Below is my column in USA Today on the leaking of the draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. I previously discussed the “stench” raised by Justice Sotomayor and how it smelled like mendacity to blame her three new colleagues. Now that stench is overwhelming not only due to the intentional leaking of the opinion but the defense of the leaker by many in the press. The leaker is being called “brave” and a “hero” by many on the left. While denouncing what they see as the Court abandoning its principles, they are celebrating someone who violated every ethical and professional principle in leaking this draft opinion.
Here is the column:
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor surprised many court watchers in December during the oral argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization when she complained about the “stench” of politics pervading the case over abortion rights.
The stench became overwhelming Monday night when Politico published a leaked copy of a working draft of the majority opinion in Dobbs.
Chief Justice John Roberts verified the draft’s authenticity Tuesday and launched an investigation.
The leak in the abortion case was a despicable act that shocked even the most cynical in Washington.
The draft opinion, if left unchanged, would sweep away Roe v. Wade and decades of precedent. The draft’s author, Justice Samuel Alito, declares, “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
This draft and the alignment of justices can change.
What will not change is that stench. The court has lost a type of institutional innocence in maintaining confidentiality through decades of hard-fought and heated legal disputes.
Court was island of confidentiality
Even in a city that floats on a rolling sea of leaks, the Supreme Court has long been an island of integrity and confidentiality. It was an inviolate rule that members and clerks do not leak either the deliberations or decisions of the court.
Indeed, for those of us who have covered and written about the nation’s highest court for decades, we never thought this day would come.
This was clearly a politically calculated act by someone who was willing to abandon every ethical and professional principle for a political cause. There is no obvious reason to leak other than to unleash outside pressure on the court and to try to push Congress to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act to codify Roe v. Wade.
If that was the purpose, it seems quickly realized as figures like Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., used the leak to call for not just the passage of the federal law but for killing the filibuster as well: “Congress must pass legislation that codifies Roe v. Wade as the law of the land in this country NOW. And if there aren’t 60 votes in the Senate to do it, and there are not, we must end the filibuster to pass it with 50 votes.”
It is doubtful the leaker expected to coerce a change in votes on the court. It is certainly true that a tentative opinion can change dramatically over the countless drafts sent between chambers. It is common for majority opinions to become dissents or to fracture in a plurality decision as justices work through the issues.
However, this leak makes such second thoughts less likely, not more.
According to Politico’s reporting, Alito was initially joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Any change in the vote would now leave the impression that the court could be manipulated through outside pressure. Indeed, if Roberts was on the fence, this leak, if anything, might push him back toward the right of the court.
Faced with such a raw political act, justices are more likely to dig in than abandon their initial votes.
This leak was a move directed at Congress and the midterm elections. In some ways, that makes it even worse.
Politics is the forbidden fruit of judicial ethics. Yet it is a temptation that has been resisted through the years despite the Supreme Court being located across the street from Congress in the middle of a city where politics is the primary industry.
Injection of politics
Sotomayor’s complaint of the “stench” of politics in December was viewed by some of us as a departure from the decorum of the court. She was referring to how the three new members were widely viewed as having been nominated to reverse Roe and other cases by sheer force of numbers. It was itself the injection of politics into the deliberations.
Before the argument, Sotomayor shocked many in calling upon students to campaign against abortion laws in anticipation of pending abortion cases before the court. She declared in October, “You know, I can’t change Texas’ law, but you can and everyone else who may or may not like it can go out there and be lobbying forces in changing laws that you don’t like.”
It now appears that someone with access to internal deliberations of the court decided to find a way to be an instrument of change in a way that will leave a stench for many years to come. Few of us believe that any of the justices would countenance such an unethical act. The investigation instead will focus on the judicial clerks and staff of the court – an investigation that will shatter the court’s collegial and sheltered culture.
One thing is now certain. The court will never be the same. There is a loss of innocence in all of this, a realization that the court is no longer immune from politics.
It is a moment like the one described by physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer at the realization of the atomic bomb: “In some sort of crude sense which no vulgarity, no humor, no overstatement can quite extinguish, (we) have known sin; and this is a knowledge which (we) cannot lose.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.
THIS COURT IS CORRECT
OLD COURT WAS WRONG
Or So We’re Supposed To Think
We are sick of pretentious libertarians telling us that the current court is constitutionally correct while the 1973 court was somehow an abomination.
3 members of the current court were appointed by a twice impeached, one-term president who never won the popular vote. So how does that make this court ‘more constitutionally pure’..??
Such an argument becomes more insulting each day.
Why is it “insulting”? Many scholars on both sides have said Roe v. Wade was poorly reasoned and based on flimsy, subjective opinions rather than the Constitution. And nice red herring about “twice impeached, one-term president who never won the popular vote”, an appeal to emotions rather than reality. I could just as easily criticize any Justice nominated by Bill Clinton (never won a majority) or Richard Nixon (some of whom helped decide Roe v. Wade). Utterly irrelevant point.
Ralph Northam talked about letting babies die after they have been born. Opinions on the blog say that he was only speaking about babies with sever deformities. One should take note of the word “may” in his statement. “[Third trimester abortions are] done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s nonviable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” Northam, a pediatric neurosurgeon, told Washington radio station WTOP. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.” With today’s technology why would a baby have to be born to know if it is was deformed when it can be known that the baby can scratch itself if it has an itch. Even bloodwork can be taken on an the unborn to see if there are any problems. The fact is that he would just let the baby die if the mother decided she didn’t want it. You’ve heard it straight from the mouth of an abortion doctor. “The baby “MAY” be unviable.”
Idiot, if a newborn is delivered alive, no abortion occurred.
If an infant is born with a condition that is incompatible with life after birth, it will die of natural causes after it’s born.
“the baby can scratch itself if it has an itch”
In some conditions, like total anencephaly, it will not be able to do that.
“The fact is that he would just let the baby die if the mother decided she didn’t want it. ”
You’re an immoral trolling liar.
“At the time, a spokesperson for Northam told Vox the “governor had ‘absolutely not’ been referring to the euthanasia of infants born after a failed abortion” and that he was talking about a “tragic and extremely rare case in which a woman with a nonviable pregnancy or severe fetal abnormalities went into labor.””
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-virginia-gov-abortion/fact-check-virginia-governors-2019-comments-about-abortion-bill-are-missing-context-idUSKBN27D2HL
Anonymous, please tell us why you think an abortion should be allowed after the age of viability. Please tell us that you are not in agreement with Senator Warren when she says that there should be no limits on abortion. All I’m asking is that you please draw the line on when an abortion can be performed. Please notice that I am not calling you a stooge or a liar. I am only asking that you to set us straight about when you believe the allowance of an abortion should be discontinued. I am just asking if you think there should by any advocacy for the rights of the unborn under any circumstance. Please write it plainly so that we can understand when you believe some restrictions on abortion should be applied. Now the question is, will she or won’t she?
His original words were a lot clearer and as a physician he wasn’t erring in his use of words.
Ti T,
There is no “age of viability” that applies to all fetuses. An individual fetus is either currently viable or it isn’t. For a fetus that isn’t currently viable, it might become viable later, or it might not. Many fetuses become viable in the 22-26 week range, but some do not. Some of those become viable later, and some aren’t viable even at 9 months.
Perhaps you do not understand that some fetuses have conditions that are likely to result in a late miscarriage or in death shortly after birth. These conditions include trisomy 18, trisomy 13, total anencephaly, and Potter’s syndrome.
Here’s one couple’s story of getting such a diagnosis with a wanted pregnancy, from Will Adler:
[note to Darren: this is an uncopyrighted Twitter thread — there is no copyright violation in copying the entire thread]
“In February, my wife Sarah and I decided to terminate our wanted pregnancy, at 24 weeks. I’ve since realized how common stories of pregnancy loss are, and how important it is to tell them. @AFettersMaloy’s piece inspired me to share our story. [thread] https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/04/26/tfmr-pregnancy-termination-for-medical-reasons/
“The 1st trimester was great. Sarah was tired, but she would be up for the occasional karaoke night, even after a long day of teaching. She ran a half-marathon at 11 weeks and bought a commemorative half-marathon onesie for our baby—she felt they crossed the finish line together. But things went south in January when we learned that we were both carriers for a rare, severe blood disorder (CAMT-MPL). We each carried one good allele and one bad allele for this particular gene.
“There was a 25% chance that our baby inherited both bad alleles, and therefore had the disease. Sarah was 19 weeks pregnant when we learned this. To find out if our baby had the disease, our doctor did an amniocentesis, withdrawing a sample of amniotic fluid to be tested.
“That same day, we did a detailed anatomy scan. The ultrasounds were stunning. Sarah cried as she watched the monitor above our heads, moved by the incredible life inside her, and devastated by the possibility that there might be something horribly wrong, despite the normal scans.
“We were told that the genetic testing of the amniotic fluid would take 2-5 weeks. That’s a lot of time to wait and wonder if your baby has a potentially fatal disorder. We took short trips each weekend to keep ourselves busy. We tried not to go down dark rabbit holes researching CAMT—after all, there was a 75% chance that everything would be fine. “Those are good odds,” people kept telling us. We went on hikes, went to weddings, and told friends about our agonized waiting. Sometimes, we’d burst into tears, imagining the worst. Old favorite songs took on new resonance.
“4 weeks after the amniocentesis, I got the call. We were unlucky—our baby inherited both copies of the mutated gene and therefore would be affected by the disease. “I’m so sorry,” the genetic counselor kept repeating.
“We lit a candle. We sat on the floor of our living room and cried for hours. We called our parents, and their hearts broke too.
“[statistical sidebar] My wife and I are Ashkenazi Jews (AJ). About 1/75 AJs carry our specific mutation. If you randomly draw two AJs and they make a baby, the odds of the baby having our version of CAMT is 1 in 22,500. This was some sh*tty luck. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21489838/ [A founder mutation in the MPL gene causes congenital amegakaryocytic thrombocytopenia (CAMT) in the Ashkenazi Jewish population – PubMed]
“We took leave from our jobs to focus entirely on our crisis and figure out what to do. At this point, we were hit with a sudden and firm desire to imagine our baby as a particular person. We found out the sex: male. We’d previously wanted to find out at birth. And we decided to give him the name we’d picked out in week 18, just before everything unraveled: Jordan.
“We went down the rabbit holes we wouldn’t let ourselves go down before, in order to figure out what to do. We spoke to a CAMT scientist in Germany and pediatric specialists around the country.
“We read up on CAMT. We talked to scientists about what life with CAMT would look like. We found out that we had the worst variant of the disease—a nearly-complete inability to produce platelets. haematologica.org/article/view/9816
“Without platelets, blood cannot clot. Any minor injury could have devastating consequences. Jordan would need a central line put in his chest soon after birth to facilitate platelet transfusions about every other day, until he could get a bone marrow transplant. And without a bone marrow transplant, he would “absolutely die,” one scientist told us.
“So we talked to bone marrow transplant specialists to see what the transplant process would be like. If you locate a marrow match (which is likely but not guaranteed), the process is brutal. We’d be living in the hospital for 6 or more weeks with a 6-month-old infant going through chemotherapy. Many potentially fatal side effects are possible. And even if the transplant went well, we wouldn’t be out of the woods. For about a year, there would be a risk of transplant rejection.
“After taking days to collect information, process, and talk to friends and family, we made the decision to terminate the pregnancy. For our sake, and for Jordan’s. It was the hardest decision we’ve ever made in our lives. Sarah was 24 weeks pregnant.
“We have always been firmly pro-choice, and are even more firm today; that doesn’t conflict with our experience of Jordan as our child, a child who we desperately wish we could have raised. We took solace in something that one friend said: “You guys are already parents, and you’re doing what parents have to do all the time—make impossible decisions for their children that their children can’t make for themselves.”
“That night, we went to bed and cried, thinking about our little family that didn’t have much time left together. We went to @DupontClinic the next day for a D&E, a 2-day procedure. Although those two days were inherently traumatic, we also received the most compassionate medical care imaginable. Before we met doctors or nurses, we met our doula. The first question she asked us was “What do you need from us to help you through this process?” Imagine if every serious medical procedure began with that question.
“The first step is to stop the fetal heartbeat. We signed forms indicating “consent to induce fetal demise.” We made arrangements with a funeral home to cremate Jordan. I kissed Sarah’s belly, kissing my son goodbye. We entered the procedure room, bracing ourselves.
“With us watching the screen, the doctor conducted an ultrasound. The shapes were unfamiliar and vague—a stark contrast to our last ultrasound, where we could make out an intricate spine, twisting hands, a beating heart, and developing brain structures. He looked concerned. He pursed his lips and asked when our last ultrasound was. “5 weeks ago,” we said. “He’s already passed, probably soon after your last ultrasound.”
“We were stunned. The doctor and the doula left us alone, giving us space to hold each other and cry—Jordan was already dead, and had been dead for weeks. Some people have said things like “at least you didn’t have to actually go through with the injection.” But we got about as close as possible—when we learned that he was already gone, we were probably sitting inches away from a lidocaine-filled needle for stopping Jordan’s heart. But there is some truth in this—we are grateful we didn’t have to experience that particular agony.
“One friend described it in an opposite way: “one last twist of the knife.” For 5 weeks we had waited, researched, and ultimately made an unbearable decision. And there was never any need, because he had been dead the whole time. This friend’s description also feels true.
“We spent the night processing with my sibling Ro @bucket_of_rocks , who had driven out to take care of us for the week. The next day we went in to “remove the pregnancy.” When she came back from the procedure room, Sarah collapsed on the couch. “I miss my baby,” she wailed.
“Ro picked us up at the clinic. Sarah crawled into the back seat of the car and lay under a blanket. For the first time in 24 weeks, Jordan was no longer with us. We contacted more scientists, confirming that CAMT probably caused the miscarriage—Jordan must have gotten a bleed that wouldn’t clot. Miscarriage may have always been likely; of the 0.02% of AJ couples who pass on both bad alleles, many may have late, unexplained miscarriages.
“[historical sidebar] In our reading, we found out that autosomal recessive diseases like CAMT in the AJ population are in part the legacy of Jewish genocide going back to the Crusades, resulting in population bottlenecking and genetic homogeneity.
dnascience.plos.org/2018/11/08/the-genomic-scars-of-anti-semitism/
“We are slowly picking up the pieces of our lives. A month after the D&E, we had a tree planted in front of our house—Jordan’s tree. We look forward to watching it grow. When the tree bloomed with white flowers, we carried out a ceremony that Ro lovingly designed for us. We gathered books and toys that we wanted to share with Jordan and other artifacts of the pregnancy, arranging them in a small bookcase in what would have been his room.
“Several weeks later, when we had the capacity, we went to get Jordan’s ashes. Through tears, Sarah signed her name on a form. Next to “relationship to deceased,” she wrote “mother.” We sat in the car in the parking lot, holding a tiny box. “Let’s bring him home,” I said.
“Walking into the house was devastating. We planned to bring Jordan home in a onesie that Sarah, her brother, nieces, and nephews all wore home from the hospital. Instead, we walked into the house carrying a small cherry wood box. We plan to conceive again through in vitro fertilization; amazingly, it is possible to test and screen 5-day old embryos for this disease, nearly eliminating the risk of a future pregnancy being affected.
“But as hopeful as we are about our future and the family we hope to grow, our grief is boundless. We loved Jordan, and we always will. We will always miss him. We will always mourn the person who he could have been, if not for the one errant nucleotide that shattered our lives.
“People tell us that we seem to be “getting better,” as if we’re recovering from an illness. While this sentiment is well-intentioned, it also hurts. Jordan will always be our first child, a child we loved and lost. “Progress” is not a narrative that feels relevant.
“We wanted to share our story because these stories are kept secret too often. As we’ve shared our loss with friends and family, people have reached out to us, holding back tears as they shared their own stories. But you generally don’t hear these stories until you mention your own. We hope that in sharing ours, we can encourage more conversation and more awareness about families like ours, whose hearts have been broken by the loss of a baby we never got the chance to meet.” [end thread]
At 24 weeks, when they went for that abortion, many fetuses are viable. But even if they’d chosen not to have an abortion and the pregnancy hadn’t miscarried, it’s not clear that their son would have been viable at birth; he might quickly have died from a bleed that wouldn’t clot.
Perhaps you want to force parents in this situation to continue carrying the pregnancy to term. I do not.
I’m generally against abortion after a fetus is viable, but I recognize that some fetuses may never become viable, and I believe that in heartbreaking situations like that, the decision must be left to the parents and their physician. I would not force a woman to bring a pregnancy to term only to watch her newborn die. I also recognize that women still die from pregnancy-related complications, and I believe that situations where there’s a serious risk to the woman’s health must also be left to the parents and their physician. If there is a difference of opinion between the parents, I believe the woman’s choice must rule, as she is the one who is pregnant.
You want me to draw a single line in a complex situation. I prefer to discuss the actual complexity, and where several relevant lines exist for me. If you cannot bring yourself to have a truthful discussion of the actual complexities, that’s on you.
“. . . the rights of the unborn . . .”
A fetus does not have rights. Rights pertain to an individual — neither more ( a group) nor less (a fetus).
Some of you are hell bent on sacrificing the rights of an actual individual (a woman) for a potential individual (a fetus).
In any criminal case, the individual is distinguished by his/her unique DNA. Something which each fetus has (which also distinguishes it from that mysterious clump of cells that was purported to be “just part of the mother’s body and discard-able like a clot of menstrual blood. It is a person in the beginning of its life no more less than the two year old, still in the process of aging – something that we are all, still in the process of doing. To disregard his/her standing in the claim to human existence is just a way to not inconvenience a woman’s carelessness ( this is not to disregard the tragedy of unviable fetuses only – rape there is always adoption).
“It is a person in the beginning of its life . . .”
A fetus has “rights” because it has a unique DNA? So before the discovery of DNA, it had no rights? If rights is a function of DNA, then pre-a few decades ago, nobody had rights.
The concept “rights” has nothing to do with biology, “viability,” or DNA. Its source is an individual’s need to act in a social setting. If you’re alone on a deserted island, the concept “rights” is meaningless.
The vast majority of criminal cases do not rely on DNA.
Some individuals have “unique DNA” and others do not. The latter might be genetic chimeras, or they’ve had a bone marrow transplant, or for some less common reason — such as: they’re conjoined twins, who are two legally distinct people despite having shared DNA.
“It is a person in the beginning of its life no more less than the two year old”
The Constitution doesn’t agree. The Constitution requires that ALL people be counted in the census, and embryos have NEVER been counted as people. According to your argument, frozen embryos in an embryo bank are people and should be counted in the census.
Often, an embryo has zero biological capacity to develop into a person. That’s why so many embryos die before even implanting. Of those that do continue developing, a single embryo might develop into 1 person, or 2 people, or 3 people, or it might combine with another embryo and develop into part of a person.
“To disregard his/her standing in the claim to human existence is just a way to not inconvenience a woman’s carelessness”
No, actually, it’s a recognition that embryos are not legal persons and that biology is more complex than you wish to admit.
ATS: When you rely on weak arguments from outliers, you miss the target.
That is correct…
Democrat Delegate from West Springfield, VA, Kathy Tran, sponsored a bill “HB 2491” in 2019 that would allow terminating pregnancy moments up to birth, post-dilation of the cervix. She confirmed as such in the following video @1:59. Northam waded into the blowup because Tran caused a tsunami of cries of infanticide. During a radio interview Northam was asked directly about the bill proposed by Tran. Northam said during the radio interview that he supported Tran’s bill. As is typical of Democrats, it was only after the video went viral and cries of infanticide were heard literally across the country, that Northam back-peddled and denied he said what he had stated. He then couched it in terms of a nonviable baby which had nothing to do with the bill by Tran. He lied, but he is a Democrat, and Tran is a proponent of ending the life of a baby, a proud signature trademark of Democrats which they deny.
The singular American failure has been and continues to be the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
With the striking down of the wholly unconstitutional Roe v Wade, the judicial branch will have taken the first baby (pardon the pun) step toward reimplementing the “manifest tenor” of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The next step of the Supreme Court in the “Reconstruction of a Free Market World,” to paraphrase Karl Marx in his letter of congratulation and commendation to Abraham Lincoln, should be to end the dictatorship of the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Board, repeal the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act, and return banking and economic central planning to free Americans and the free markets of the private sector.
That would constitute America going back to the future of 1787.
That would be the originally intended freedom, free enterprise and free markets.
That would signal the reversal of Marx and Lincoln’s “…reconstruction of a social world.”
That would be American.
___________________
“The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.”
—Karl Marx and the First International Workingmen’s Association to Lincoln, 1864
The next step by the Supreme Court must be to dismantle and fully abrogate the entire unconstitutional communistic American welfare state including, but not limited to, matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, Fed, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, redistribution of wealth or charity. The same article provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, allowing Congress no power to “claim or exercise” dominion over private property, the sole exception being the power to “take” private property for public use.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals, while it is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating the maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure.
Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.
Hey Everyone-let’s look at the bright side of all this. If all those wanting unfettered abortions move to states that have unfettered abortion law,- and all those preferring some limitations move to states with more restrictive laws, we can rid our country of those pesky “purple” states on those bright colorful maps! Steve Kornacki and Nate SIlver will be able to cut their hours in half! Who knows, maybe we will have Rainbow states too!
Red Rover, Red Rover, Let Turley come over!
Hey Everyone-let’s pretend that the political, legal, and human issues are simpler than they are!!
It’s so much easier than having a good-faith discussion that deals with the complexities.
So sorry to offend with my feeble attempt at levity.
Correction: So sorry to have offended YOU with MY feeble attempt at LEVITY.
I wasn’t offended. So sorry to disappoint.
Yeah, it probably went right over your head.
More of Turley’s paid hypocrisy, whining about the leak, but ignoring the substance, the outrageous disregarding of stare decisis and long-term implications of the likely ruling, especially since the backlash has been so intense and swift, Then, there’s the fact that this ruling will likely deflate Republicans’ hopes for taking over Congress in November. Turley says: “This was clearly a politically calculated act by someone who was willing to abandon every ethical and professional principle for a political cause.” Wow, Turley, are you ever full of it. Alito wrote, in the opening of the draft opinion says that Roe was “egregiously wrong”. Tell us, Turley, did any of the 5 “Justices” ever say or even hint that they believed Roe was “egregiously wrong” during their confirmation hearings or during interviews with Senators? Or, maybe, the “egregious wrongness” of Roe just suddenly struck them, like a bolt out of the blue when Texas passed its anti-abortion law? No, Turley each of them LIED on purpose about their views, because if any one of them had said they thought Roe was “egregiously” wrong, they wouldn’t have gotten a seat on the SCOTUS so they could shove their minority opinions down the throats of American women and those who respect their right to bodily autonomy. Talk about “someone who was willing to abandon every ethical and professional principle for a political cause” LYING your way onto the SCOTUS has to be far worse than leaking a draft opinion. Their consistent milktoast answer that Roe was “settled precedent” was intellectually dishonest and calculated to mislead the Senators who interviewed them. But, Turley also used to whine about “court packing” to level out the political bent of the SCOTUS as being wrong. The majority of the “justices” were nominated by presidents who LOST the popular vote. But, they squirmed their way onto the SCOTUS by lying about their opinions, which are counter to the views and values of the majority of the American people, who, according to Turley, are supposed to respect these people? Not working, Turley. These 5 didn’t just disagree with the Roe jurisprudence–they said it was EGREGIOUSLY WRONG, opinions they held when they were nominated. Failing to disclose these opinions when directly asked about them is the penultimate abandonment of “every ethical and professional principle for a political cause.” They should all be impeached and disbarred.
And, other than violating tradition, why is it “unethical” for people to get a heads up on such a profound change in American jurisprudence? Proposed laws and statutes are published for public commentary on both the state and federal level.
So now Natacha says that laws that have been on the books for a long time should never be changed. According to this argument the Jim Crow laws of the south should still be in place. Anyone with a modicum of common sense knew where the conservative judges stood on this issue when they were being confirmed. In their hearings they had an obligation not to discuss any opinion that might effect a future case that might come before the court. Many liberal justices have done exactly the same thing during their conformation hearings. It is truly amazing that Natacha believes that no elimination of the Jim Crow laws of the south should have been allowed because they had become established law. Established law should be seriously considered but this does not mean that laws shall be written in stone and may never be altered until the end of time. Bad law is bad law and should be subject to our scrutiny. That is unless you prefer your laws to be decreed from a the throne in Natachalandia.
They were asked their opinions about Roe, and none of them even hinted that they thought it was wrongly decided, much less EGREGIOUSLY wrong. I can’t emphasize enough the hyperbolic language of Alito, who was joined by 4 others who agreed that Roe was: “EGREGIOUSLY WRONG”. That’s as big a deal as it gets when disagreeing with the holding of a case. These 5 weren’t asked about future cases–they were asked about Roe, and they LIED–each and every one of them. You are just repeating some misinformation you got from one of your alt-right sources by claiming that misrepresenting their opinion on Roe related only to how they would rule in future cases.
Most Americans do not believe that Roe is “bad law”–most agree that the Constitution and Bill of Rights protect the right to privacy and individual liberty, which includes the right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy before the age of fetal viability. As usual, you just repeat alt-right blather and lies and attack me personally when you don’t have any substantive facts or logic with which to counter my comments.
Natacha, you touched on something interesting. You stated that abortions should be allowed before a fetus becomes viable. So the question of viability is the issue. Are you then telling us that you believe in a limit as to when an abortion can be performed? Are you saying that you are for limitations on abortion? If your answer is yes please tell us in writing that abortion should not be allowed after 24 weeks. We await your clarification.
SISTA NUTCHACHA’s “stare decisis” would have Hitler solidly in power due to his 12-year precedent.
What a ——- —–!
The left/progressives including Biden are modern Bolsheviks. There is no reason to be surprised at anything they would do including this leak to amass more power. They leaked this because their behavior has netted them extreme power over the last six years. Get ready for more of it. The beatings continue till morale improves. Bomb us till we love it.
And all the while, while they quietly and “peacefully” burn the country to cinders, consistent with the Bolshevik play book, they blame law abiding “conservatives” and “white supremacists” as the all-time biggest threat to their version of “democracy.”
We don’t know who leaked the draft or why.
Don’t pretend that you know.
We don’t know who leaked the draft or why.
The Kavanaugh hearings are still fresh in everyone’s minds, and youtube hasn’t taken down the high tech lynching Biden led against Thomas.
Past performance is a good hint.
Conservatives were looking for Pence on J6, chanting “hang Mike Pence.” Is that “past performance” a “hint” too?
Biden compromised and protected Thomas, else we would have heard from three other witnesses backing up Anita Hill’s claim. Long dong silver to you.
I seldom differ with the Professor, but in this instance I see no reason that all the proceeding of the court shouldn’t be made public as they occur (secrecy breeds distrust).
The Court is supposed to interpret the law.
The law is written for all to see.
The publics’ opinion shouldn’t be a consideration to the court.
The public’s representatives write the laws that the court interprets. Should the public not like the court’s interpretation of the constitution or written law they can impeach the justices’, modify the constitution, or rewrite laws all through their elected representative.
I understand this is a simplistic view, but so is the Constitution a simple document to understand regarding the duties of the three equal branches of the Government.
1: You can’t have honest deliberative discussion in public. Which is why pretty much every single FOIA law has exceptions for “deliberative documents”
2: Where are the intelligent and thoughtful Left wing law types discussing the legal / factual flaws in Alito’s draft (rather than just screaming about how much they hate it)?
There aren’t any?
Well, is that because the draft is perfect in every way?
Or is it because public release doesn’t actually lead to informative discussion, which thus blows up your argument?
I’ve written multiple posts about the legal infirmities of the draft opinion–didn’t you read them? The draft is not only imperfect, it opens a Pandora’s box of legal challenges to state laws banning things like same-sex marriage, marriage between persons of different races, contraception and consensual sexual acts performed in the privacy of someone’s own home. The reason is that each of these rights relies on the same legal principles as Roe and none of them is specifically mentioned in the Constitution, nor, according to Alito, “deeply rooted” in our traditions. One of the cases from the 1600s that Alito relies on was written by someone who advocated for executing witches.
, it opens a Pandora’s box of legal challenges to state laws
States are self governing. The only thing the Federal govt is delegated to manage are those powers enumerated in the constitution.
Again, we are the UNITED States of America, not a coalition of independent sovereign countries with individual laws. Our guiding principles are set forth in our Constitution and Bill of Rights that apply to ALL Americans, and no state can abridge rights guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which includes the rights of privacy and individual liberty. The role of the SCOTUS is to strike down state laws that infringe on the rights of privacy and liberty guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which is why the SCOTUS struck down state laws banning inter-racial marriage (Loving v. Virginia), the right to use contraceptives (Griswold v. Connecticut), the right of same-sex marriage (Obergefell), and Roe v. Wade, the right to abortion prior to the age of fetal viability. Because Loving, Griswold, Obergefell and other cases relied on the same provisions of the Constitution as Roe, states could pass laws outlawing inter-racial marriage (miscegenation), contraceptives, same-sex marriage, and sexual acts between consenting adults in private homes. Relying on this new ruling, such laws could not be struck down because, according to Alito, these rights are not “deeply rooted” nor are they mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
So now Natacha tells us that bad laws should be changed. In a previous post she said that established law is sacrosanct.
Natacha, the right to privacy has been written into law in the constitution. If every individual preference were written into law the time it would have taken to do so would be overwhelming. The things you mentioned about peoples practices in their own home have been covered under the right to privacy. The rights to these things are indeed in the constitution. However, your right to privacy no longer applies once you have decided to take another persons life. Yesterday you called me a liar when I wrote that Democratic politicians were in favor of abortion with no limits. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/06/2020-democrats-abortion/590701/. Please see paragraph two for Democratic politicians who believe there should be no restrictions on abortion. A person with integrity should be ready to apologize to someone she called a liar if her accusation is found to be untrue. I leave it to your judgement.
The Founders certainly did not consider a human embryo to be a person. We know this because they counted all persons in the Census and have never counted embryos or even fetuses.
A majority of human embryos do not have the biological capacity to develop into a person. Many die prior to even implanting.
Dumb argument.
I believe English Law forbade abortion. English Law is the basis for American Law.
“I believe English Law forbade abortion. English Law is the basis for American Law.”
During that period, John Locke had to flee England, after being charged with “sedition.” Some convicted of “blasphemy” were pilloried, had their tongue bored out by a red-hot poker, did two years of hard labor, and were branded with a “B.”
Now whose argument is “dumb?”
No Democrat endorses anything OTHER THAN the right to choose and that the decision belongs to the woman and her doctor. NOBODY is in “favor of” third trimester abortion. Being in favor of allowing a woman, with her doctor, to decide is not the same thing as promoting, much less supporting, third-trimester abortion. Third-trimester abortions are rare to the point of being insignificant and they are almost always done when the child is doomed to die due to severe and lethal congenital malformations or unacceptable risk to the mother of the pregnancy continuing, such as in cases of extreme preeclampsia, hemorrhage due to placenta previa, or HELLP syndrome. Such procedures are not done for the sake of convenience or whim, and very few states allow the procedure. But this is a very pregnant line of attack by the alt-righters like you who misrepresent the procedure as “partial-birth abortion”. See, abortion, especially the inconceivably rare third-trimester abortion, is just a hook to get the Evangelicals to the polls to vote Republican. Abortion replaced school desegregation as the hook to fire up the mob to vote Republican after Brown v. Board of Education was passed and white southerners took their children out of public schools and put them into segregation academies.
When are you going to apologize for falsely accusing me of being in favor of third-trimester abortion? You don’t know how to spell “judgment” correctly, either.
Greg in response:
My statement that secrecy breeds distrust is illustrative in your response about (Deliberative Documents), another words you can’t see sausage being made, knowing the ingredients may make you ill.
Second there are few if any intelligent and thoughtful leftist that can form a reasoned response.
Third why should the Court care, their duty is interpretation of the law not public opinion. As I said remedy is removal of justices, or modification of the law by elected representatives. There is no other avenue Federally as plebiscite is not available.
No, it doesn’t read perfectly.
Among other things, I disagree with his 9th and 14th Amendment analyses. I’ve calmly discussed this a bit with Daniel:
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/04/no-conservative-justices-did-not-commit-perjury-in-confirmation-on-reversing-roe/comment-page-2/#comment-2180689
You didn’t do very well. You made too many mistakes and drew too many assumptions.
George W, I agree. It is the publics’ business and ought to be discussed publically.
That is the Free Speech stance, Jonathan Turley.
https://www.ncregister.com/cna/colorado-parish-defaced-with-pro-abortion-graffiti-for-second-time-in-seven-months
“Colorado Parish Defaced with Pro-Abortion Graffiti for Second Time in Seven Months“
A Catholic parish church in Boulder, Colorado was defaced with pro-abortion slogans the evening of May 3, marking the second time in less than a year that the parish has been targeted with pro-abortion graffiti.
The incident at Sacred Heart of Mary Parish coincides with the revelation May 2 of a leaked draft opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court, suggesting that the court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, which would allow states to curtail or outlaw abortion.
Photos shared with CNA by the Archdiocese of Denver show vulgar slogans spray painted on the church, such as “F* You,” “F the Church, F** the State,” as well as numerous inscriptions of “My Body My Choice,” “You don’t speak 4 God,” and a symbol that appears to be an “A” signifying “anarchy.” Red paint was also used to deface a statue on the parish grounds.
Kenan compares fertilized human eggs to fertilized tortoise eggs and survival tactics.
Now this: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/liberal-group-protests-conservative-supreme-court-justice-homes
Enraged, sometimes hired, mobs outside the homes of justices.
Roberts, you should never have collapsed on ”Sibelius’ and revealed that your Court will submit to pressure.
Accept Alito’s draft now as the decision of the Court and end the troubles now. Abort the issue before a monster is born that you dare not confront.
But you are weak.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Highly doubtful that Alito’s February first draft is the current version of the opinion.
I suspect that is right. There also may be concurrences and dissents being circulated in draft as well. But I agree with Young that Roberts should get this finished quickly before one of them is killed.
If, at this point, the Court does not overturn Roe/Casey, nothing will persuade the public that intimidation did not work. And concurring opinions may say as much.
I think it still possible that some or all of the Trump justices may join Roberts in retaining a constitutional right to abortion but redrawing the line to uphold the Mississippi statute. Alito and Thomas would then concur in the result but write separately to say they would overrule Roe/Casey.
“If, at this point, the Court does not overturn Roe/Casey, nothing will persuade the public that intimidation did not work.”
Perhaps someone on the right leaked it for that reason. Perhaps not.
The fact is: we do not know who leaked it or why, and we do not know what the current version of the majority opinion is.
I try to always be willing to change my mind on factual issues in response to evidence. But some people don’t have that stance.
What about you? If the Justices testified under oath (say, in a congressional hearing) that their final opinions were not the product of intimidation, would you accept their word for it?
They are targeting Catholics at Mass this Sunday, Mother’s Day.
Abortion Activists to Storm Catholic Churches During Mass on Mothers Day
https://catholicvote.org/abortion-activists-to-storm-catholic-churches-during-mass-on-mothers-day/
Washington Times also carrying this news
Reminds me of the late 1960s…probably an old worn out protester from back then who is behind this tactic.
Faith based individuals such as Catholics will hold firm in their convictions. If they don’t they may as well drop the charade and not call themselves by the name.
“And Elijah came to all the people, and said, “How long will you falter between two opinions? If the L**D is G*D, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.” But the people answered him not a word.” 1Kings18:21
Turley likes to complain about the “age of rage,” but he regularly chooses to feed it. He insists “There is no obvious reason to leak other than to unleash outside pressure on the court and to try to push Congress to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act to codify Roe v. Wade.” That’s a conjecture, and one could as easily conjecture as law prof Joseph Fishkin did: “I have zero inside knowledge, but I will wager this: this leak comes from a clerk or Justice whose sympathies are with the leaked opinion, worried (in a slightly crazy way) about locking that majority down, and willing to take the extreme step of leaking to advance that goal.”
We do not know who leaked the document or why, and if people cannot accept that people on either side might have done it, they’re in denial. I hope they find the leaker, so we can find out.
Turley claims that Sotomayor’s statement during the oral arguments “was itself the injection of politics into the deliberations,” but politics had already been injected into the deliberations. As someone else said in a previous column, “The Republicans have spent 30 years doing everything they could to put anti-abortion justices on the courts. They did this openly, campaigned on this, violated political norms to do it, and succeeded. To now pretend that the court is not political, that their rulings will be based on just the law and not politics, is absurd.”
Here’s what Justice Sotomayor said:
“Fifteen justices over 50 years have, or I should say 30 since Casey, have reaffirmed that basic viability line [for when abortion is legal]. Four have said no, two of them members of this court. But 15 justices have said yes, of varying political backgrounds. Now the sponsors of this bill, the House bill in Mississippi, said we are doing it because we have new Justices. The newest ban that Mississippi put in place, the six-week ban, the Senate sponsor said we’re doing it because we have new Justices on the Supreme Court. Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the constitution and its reading are just political acts?”
And now we see that those new Justices may join Alito and Thomas to strike down Roe and Casey in their entirety, allowing states to totally outlaw abortion. We already see Louisiana trying to pass a embryonic/fetal personhood bill, making abortion a crime of homicide “from the moment of fertilization” and allowing prosecutors to charge patients with murder: hb-813.pdf
We already see state legislators wondering if they can make it illegal for their residents to go to another state for an abortion. I doubt that anti-abortionists will stop with striking down Roe and Casey and leaving it to states to decide; they will likely now work to make abortion illegal nationally.
“Turley likes to complain about the “age of rage,” but he regularly chooses to feed it.”
Turley is trying to put emotions and feelings into a proper legal perspective. You believe he promotes rage only indicates that your own anger might be escaping. Turley talks about Sotomayor’s statement, which injects politics. I think he is right. Maybe he shouldn’t have focused on her alone, but perhaps part of that focus is because Sotomayor doesn’t have what it takes to be on this type of court.
State laws preventing travel are part of the politicking we see. I cannot believe they can realistically exist in a free country. Such laws, however, are the type of laws Democrats have been pushing for other things, so I understand your concern.
Anonymous,
“ Turley is trying to put emotions and feelings into a proper legal perspective.”
Turley is exploiting those emotions and feelings to feed that rage he complains about. That’s the hypocrisy of Turley.
“ Maybe he shouldn’t have focused on her alone, but perhaps part of that focus is because Sotomayor doesn’t have what it takes to be on this type of court.”
He focused on her alone because it’s what his base will rage on. He is purposely doing what he admonishes others of doing. Hence the hypocrisy.
Turley’s last admission was that politically he leaned left and was a Democrat. He hasn’t changed from that position and solidly remains a civil liberties supporter. His base is those who support civil liberties, while his former base, which included the left, dwindles. The left moves further and further to the left and away from protecting civil liberties while Turley remains a fixed supporter of them.
Your self-serving arguments make you look like an idiot.
“Turley’s last admission was that politically he leaned left and was a Democrat.”
Do you have anything more recent than 1996?
The impeachment trial of Trump and I think he may have indicated something of that nature on the blog more recently.
You can either point to a specific example or you can’t. So far it’s, “I think he may have.”
No Enigma, I pointed to the impeachment hearings.They were relatively recent compared to 1996. I couldn’t pin down his most recent comments and said so.
“ No Enigma, I pointed to the impeachment hearings.They were relatively recent compared to 1996. I couldn’t pin down his most recent comments and said so.”
So in other words, you don’t know.
I guess you can’t read.
“I pointed to the impeachment hearings.They were relatively recent compared to 1996. “
What you “pointed to” is different than documenting it. No offense but much of what you say isn’t true.
Enigma, I am not an encyclopedia. If you don’t trust what I say, you are free to look it up. Don’t always ask others to do your work or go on a wild goose chase. Turley’s statements are public record. You can believe what you wish.
However, since many of your comments involve civil liberties, you should be the expert on them and know what Turley said or didn’t say since that appears to be part of your rhetoric.
We should be on the same side since I follow a man with political views opposite mine because he is a civil libertarian and intelligent. I can never figure out why we are on opposite sides, even on issues involving the civil liberties of minorities.
Looking up the things you say would be more than a full time job. It’s up to you to document your alleged quotes, not my responsibility to go behind you proving you wrong.
No Enigma, you can believe whatever you want. It doesn’t matter if I provide such data. It was provided earlier during the impeachment. You will remember what you wish to remember and forget what you wish to forget.
“ Turley’s last admission was that politically he leaned left and was a Democrat.”
WAS a Democrat. He’s more libertarian now than democrat.
Civil libertarians were in the domain of Democrats and Republicans, though years ago, it was more a Democrat domain than Republican. Today Democrats seem totally averse to civil liberties, worse than some accused Republicans of being years ago.
Turley is on the left side of the aisle and holds civil liberties in high regard. I agree with him. Many of our politicians do not because they don’t want to be transparent in their own activities, and they like their perks. Being libertarian and having a Constitution to live by isn’t a bad philosophy. Libertarians come in all stripes. Another name for libertarian is classical liberal without the craziness some unfairly attach to libertarians.
He feeds the rage on the right, idiot.
Quote the Constution’s position on abortion.
Crickets…
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
If you hear crickets, you should see a doctor.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…..”
See God? So did the Founding Fathers
Don’t see God? No wonder you seek the end of Life
“…..Among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”
The DoI is not the Constitution.
” shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained people.”
That is why Roe is such a fluster cuck.
The “right” was bestowed to the people by 5 guys in robs
A government that has the power to give you something….the same government power can strip from you.
The Constitution doesn’t mention slavery either, it just gave enough assurances to Southern states they wouldn’t outlaw it. If Southern states hadn’t seceded, they might never have?
We don’t know who leaked the document, or why
But we DO know that the Roe loving Left have jumped to the leaker’s defense, and that it was leaked to a left wing writer at Politico
So if it was leaked by a righty, s/jhe is apparently a brilliant mastermind, able to bend the Left to her / his will
I’m on the left. I haven’t “jumped to the leaker’s defense.” I hope the leaker is identified.
The singular American failure has been and continues to be the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
With the striking down of the wholly unconstitutional Roe v Wade, the judicial branch will have taken the first baby (pardon the pun) step toward reimplementing the “manifest tenor” of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The next step of the Supreme Court in the “Reconstruction of a Free Market World,” to paraphrase Karl Marx in his letter of congratulation and commendation to Abraham Lincoln, should be to end the dictatorship of the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Board, repeal the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act, and return banking and economic central planning to free Americans and the free markets of the private sector.
That would constitute America going back to the future of 1787.
That would be the originally intended freedom, free enterprise and free markets.
That would signal the reversal of Marx and Lincoln’s “…reconstruction of a social world.”
That would be American.
___________________
“The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.”
—Karl Marx and the First International Workingmen’s Association to Lincoln, 1864
The next step by the Supreme Court must be to dismantle and fully abrogate the entire unconstitutional communistic American welfare state including, but not limited to, matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, Fed, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, redistribution of wealth or charity. The same article provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, allowing Congress no power to “claim or exercise” dominion over private property, the sole exception being the power to “take” private property for public use.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals, while it is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating the maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure.
Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.
The Professor states the Court has lost its innocence. I think that would be a re-constituted innocence as the Dred Scott decision remains the nadir of SCUSA.
Still beginning with Daniel Ellsberg, the will of an individual as paramount to all the levels of government has been on a slippery slope. A leak at SCUSA was inevitable given that slope.
But this one reached a new low when the addresses of six of the nine Justices were published for purposes of demonstrating at their homes. My Faith tells me that there is no God-given right for anyone to put the life of another in jeopardy.
The leak will be fixed and as long as the justices don’t cave, then the Court will be fine. If the draft opinion stands as the majority, then this will be a major 10th amendment win. If abortion is as popular as some would like us to believe, then that will be reflected in how each state legislates. I don’t recall who the moron was that assured us that some states will ban travel to states where abortion is legal. No true conservative would support such legislation as it would clearly be unconstitutional.
There is zero reason to think that the Court’s current draft is the same as its February first draft. The Court should move ahead with the revision / possible concurrence / dissent process as it would normally.
You consider it a 10th Amendment win. I consider it a 9th Amendment loss.
Your “no true conservative” claim doesn’t actually prevent state legislators from doing what you object to. Bloomberg Law: “Using the same model Texas used in an abortion law known as S.B. 8, Missouri state Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R) introduced a proposal in December to allow private citizens to sue anyone who performs an abortion or helps a pregnant person obtain one, even if the procedure takes place outside Missouri.”
Your “no true conservative” claim doesn’t actually prevent state legislators from doing what you object to.
I never said it prevented them.
Missouri state Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R) introduced a proposal in December to allow private citizens to sue anyone who performs an abortion or helps a pregnant person obtain one, even if the procedure takes place outside Missouri.
A proposal to allow someone to sue…? I wasn’t aware people were prevented from filing lawsuits. As far as suing someone that “aided and abetted” someone committing a lawful act, might explain why it’s not yet law.
“As far as suing someone that “aided and abetted” someone committing a lawful act, might explain why it’s not yet law.”
I can see that you haven’t been following the Texas SB8 debate.
I haven’t. I live in California. Nuff said.
“ I don’t recall who the moron was that assured us that some states will ban travel to states where abortion is legal. No true conservative would support such legislation as it would clearly be unconstitutional”
You underestimate the radical right. Missouri is proposing just such a law.
Radicals as in BLM ANTIFA ?
It is not Missouri, it is one member of their legislature. You paint with too broad a brush.
There is another possibility –
Reading through the texts of cases available on the SCOTUS website:
– Kagan comes down on Law, she maintains decorum, she asks tough questions from both sides. Yes she, at times, will join Sotomayer’s but that is Not a given.
– Sotomayer has taken to ask questions with parameter to “just answer my question” hat define her thoughts as right, At some point Roberts moves on from her.
– Breyer may also want to defend the court rather than dismantle it as much as it could be.
– Roberts at times comes down on descent, not as often on affirming, and not on clear legal cases.
If I am right, based on my sense of the Justices self-alignment gleaned from years of reading the Full test of hearings —
we may find the court choosing integrity by more than 5 to 4.
ps …. not only the texts of cases presented can be found within a day on Supremecourt.com but also the full rulings (beginning with a case syllabus. The opinions are intriguingly wide open windows to the Justice’s reason – legal precedence and not.
The Supreme Court may once have been “an island of integrity” but that all changed when Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett intentionally misled the Senate to get confirmed, then turned around and swept away a fundamental right that has been enshrined in the Constitution for half a century. The Court is nothing more an island of politicians in robes. It’s credibility is gone. So the whistleblower committed a political act in a political institution. Alito and the signatories knew that the opinion would unleash a political firestorm. They didn’t care so why should we concern ourselves with the Court’s etiquette? BFD.
TIN, Thank you for a swift example of stench.
You’re sniffing yourself.
“all changed when Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett intentionally misled the Senate to get confirmed”
How did they mislead? They answered the questions, and their viewpoints were known before going to the Senate. Blame the Senators if you wish, for they controlled the queries and the vote.
“a fundamental right ”
What fundamental right?
This draft seems to say that the federal government should not be involved. Blame the individual state if you are not happy. The Supreme Court left the state in charge.
You are blaming the SC for correcting a mistake made years ago. Why don’t you pass a Constitutional Amendment?
My take on this is that we have no Constitutional rights that we can depend on. A right that has been recognized for 50, 100 or more years can be suddenly taken away with, “Oops, sorry, that was a mistake. Move to another state if you don’t like it.” That is, until a different President appoints justices with a different political bent, who will then go back and say “No, actually it was Alito who was mistaken” and reverse him. What a joke this Court has become.
Tin, in our nation the laws are required to be passed by the legislature not to be declared by any court. Why not convince more people of your position who will put pressure on our legislatures to pass a law allowing abortion. Regardless of the subject matter, law in a free nation must be written by the representatives of the people. You can find laws instituted by decree in Russia and China. The obvious point of your posting is your desire to have control over the rest of us. If Roe is overturned you will be standing at the fence in front of the Supreme Court yelling about fascist when you are the one hollering in favor of the fascist idea of laws being enacted by an all powerful centralized government without being sanctioned by the people. Your passion overrides your understanding of the principles of freedom.
Great comment TiT!
Quote the C. position on abortion.
Crickets…
Bravo, Professor! Excellent quick analysis and, unfortunately for the Court and the country, all too true.
In my car just yesterday, I actually heard either the ‘host’ or a caller, I don’t recall, refer to enhanced interrogation techniques which were the key to locating Bin Laden, which enabled our finest Seal Team to terminate him with extreme prejudice.
I wonder how long the staff who work at the SCOTUS could withstand such an interrogation. My guess is not very long.
What should be done with the ‘leaker.’ Ah, this is a very different question. As for now, before the leaker has been found (some say they already know who it is, or who they are), we should not detail their eventual treatment for their shattering the confidentiality to which they agreed when taking the job.
Torture is morally wrong.
That you fantasize about it reflects poorly on you.
Does anyone remember ever pulling on a hanging thread from a cuff or hem, and the whole thread line unravels? I hope that revelation of the leaker comes soon, and also agree with others that publication of a final opinion should be hastened, -before TWISTS of the real thread create an indestructible braid.
Remember, “a stitch in time saves NINE…”
Ethics and principles, as commonly understood in the West, are clearly alien to whoever took it upon him or herself to leak the opinion. As they are to leftists, generally.