SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

mrussel1 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

tbergs said:

bootlegger10 said:

static111 said:

bootlegger10 said:

static111 said:

Funny that some are more worried that there was a leak rather than established precedence is being over turned.

At this point we don't know who leaked it and for what purpose (was it a conservative or a liberal).  The leak, though, represents further politicization of the court and the process and that is a bad precedent.    There can be outrage about both.  

Wait there was a time when the court wasn't political?  Or did that just start when Mcconnel didn't allow Obama an appointment and then rammed whats her name in after RBG passed?

I said further politicization.  You can be against the leak and against the proposed opinion.   Obviously the leak is not as important as the opinion but still should not happen.

This seems to be a planned and controlled leak to help ease outrage and gauge response before it becomes the law of the land. This leak makes sense. The conservative side of the court disgusts me like never before.

Republicans are convinced it’s a democrat.  It’s possible but doesn’t make as much sense as an Alito clerk. 

It’s a draft opinion, subject to change.  Some extreme pro life clerk could have leaked it to try to lock in the 5 votes.

vote changing happens all the time (although it’s unlikely here) as dissenting opinions also get circulated.  You can’t really moderate your position after a leak makes your initial position public.

if a democrat leaked it, there is no upside.  There is a ton of upside for a Republican to have leaked it. When the leaker gets found their law career is over. That also points to a Republican.  There is far more passion and extremism in the pro life movement so that tradeoff may be worth it 

There's benefit for democrats in this.  It totally changes the subject from the economy and kick starts the fall campaign.  You could also argue it puts pressure on the justices to moderate the opinion.  

I'm not saying it was a left wing clerk,  just saying both sides have something to gain from the leak.  

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

tbergs said:

bootlegger10 said:

static111 said:

bootlegger10 said:

static111 said:

Funny that some are more worried that there was a leak rather than established precedence is being over turned.

At this point we don't know who leaked it and for what purpose (was it a conservative or a liberal).  The leak, though, represents further politicization of the court and the process and that is a bad precedent.    There can be outrage about both.  

Wait there was a time when the court wasn't political?  Or did that just start when Mcconnel didn't allow Obama an appointment and then rammed whats her name in after RBG passed?

I said further politicization.  You can be against the leak and against the proposed opinion.   Obviously the leak is not as important as the opinion but still should not happen.

This seems to be a planned and controlled leak to help ease outrage and gauge response before it becomes the law of the land. This leak makes sense. The conservative side of the court disgusts me like never before.

Republicans are convinced it’s a democrat.  It’s possible but doesn’t make as much sense as an Alito clerk. 

It’s a draft opinion, subject to change.  Some extreme pro life clerk could have leaked it to try to lock in the 5 votes.

vote changing happens all the time (although it’s unlikely here) as dissenting opinions also get circulated.  You can’t really moderate your position after a leak makes your initial position public.

if a democrat leaked it, there is no upside.  There is a ton of upside for a Republican to have leaked it. When the leaker gets found their law career is over. That also points to a Republican.  There is far more passion and extremism in the pro life movement so that tradeoff may be worth it 

There's benefit for democrats in this.  It totally changes the subject from the economy and kick starts the fall campaign.  You could also argue it puts pressure on the justices to moderate the opinion.  

I'm not saying it was a left wing clerk,  just saying both sides have something to gain from the leak.  

A week before the huge news Politico leak, the WSJ had a what is now a very interesting story about this case (which was very under the radar  at the time). WSJ seemed to know Roe was getting overturned and “guessed” Alito was writing the majority opinion. Since WSJ is known as a conservative publication, the assumption is the first leak was to them by one of the right wing clerks (or a family member, hello Ginny)  seeking to pressure the five votes to overturn Roe to not be swayed back by Roberts. 

Edit, with link https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/how-the-leak-might-have-happened/

I think everyone was predicting the end of Roe with the Mississippi case.  States were busy putting trigger laws in place. Only Murkowski and Collins were in denial. 

Cropduster-80 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

tbergs said:

bootlegger10 said:

static111 said:

bootlegger10 said:

static111 said:

Funny that some are more worried that there was a leak rather than established precedence is being over turned.

At this point we don't know who leaked it and for what purpose (was it a conservative or a liberal).  The leak, though, represents further politicization of the court and the process and that is a bad precedent.    There can be outrage about both.  

Wait there was a time when the court wasn't political?  Or did that just start when Mcconnel didn't allow Obama an appointment and then rammed whats her name in after RBG passed?

I said further politicization.  You can be against the leak and against the proposed opinion.   Obviously the leak is not as important as the opinion but still should not happen.

This seems to be a planned and controlled leak to help ease outrage and gauge response before it becomes the law of the land. This leak makes sense. The conservative side of the court disgusts me like never before.

Republicans are convinced it’s a democrat.  It’s possible but doesn’t make as much sense as an Alito clerk. 

It’s a draft opinion, subject to change.  Some extreme pro life clerk could have leaked it to try to lock in the 5 votes.

vote changing happens all the time (although it’s unlikely here) as dissenting opinions also get circulated.  You can’t really moderate your position after a leak makes your initial position public.

if a democrat leaked it, there is no upside.  There is a ton of upside for a Republican to have leaked it. When the leaker gets found their law career is over. That also points to a Republican.  There is far more passion and extremism in the pro life movement so that tradeoff may be worth it 

There's benefit for democrats in this.  It totally changes the subject from the economy and kick starts the fall campaign.  You could also argue it puts pressure on the justices to moderate the opinion.  

I'm not saying it was a left wing clerk,  just saying both sides have something to gain from the leak.  

A week before the huge news Politico leak, the WSJ had a what is now a very interesting story about this case (which was very under the radar  at the time). WSJ seemed to know Roe was getting overturned and “guessed” Alito was writing the majority opinion. Since WSJ is known as a conservative publication, the assumption is the first leak was to them by one of the right wing clerks (or a family member, hello Ginny)  seeking to pressure the five votes to overturn Roe to not be swayed back by Roberts. 

Edit, with link https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/how-the-leak-might-have-happened/

I think everyone was predicting the end of Roe with the Mississippi case.  States were busy putting trigger laws in place. Only Murkowski and Collins were in denial. 

Yes. 

That’s why I found the Texas law so stunning.  If roe was getting overturned anyway which I also thought why open that can of worms on civil enforcement? 

That mechanism has the ability to be weaponised against conservatives in liberal states too. Seemed so reckless and unnecessary 

mickeyrat said:

impeachable?

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-amy-coney-barrett-judiciary-dianne-feinstein-da274b6e8a86aa5435a0be6ce0a287c5

 

Abortion U.S. Supreme Court Judiciary Dianne Feinstein Amy Coney Barrett

What GOP-nominated justices said about Roe to Senate panel

By KEVIN FREKING

Today

WASHINGTON (AP) — In one form or another, every Supreme Court nominee is asked during Senate hearings about his or her views of the Roe v. Wade abortion rights ruling that has stood for a half century.

Now, a draft opinion obtained by Politico suggests that a majority of the court is prepared to strike down the landmark 1973 decision, leaving it to the states to determine a woman's ability to get an abortion.

A look at how the Republican-nominated justices, now a 6-3 majority, responded when asked by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for their views on the case:

AMY CONEY BARRETT, 2020:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, then the top Democrat on the committee, asked Barrett: “So the question comes, what happens? Will this justice support a law that has substantial precedent now? Would you commit yourself on whether you would or would not?"

“Senator, what I will commit is that I will obey all the rules of stare decisis," Barrett replied, referring to the doctrine of courts giving weight to precedent when making their decisions.

---

ABORTION

In abortion fight, conservatives push to end all exceptions

What GOP-nominated justices said about Roe to Senate panel

Abortion adds to Biden's all-but-impossible to-do list

'Roe' under threat, California leans in as abortion refuge

Barrett went on to say that she would do that for “any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else. I'll follow the law.“

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., asked Barrett whether she viewed Roe v. Wade as a “super precedent." Barrett replied that the way the term is used in “scholarship" and the way she had used it in an article was to define cases so well settled that people do not seriously push for its overruling.

“And I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category," Barrett said.

___

BRETT KAVANAUGH, 2018: It was Feinstein who also asked Kavanaugh, “What would you say your position today is on a woman’s right to choose?”

“As a judge, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. By ‘it,’ I mean Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. They have been reaffirmed many times. Casey is precedent on precedent, which itself is an important factor to remember," Kavanaugh said.

Casey was a 1992 decision that reaffirmed a constitutional right to abortion services.

Kavanaugh went on to say that he understood the significance of the issue. “I always try and I do hear of the real world effects of that decision, as I try to do, of all the decisions of my court and of the Supreme Court.”

___

NEIL GORSUCH, 2017:

With President Donald Trump's first Supreme Court nomination, it was Sen. Charles Grassley. R-Iowa, who asked point-blank: “Can you tell me whether Roe was decided correctly?

Gorsuch replied: “I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

___

JOHN ROBERTS, 2005

The late Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., asked of the now-chief justice, who was a federal appeals court judge when nominated: “In your confirmation hearing for circuit court, your testimony read to this effect, and it has been widely quoted: ‘Roe is the settled law of the land.’ Do you mean settled for you, settled only for your capacity as a circuit judge, or settled beyond that?"

Roberts replied: “It’s settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the Court, yes.”

___

SAMUEL ALITO, 2006

Specter, who was unabashedly supportive of Roe v. Wade, observed during Alito's hearings that the “dominant issue" was the “widespread concern" about Alito's position on a woman's right to choose. The issue arose because of a 1985 statement by Alito that the Constitution does not provide for the right to an abortion, Specter declared.

“Do you agree with that statement today, Judge Alito?" Specter asked.

“Well, that was a correct statement of what I thought in 1985 from my vantage point in 1985, and that was as a line attorney in the Department of Justice in the Reagan administration.

“Today if the issue were to come before me, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed and the issue were to come before me, the first question would be the question that we’ve been discussing, and that’s the issue of stare decisis," Alito said. “And if the analysis were to get beyond that point, then I would approach the question with an open mind, and I would listen to the arguments that were made."

“So you would approach it with an open mind notwithstanding your 1985 statement?" Specter asked.

“Absolutely, senator. That was a statement that I made at a prior period of time when I was performing a different role, and as I said yesterday, when someone becomes a judge, you really have to put aside the things that you did as a lawyer at prior points in your legal career and think about legal issues the way a judge thinks about legal issues."

Alito was the author of the leaked draft opinion, which declares the ruling in Roe v. Wade was “egregiously wrong from the start."

___

CLARENCE THOMAS, 1991:

The late Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, recalled chairing a committee hearing and listening to women maimed by “back-alley abortionists." He said he was “terrified if we turn back the clock on legal abortion services."

In questioning Thomas the senator said: “I want to ask you once again, of appealing to your sense of compassion, whether or not you believe the Constitution protects a woman’s right to an abortion?"

Thomas replied: “I guess as a kid we heard the hushed whispers about illegal abortions and individuals performing them in less than safe environments, but they were whispers. It would, of course, if a woman is subjected to the agony of an environment like that, on a personal level, certainly, I am very, very pained by that. I think any of us would be."

Thomas declined though to give his opinion “on the issue, the question that you asked me."

“I think it would undermine my ability to sit in an impartial way on an important case like that," he said.

he Latin term stare decisis refers to the doctrine of precedent, which obliges judges to make certain court decisions according to previous rulings made by a higher court in the same type of case. The purpose of stare decisis is to promote consistent, predictable rulings on cases of similar nature. While prior decisions often become precedent in the U.S., adherence is not absolute. To explore this concept, consider the following stare decisis definition.

Definition of Stare Decisis

Pronounced

ster-ē-di-ˈsī-səs

Noun

1. A legal doctrine in which a decision previously reached by a court is used as authority in all future cases that are based on the same basic circumstances or facts.

Origin

1782    Latin stāre dēcīsīs  (to stand by decided matters)

History of the Doctrine of Stare Decisis

The doctrine of stare decisis, or precedent law, has its beginning in 12th century England, when King Henry II established a unified system of deciding legal maters. In this system, referred to as “common law,” the decisions of the King’s judges in various regions were respected by the other judges in deciding similar cases. As the colonists came to America, they brought with them the common law system, including the principle of stare decisis. Over the centuries, the principle of stare decisis has also become known as “binding precedent,” or “binding authority.”

Which Courts Set Precedent

Within the hierarchy of the U.S. court system, the decisions of a higher court, such as an appellate court, or supreme court, become binding precedent, or obligatory stare decisis, on lower courts. In some cases, precedent set by a court of lateral jurisdiction, meaning a court at the same level, becomes binding authority, though more often, decisions made by lateral or lower courts are used as persuasive authority, rather than binding authority. This means that these decisions are used to guide the thought process of the judge, without requiring a certain ruling.

The degree to which a prior court decision is required to be used in other cases depends on such factors as the nature of the jurisdictions of both the prior and current case, the similarities between the facts of the prior and current cases, and the length of time since the prior decision was made. With this in mind, decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court hold the most sway as stare decisis, or binding authority, on other cases in every jurisdiction in the nation. Decisions made by state supreme courts are binding on lower courts of their own states, and are commonly used as persuasive authority in other states. Decisions made by appellate courts, whether federal or state, may become binding stare decisis on the trial courts beneath them, but must adhere to decisions of the courts above.

The Overturning of a Supreme Court Precedent

The U.S. Supreme Court is the source of the most decisions held as stare decisis in American courts. As such, it is a rare thing for the Court to overturn one of its own decisions that has been held as binding precedent. In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a landmark decision in the matter of Plessy v. Ferguson, when it upheld the state of Louisiana’s “separate but legal” doctrine, which allowed racial segregation in public facilities. This decision held stare decisis for nearly 60 years, until the case of Brown v. Board of Education was heard in 1953.

In 1951, a civil lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Topeka, Kansas, by 13 parents on behalf of their 20 children. The plaintiffs demanded that the school district reverse its policy of racial segregation. At the time, state law allowed the school districts to maintain separate elementary schools for black and white students, but did not require it.

The matter was eventually taken to the U.S. Supreme Court, which returned a unanimous decision that racial discrimination in schools is unconstitutional. This decision surprised most people, not simply because it struck down educational discrimination, but because the Court ruled unanimously on the seriously divisive topic. Since the Brown v. Board of Education ruling, the ban on racial segregation has become stare decisis, or binding precedent, on decisions of segregation and discrimination in all things.

seems some folks are protesting outside some of the justices' homes. 

good.

I was just wondering why they weren’t marching in front of ACB house but I just found out they’re scheduled to protest tomorrow at all their houses.  Thought she was getting off easy, glad she’s not.  Boy, to think I was fooled by her a little, I’m embarrassed that I even considered she may have told the truth about RVW

HughFreakingDillon said:

Cropduster-80 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

seems some folks are protesting outside some of the justices' homes. 

good.

Remember the Supreme Court ruled a 35 foot “buffer zone” around abortion clinics to be unconstitutional.  The entire purpose of that law was to create space between protesters and people entering the clinic for services. 

Anyone who says people don’t have the right to stand on a sidewalk outside a Supreme Court justices house is a hypocrite. 

plus those protests are way less aggressive than the ones outside pretty much any planned parenthood 

can’t have it both ways.  Especially since the Supreme Court put up fencing to create their own buffer zone to keep protesters farther away. But I guess that’s ok?

shouldn't a private residence be considered differently than a business?

It’s a public sidewalk in both cases. They aren’t on their lawns.  If they are, sure that’s trespassing 

what the public sidewalk is in front of is irrelevant 

If it’s within a gated community where all the streets and sidewalks are private property and owned whatever entity built the development and its not publicly funded, that’s different.  Then they protest at the property line where the public property ends.

ultimately it’s about the right to protest on public property. Any restriction on what public property is acceptable and what isn’t is by definition an infringement on the first amendment 

HughFreakingDillon said:

I understand the legality of it, I was more referring to how I consider it harassment to be protesting in front of someone's home. Protest at the SCOTUS building. 

I agree.  It's not going to change their minds on their opinion.  If anything, it hardens it.  I'm not sure I understand the desired outcome other than being a PITA.