. Or lack thereof - many marginalized voters believed they were going to be screwed no matter what.

But they were all of them deceived.

[N.E. Brigand]

If the initial draft opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius had been leaked, there would almost certainly be no ACA for the past ten years, and many millions of people would have been without health care, and many of them would have died or suffered unnecessarily.

I agree that it likely what would have happened. Score a point for the secrecy side vs. the openness side in that debate.

(And that's one reason to suppose that Alito's draft was leaked by a conservative trying to keep Roberts from succeeding in getting Barrett or Kavanaugh to defect, which the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial last week appears to have indicated he was trying to do. The right remembers what happened ten years ago! If in the final decision they don't side with Alito, they will be painted as "traitors" by the right.)