Below is my column in the Hill on the leaking of the draft opinion on abortion from the Supreme Court. While lionizing the leaker, media and political figures have ratcheted up their rhetoric to “burn down the Court” or to pack it with reliable liberal votes. Because these pundits disagree with the constitutional interpretation, they are now suggesting that the entire institution is illegitimate.
Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick wrote “we need to be focusing on the legitimacy of the court itself” while CNN’s chief political analyst Gloria Borger suggested that the Supreme Court Justices were “just a bunch of politicians in robes.” Historian Jon Meacham declared “If you had any reservations about the system’s capacity to deliver justice, they have just been affirmed.” Because the Court has adopted an opposing constitutional interpretation, we are once again deluged from calls ranging from packing the Court to burning it down. In this environment, the White House could not even muster enough courage to denounce protesters descending on the homes of justices to harass them. While the legitimacy of the Court is questioned, the targeting of justices and their families is not.
Here is the column:
Five seemingly perfunctory words from the Supreme Court — “The Court has no comment” — hit like a thunderclap late Monday night. Politico had just posted a draft of a majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade and its progeny in the blockbuster abortion case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
Most court observers surely must have hoped this was an elaborate hoax, that someone had not shattered every legal and judicial ethical rule by leaking a draft opinion. But there was no denial from the court.
The draft opinion is subject to change and may indeed have already changed in both its analysis and support. Draft majority opinions have a nasty habit of becoming dissents or fracturing into pieces as justices work through the details on a case.
The opinion was written by Associate Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. If unchanged, it would declare 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.”
Such a ruling would return the question of reproductive rights to the states. Most would likely continue to support the right, but it would become a matter for each state to resolve through their own democratic process.
The indeterminacy of the draft and uncertainty of the future did not stop instant, dystopian predictions. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) immediately declared: “So, this would appear to be an invitation to have, you know, Handmaid’s Tale type anti-feminist regulation and legislation all over the country.”
The final language and meaning of the decision is literally yet to be written. What is clear is that the court itself has been hit with one of the greatest scandals in its history, and certainly the greatest crisis faced by Chief Justice John Roberts in his tenure.
Even in a city that traffics in leaks from every agency and every corner of government, this was an unspeakably unethical act. The Supreme Court deals with transformative cases that drive to the very heart of our political, cultural and religious divisions, yet justices and clerks have maintained a tradition of strict civility and confidentiality on such drafts.
So what changed?
We changed.
We do not know what motivated this leaker other than to unleash a public and political firestorm. The assumption is that the individual wanted to pressure the court to reconsider its purported path, and to push Congress to pass pending legislation to codify Roe. Yet, this act is such an attack on the very foundation of the court that it is dangerous to assume a specific motivation other than disruption.
What is clear is that the court has become a tragic anachronism in our age of rage: an institution that relied on the integrity and ethics of its members and staff at a time when such values are treated as naive. It relied on justices and clerks alike remaining bound to the institution and to each other by a constitutional faith.
But we are living in an age of constitutional atheism, so it is only surprising that it took this long. For years, politicians, pundits and academics have called for reckless political action against the court.
Many Democrats in Congress have pledged to achieve political goals “by any means necessary,” including packing or gutting the court. Democratic leaders have hammered away at the court and its members, demanding that the court adhere to political demands or face institutional disaster. The threats have grown increasingly raw and reckless as politicians sought to outdo each other in their attacks. In the age of rage, restraint is a lethal liability.
The message has been repeated like a drumbeat: The ends justify the means.
Recently, Roberts even went public with a warning over “inappropriate political influence” affecting the court. Yet, the day before this leak, the court itself defied critics who portrayed it as hopelessly and dysfunctionally divided with another unanimous decision. It ruled in a major case on speech that Boston could not discriminate against a religious organization that wanted to hoist a flag outside of its city hall. It spoke with one voice in defense of shared constitutional values.
Given the relentless calls from political leaders, we may have been naive to think that a staff member or clerk would not yield to the same “ends justify the means” rationale. Former Justice Louis Brandeis once warned that “Our government … teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”
With our leaders continually expressing utter contempt for the court and its traditions, it is hardly surprising that such traditions lose meaning for some working in the court itself. That did not happen overnight, and it really cannot be dismissed as the act of a single rogue employee. It was a collective effort by those who bred contempt for our legal institutions and values. This is not a crisis of the court. It is a crisis of faith.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
It needs to be shouted loud and often that Jen Psaki is a disgusting, contemptible piece of arrogant sh*t who needs her smug smirk smacked right off her ugly face.
No, it doesn’t, and your desire to “smack” someone indicates that you have anger issues.
Republican rhetoric is increasingly violent – because democrats have normalized violent political rhetoric
The abortion debate begs the question: What is the role, the purpose and the raison d’être of women, of females?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Men persist.
Women make the men who persist.
____________________________
The differences between men and women, real or imagined, are not sufficient to have changed the course of the history of the persistence of men.
The persistence of men does not require female participation; it merely requires replication of the men who persist.
God Bless women.
Is it accretive to the persistence of men, to acquiesce to incoherence and hysteria?
What is the raison d’être of women?
What is the conviction and resolve of men?
That you think women’s role is to “make the men who persist” makes you a misogynist.
TWO PER REGION
Rational Sized – Mission Proportional Sized – Regional Sized – Original Intent
____________________________________________________________
“Why Do 9 Justices Serve on the Supreme Court?” (excerpted)
“The Constitution doesn’t specify how many justices should serve on the Court—in fact, that number fluctuated until 1869.”
Only since 1869 have there consistently been nine justices appointed to the Supreme Court. Before that, Congress routinely changed the number of justices to achieve its own partisan political goals, resulting in as few as five Supreme Court justices required by law under John Adams to as many as 10 under Abraham Lincoln.
…
The U.S. Constitution is silent about how many justices should sit on the Supreme Court. In fact, the office of Chief Justice only exists because it’s mentioned in the Constitution under Senate rules for impeachment proceedings (“When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside…”).
It’s Congress, not the Constitution, that decides the size of the Supreme Court, which it did for the first time under the Judiciary Act of 1789.
When George Washington signed the Act into law, he set the number of Supreme Court justices at six.
Supreme Court justices in those days were also appointed to sit on federal circuit courts, of which there were 13 in 1789.
Each circuit court would be presided over by three judges: one district court judge from the state and two Supreme Court justices.
“The justices had to spend almost the entire year traveling,” says Maeva Marcus, a research professor at the George Washington University Law School and director of its Institute for Constitutional History. “And the traveling conditions were horrendous.”
To limit the geographical area traveled by the justices, the Judiciary Act of 1789 divided the circuit courts into three regions: Eastern, Middle and Southern.
The reason that the first Supreme Court had six justices was simple—so that two of them could preside in each of the three regions.
…
– history.com
2022 is turning out to be a great year. Musk buys Twitter, the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade, and the Republicans gain control of Congress. Hallelujah. The wailing from the left is a beautiful sound.
I forgot to add Russia defeating NATO in Ukraine while the EU implodes…that’s my favorite.
That you like Russia’s invasion of a foreign country and the murder lots of civilians is … disgusting.
In the same way we’re proud of WW2 I’m proud of Russia now. They are fighting evil and the West are the greatest evil in the world today. We are the murderers. We are the ones that started this war and I hope we lose badly. You and your ignorant, violent ilk are losing the war you started…thank God.
These are all indeed very good things. But don’t forget to mourn for the irreparable damage the left is doing daily to our institutions, our people, and our way of life.
I’m done mourning. The nazis in our country are going to get what’s coming to them. They have reaped a whirlwind.
The damage is not irreparable.
Sometimes we learn from history.
Sometimes we have to fail to learn.
Jonathan: When Alito’s draft opinion was leaked Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley declared it was an “assault” by the “left”. McConnell echoed the false claim alleging the leak was “yet another escalation by the radical left’s ongoing campaign to bully and intimidate federal judges…”. You intimated the same in your 5/2 post and this one. All of this but not backed up by any evidence.
The leaked draft opinion did not start the downward spiral in the Court’s reputation. Recent polls going back to Jan. and Feb. show the public has an increasing negative view of the Court. And why is that? It started when Mitch McConnell politicized the nomination process by refusing to give Judge Garland, Obama’s nominee, even the courtesy of a hearing. This was politics in spades. This paved the way for Trump to pack the Court with three appointees who pledged to him and the Federalist Society they would, given the opportunity, overturn Roe. That led to Alito’s draft opinion. Again, it is all about politics. But you bizarrely argue it is the Dems that have politicized the Court. and “who have bred contempt for our legal institutions and values”. Your false claim doesn’t pass the laugh test!
The real threat to the Court’s integrity and its declining reputation comes from people like Clarence and Ginni Thomas. Thomas refused to recuse himself in the Jan. case despite the fact his wife was deeply involved trying to overturn the 2020 election. And there is no indication Thomas will recuse himself in future Jan. 6 cases coming before the Court. This means that as long as Thomas sits on the Court he will interject “politics” in Court decisions. That’s why Gloria Borger is correct in saying the conservative dominated Court is composed of “a bunch of politicians in robes”!
The real threat to the Court’s integrity and its declining reputation comes from people like Clarence and Ginni Thomas.
Clarence Thomas has voiced no opinion on Jan 6. But I fail to see how a congressional investigation, for the purpose of writing legislation, would involve SCOTUS
“I fail to see how a congressional investigation, for the purpose of writing legislation, would involve SCOTUS”
Then you’re willfully blind to the cases that SCOTUS has ruled on that are related to the J6 Committee’s investigation.
The only SCOTUS decision on J6 has been refusing to block the release of Trump’s presidential records.
That was likely a mistake – but not a huge one.
Regardless, it will means that Biden’s presidential records will be available to Republicans in 2023.
Those of you on the left seem to be completely unable to immagine a world in which your own successes work against you.
And yet it keeps happening.
You seem completely unable to imagine a world in which your guesses about others’ thinking are false.
I do not guess about what others think – that is a left wing nut thing.
I deal with what people do and say.
I know that is difficult for people who spend their entire lives pretending they know what is going on in others minds
I fail to see how the J6 committee is constitutional.
regardless, it will be shut down or repurposed soon enough
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
The court has ALWAYS been political – Conservatives still remember the brutal attacks on Clarence Thomas – but the court was political long before that.
What McConnell did was NOT unusual – that should give you your first clue.
No new Justice has ever been confirmed in the last year of any presidents term when the other party controlled the senate.
You seem to think politics was just invented.
You are clueless about the Federalist society.
Rowe has been dying incrementally since it passed.
I do not like Alito’s draft, But he is right that Rowe had to die.
He is wrong about where we should go.
The 9th or 14th amendment arguments many hear are making are FEDERALIST arguments.
You do not seem to grasp that there is absolutely nothing illegal or improper about trying to “overturn” and election.
Hillary Clinton is not in jail – yet she and democrats tried to pressure electors to change their vote – and a few did.
Neither Clinton nor Trump succeeded, but they were perfectly free to try.
Trump’s hail mary was to get senators and representatives to successfully object to enough to leave the election to congress.
That has happened several times before. The election of 1876 was very similar to 2020 – and resulted in legal and constitutional changes to improve election integrity accross the country.
Public business ought to be conducted in public. Enough of court secrecy.
That’s the Free Speech stance, Jonathan Turley.
Then change the law.
The Supreme Court knows that its Roe v Wade decision was stolen.
The Supreme Court “didn’t know” that the 2020 election was stolen.
It knows now.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1522408945880555521
It’s not exactly wrong to be watchful of the Court and concerned that it drifts into a miniature version of Congress.
Case in point: There was a blanket handgun ban in Washington D.C. No matter how you feel about gun control, if the 2nd amendment didn’t apply there, it doesn’t apply anywhere. But we got a 5-4 party-line vote.
Case in point: You can’t possibly miss Habeas Corpus. It’s not even one of the amendments. It’s in Article 1 Section 9 of the main document. Common law makes clear it applies to anyone in U.S. custody. But we had a party-line vote on the GITMO detainees 5-4 (the exception being Kennedy). Scalia was a brilliant man. but delivered one of the most embarrassing tautologies of all time when he basically said in dissent: Terrorists are not military combatants, so you don’t have to have a Habeas Corpus hearing to see if there is at least some reason to claim they might be terrorists.
All due respect Turley, these should have been 9-0 votes. And they’re just a couple among many. So something’s wrong somewhere.
Amen
When Mother Theresa of Calcutta spoke to the National Prayer Breakfast group in Washington, DC in 1994, she made everyone in attendance uncomfortable. Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al and Tipper Gore were especially uncomfortable. She framed the abortion barbarity in its proper context, much as Archibald Cox did in 1996. Abortion is about losing respect for life. ProAborts prefer to frame it in terms of “rights” because framing abortion in terms of “life” makes them uncomfortable. The godless are like that. Thus any desecration, as Turley frames it, against the US Capitol (Jan 6 riot) or SCOTUS, and an overall loss of faith, are entirely besides the point. Desecration is their singular trait. We can thank Earl Warren SCOTUS for that.
America has lost its soul. Democrat Archibald Cox and Catholic Nun, Mother Teresa, warned us but we did not listen. The Jacobins are running loose in America
Roe v Wade “fails even to consider what I would suppose to be the most important compelling interest of the State in prohibiting abortion: the interest in maintaining that respect for the paramount sanctity of human life which has always been at the centre of Western civilization, not merely by guarding life itself, however defined, but by safeguarding the penumbra, whether at the beginning, through some overwhelming disability of mind or body, or at death.”
– Archibald Cox “The Role of the Supreme Court in American Government”, 1977
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/019519909X/reasonmagazinea-20/
Solicitor General for John F. Kennedy
Watergate Special Prosecutor
Attorney / Harvard Law Professor
“framing abortion in terms of “life” makes them uncomfortable”
No, I have no problem discussing it in terms of life.
I suspect that you cannot bring yourself to discuss the full range of reasons that people have abortions because it makes *you* uncomfortable. I invite you to respond to the thread that Will Adler posted, copied in my 10:05am comment: https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/06/the-license-to-leak-how-years-of-attacks-on-the-court-may-have-created-a-by-any-means-mentality-on-the-court/comment-page-1/#comment-2181249
Archibald Cox was lying when he claimed “the paramount sanctity of human life which has always been at the centre of Western civilization,” and the endless wars started by Western Civilizations almost every year of recorded history are ample counterevidence. But you’d rather use his quote than admit he was wrong.
Why people do anything is irrelevant.
What is relevant is whether they have the right to do so.
And to what extent government can constrain that right.
If I have the right to do something – I can do it because it is friday, or because I am an ass, or as an act of charity – it does not matter.
Is it a right or isn’t it and what are the legitimate powers of government to constrain that right.
Everything else is fallacy.
It is your personal opinion that “Why people do anything is irrelevant.” It is not a fact.
“Everything else is fallacy.”
BS. All you’ve illustrated is your inability to track the subject of an exchange between two other people.
Bzzt, wrong.
You may kill someone in self defense,
You may kill them in defense of others.
There are very few other reasons you are permitted to kill people – all of which are based on FACTS, not intentions.
Why you killed someone may be relevant to sentencing. It might be relevant to a jury trying to decide based on weak evidence whether you actually committed a crime, but crimes are based on what you DO, not why you did it.
I would note that even Christ judges us on What we do not why.
Matthew 25:31-46
Why people do anything is irrelevant.
Comments by trolls is even more irrelevant yet here you are. Worse still is our resident Anonymous troll who is not here to dialogue nor come to a “meeting of the minds” as those in intellectual discourse aspire. He is the Dark Triad troll. In psychology the term “Dark Triad” refers to three negative personality traits: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psycopathy which share psychotic, disruptive, and manipulative features. I purposely selected Archibald Cox due to his Democrat, anti-Republican “bona fides”. Predictably he was called a “liar” by our resident Dark Triad troll as expected
Watching the grass grow would be a more constructive use of a person’s time than engaging an internet troll. Professor Turley has requested commenters refrain from engaging the trolls. Start there. Otherwise the blog becomes a playground for trolls to sabotage which is what this forum has become, as many have noted.
Show some respect for Professor Turley’s hard work and honor his request. Darren Smith hasn’t commented in months, likely because of his sage insight as to trolls seeking “pyrrhic victories”. Self-regulate.
New Research Suggests Most Social Media Trolls Have The Dark Triad Personality
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnbbrandon/2021/06/28/new-research-suggests-most-social-media-trolls-have-the-dark-triad-personality/
You and I have different opinions about who here is a troll. No surprise there.
I think S. Meyer is the blog’s biggest troll. I think you’ve trolled with homophobic comments addressed to Seth Warner. So if you’re concerned about the dark triad, start with your own behavior.
ATS, who cares what you think? You are the biggest Troll on this blog. You don’t like Estovir. That is clear, but Estovir is truthful and upfront even when he says things that might insult other people. He holds Catholicism close to his heart. Catholicism teaches him certain things, and he lives by them. That might make him act wrongfully or rightfully based on the observer, but it makes him principled. Principled is a word you have never learned, for you are a liar and deceitful.
I respect Estovir because he is truthful. I cannot have any respect for ATS, whose religion is based on lies and deceit.
BTW, Estovir, ask yourself why Paul doesn’t see me as a troll, despite Paul and I having different views.
I respond in good faith when that’s how I’m treated, and Paul is a good faith discussant.
Paul is amazingly polite. He also hides his feelings behind his appropriate demeanor.
Typical left wing nut projection.
Instead of making an argument you engage in ad hominem, and nonsensical over the internet diagnosis of people you do not know.
A troll is whatever you want it to be.
You do not appear to like people who make arguments that falsify yours.
Your problem, not mine.
Then you jump from baseless ad hominem to a long tirade about the meaning of a idiotic and clueless diagnosis.
Lets say I call you a sociopath and then link in the DSM to list all the evil attributes that means.
Are you a sociopath just because I call you one ?
Can I jump from a bogus and baseless accusation to all kinds of conclusions based on that ?
I read recently that sociopaths have similar brain features to toddlers – can I jump from your are a sociopath to you are a toddler ?
Does reality matter at all ?
Apparently not to you.
I have little reason to beleive that you are a sociopath,
Calling people whose arguments you do not like trolls is as bad, and drawing conclusions from that is massive logic failure.
“Mother Theresa of Calcutta”
You embrace a two-bit mystic who, on principle, subjected her own followers to unspeakable suffering.
Those of us who enjoy a more civilized existence, embrace reason — and all of the comforts it provides.
More material pulled from Turley’s hind quarters: “Because the Court has adopted an opposing constitutional interpretation, we are once again deluged from calls ranging from packing the Court to burning it down.” No, Turley, people aren’t complaining about “adopt(ing) an opposing constitutional interpretation”, they are complaining about each of the five (5) “justices” lying about their views of Roe during their confirmation hearings. Alito’s opinion said that Roe was “egregiously wrong”, an opinion neither he or the other 4 who signed on even hinted at, much less disclosed, when they were interviewed and testified. They sandbagged us, which is not just intellectually dishonest, it is actually dishonest. Consider the context: this is the court of last resort in America, and if nominees are willing to lie to get on the bench without impunity to pursue a political agenda, what hope is there for impartial justice and honest Constitutional interpretation coming from our legal system? These 5 wanted on the SCOTUS so badly that they were willing to lie so they could shove their unpopular ideology down the throats of Americans. It was their hidden agenda from the get-go, and Americans are just now getting over the shock.
Alito is only on the court because Bush was pressured to withdraw the nomination of Harriett Miers, his personal attorney whom he liked and trusted, because she didn’t have a paper trail of radically conservative opinions and willingness to ignore stare decisis like Alito did. She was a compassionate lady with a soul–something very threatening to Republican ideology. Why she might do something about racism or other social problems, so she’s gotta go.
Then, there’s the fact that Gorsuch shouldn’t even be on the court in the first place. McConnell refused to allow Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, to even have a hearing because of the alleged proximity of the election. Then, when the tables were turned and election day was even closer in proximity, Barrett was shoved onto the court. The Republicans did everything possible to prevent the public from hearing the full story on Kavanaugh because they knew that the American public would object to his being seated on the Court, so they cut off dozens of witnesses who begged to be heard.
And, never forget that Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were nominated by someone who cheated his way into the White House by spreading lies about his opponent, and that he lost the popular vote. In fact, most of the judges on the SCOTUS were nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote. This SCOTUS does not represent the values of most Americans and the majority of judges are there because of chicanery.
So, Turley’s shorts are in a twist because the American people are outraged? Are you kidding me? Are Americans just supposed to accept this crap? SHOW UP AND VOTE THE REPUBLICANS OUT IN NOVEMBER! It’s your patriotic duty.
None of hte 5 lied about Roe
All said it was a precedent.
None said it was an “unoverturnable super precedent”
ACB was asked of Roe was a “super-precedent”, and she flat out said No.
We on the Right do appreciate your eager willingness to say, as you just did, that “everything in Alito’s opinion is legally and factually true, we just politically disagree with it.”
Because if you had an actual problem with the ruling, you’d mention that. And none of you do
If they believed that Roe was “egregiously wrong”, which is the language used by Alito, then why didn’t they disclose this as their true feelings? They played parlor games–parsed their verbiage to hide their true opinions. Using the word “egregious” is very hyperbolic. relatively unheard of in SCOTUS opinions, and far exceeds mere disagreement in principle with a prior ruling. This is how they felt and they intentionally failed to disclose this because they wanted on the SCOTUS to pursue their political agenda.
You haven’t been reading what I’ve been writing since this opinion was disclosed, in which I explained, in great detail, the “actual problem(s) I have with this ruling”, and I’m not the only one, so why not refer to Turley’s prior blogs on this topic before saying that people don’t have an “actual problem with the ruling”.
SHOW UP AND VOTE REPUBLICANS OUT IN NOVEMBER! It’s your patriotic duty to save America from the tyranny of the radical-right minority. If they can get away with reversing Roe, next they’re going after same-sex marriage, sexual conduct between consenting adults that they don’t approve of, contraceptives and inter-racial marriage. They’ve outlawed each of these things before, and this ruling, if it stands as written, will clear the way to outlaw these things again because they rely on the same rights guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights that Roe relied on and the SCOTUS just struck down. Alito knows it, too, but tries to downplay the fact that this stinky piece of political posturing will also take away those rights.
It’s not a mystery that all Constitutional conservatives believe Roe is an abomination of logic because it simply is. We all knew this was coming so please stop pretending. No amount of hysterics can change that.
Because no one appearing before congress is bound to “disclose their true feelings”
One of the problems with the left is this warped version of what is truth.
Feelings are not truth.
Perjury is a knowingly false and misleading statement of FACT.
It is not about opinon or feelings. It is also not about the future.
Greg,
I am libertarian, I am not on the left.
I have not called ACB etc liars.
I agree with Alito that Rowe is bad law.
At the same time I RADICALLY disagree with Alito’s Draft.
It is actually ANTI-Originalist.
Alito highlights and important fracture in constitutional interpretation.
That over the priviledges and immunities clause in the constitution and the later stronger on in the 14th amendment and the plain text of the 9th amendment.
Alito’s draft is a bold reiteration of the false doctrine of enumerated rights.
That we only have those rights explicitly identified in the bill of rights and all else is resolved democratically.
Except that is not what the constitution says, what the bill of rights says, what the 14th amendment says, and what our founders and later the drafters of the 14th amendment said LOUDLY and repeatedly.
Alito is doubly correct – there is no right to an abortion, and such a right is not in the constitution.
But he is absolutely wrong that no rights exist except those identified in the constitution – the constitution itself SAYS he is wrong.
The right that is relevant here is the ownership and control of our own bodies.
We have spent the past year with the left vigorously assaulting that right.
Forcing us to wear masks, to mask our children, to get jabbed repeatedly.
As well as infringing on myriads of others of our rights.
A constitutional decision on abortion is easy. There is no right to kill a fetus. There is an absolute right to control of your own body.
You can require that the fetus is removed – even if that results in its death. You can not require that it is killed.
That decision is consistent with actual rights. It is consistent with centuries of common law on bodily rights. It is consistent with the constitution.
There are several other things wrong with Alito’s draft.
But the fundimental flaw is that it is NOT actually originalist – it is Anti-originalist.
You can get a much better understanding of ACTUAL originalism from Randy Barnett’s restoring the last constitution.
And there are several originalist papers on how abortion was dealth with in the 18th and early 19th century that undermine Alito.
“You can require that the fetus is removed – even if that results in its death. You can not require that it is killed. ”
So … you want all abortions carried out via C-section, even when the embryo or fetus isn’t viable?
I do not “want” anything. I am trying to define both under lockean social contract and the US constitution what the limits of rights, and the limits of state powers are with respect to abortion.
There is no inherently right answer to what should be done regarding abortion.
There is a right answer as to what can the state legitimately do. Whether it does so is a different question.
One point at which Alito and I agree is that once the actual rights of the individual and powers of the state are determined – it is up to the state whether it will use the powers it has within the limits to those powers.
Each of us has the RIGHT to have removed from our body anything we want.
We can have cancer removed, we can have a mastectomy or orchidectomy, We can also have a fetus removed.
The state is NOT free to interfere with the choices of adults with respect to their own bodies.
But the fetus is NOT our body, it is merely IN our body.
The state can legitimately attempt to protect that Fetus – or NOT.
And different states can make different choices.
With respect to forced C-Sections – that is a very odd reading of what I said.
With the exception of chosing a method requiring that the fetus is killed when there are other choices the woman can chose whatever means she wishes to remove the fetus.
If she wants it removed.
First of all, most abortions occur in the embryonic stage, not the fetal stage.
Second, the vast, vast majority of abortions occur prior to viability. And prior to viability, 100% of the time the embryo or fetus will die once removed, no matter what kind of medical care is provided.
But you’re saying that even if it’s absolutely going to die once removed, it cannot be killed prior to removal. That constraint — that it cannot be killed prior to removal from the body — rules out all forms of medication abortion plus the majority of surgical abortion. As best I can tell, the only form of abortion you allow for is a C-section with the embryo or fetus dying after removal.
“With the exception of chosing a method requiring that the fetus is killed when there are other choices the woman can chose whatever means she wishes to remove the fetus.”
So NAME the means that you believe satisfy your condition, other than C-section. IF you believe that there is some other form of abortion consistent with conditions that you introduced, THEN the onus is on you to say what it is. Otherwise, you’re implying that all abortions should be carried out via C-section.
“With respect to forced C-Sections – that is a very odd reading of what I said.”
No, it’s the logical implication of what you said.
I told you this is not a medial or scientific issue – rights have little or nothing to do with science or medicine.
I am not interested in your medial digression – it is not relevant – whether you are correct of not.
I do not care what name you call the living thing that is in the woman but is NOT the woman.
I do not care if it is human, a fetus, an embryo. That has no bearing on the woman’s rights.
All that matters is that it is in her, but not her.
She has the right to remove it. She does not have the right to kill it.
If its death is the inevitable result – so be it.
If the state wishes to attempt to save it – that is within its power.
Viability matters regarding whether the state is WISE to take extraordinary measures to save “it”.
But it has no bearing on rights or legality.
The state can not bar the removal at ANY stage.
But it can require that process be done with the highest possibility of preseriving “its” life – at ANY stage.
I have provided a RIGHTS based – not medical analysis.
Medicine and science have little place in law.
Viability is not legally relevant.
Nor btw are rape or incest.
You have already demonstrated piss poor logic.
No force C sections does not follow from anything I said.
As you are fixated on medicine – late term abortions are not typically by C section.
They are little if any different from ordinary births.
Regardless, my arguments are based on a Right analysis – something consistent with the actual constitution, the 9th and 14th amendment.
I do not care whether that results in C sections or late term fetal deaths.
Like a typical leftist you presume that what you imagine will be what happens. In reality that is rarely so.
JBS, I think it’s fair to say that just because some good or service is not mentioned in the constitution doesn’t make it illegal.
I agree – the constitution is first and foremost about Government. Until the bill of rights it barely addresses individuals and their rights.
The constitution specifics what powers the government has – anything unspecified – is outside the domain of government.
The founders thought of individual rights as an after thought – no because they were not important, but because limited government can not infringe on individual rights.
Our founders never intended that the courts would spend alot of time trying to decide if a right was being infringed – because they would reject laws that infringed on rights primarily because they were outside the enumerated powers of government.
And if Alito were half the originalist he claims he would know that.
His borkean democratic originalism is fraudulent.
Natacha, Biasley Ford couldn’t remember how she got to the party, how she got home or whose house the party was in. For her lack of memory she collected over a million bucks in her GoFund me account. You say that other witnesses were cut off from testifying but you have no idea what they would have said and no statements have been forthcoming by any other creditable witnesses. As usual your assumptions do not make it so. As I said to FishWings earlier. Get enough votes from the American people and you can have Judges appointed that are more to your liking. When I consider the new Justice appointed by President Biden I do not agree with her politics but the President has the right to her appointment. To stop Kavanaugh’s confirmation all that had to be done was to change the mind of two Democratic Senators. As soon as the left doesn’t get their way they want to “Burn it down.” I am sure that you would be more than happy to supply the matches. It’s just the way you roll.
The ever-shrinking Republican MINORITY in this country has disproportionate influence, and that’s not counting their cheating and gerrymandering. This is from Common Cause (graphic didn’t come through):
IN TERMS PROPORTIONAL POWER, THIS MEANS THAT A PERSON IN WYOMING HAS 68 TIMES MORE INFLUENCE IN THE U.S. SENATE THAN A PERSON IN CALIFORNIA.
In the visualization below, I demonstrate senatorial representation in each state by dividing the population by their two senators—i.e. the number of senators per person in each state. The higher the resulting number, the less proportionate power residents of that state have. California, New York, Texas, and Florida stand out as being the most disproportionally underrepresented states by population in the Senate.
I’ve also grouped the states party affiliation of their senators. The average Democratic state has one senator for every 3 million people. The average Republican state has one senator for every 1.8 million people. In other words, Republican states have roughly 1.6 times more proportional power than Democratic states. Purple states lean closer to the average of Democratic states with one senator for every 2.9 million people.
Maine and Vermont, each with an independent senator that caucuses with the Democrats could be grouped with the blue states, which creates a cleaner visualization, but doesn’t significantly affect the numbers.
Notwithstanding the fact that more Americans voted AGAINST Bush and Trump, and Trump’s “presidency” was totally invalid due to cheating, they got into office anyway and they appointed some of the worst SCOTUS judges. Americans are waking up to the reality of the alt-right minority shoving their political agendas down our throats, even if they have to cheat to get into office or lie their way onto the SCOTUS to get it done.
VOTE REPUBICANS OUT IN NOVEMBER! It’s your patriotic duty before they come for the right to marriage equality, the right to contraception, right to inter-racial marriage and right to sexual acts between consenting adults. Democrats have to proportionately vote in much higher numbers to keep our freedoms.
“Democrats have to proportionately vote in much higher numbers to keep our freedoms.”
Correct. And they will be voting Republican in November. Why? Cause they ain’t as stupid as you.
Natcha, Jr. Civics inform us that Senators represent the State. House members represent the people. The United States is governed under a doctrine of Federalism. Meaning most of the power rests with the People and the States. The Federal Govt only has enumerated powers.
The 17th amendment should never have been cancelled. I has led the uninformed, like you, to believe Senators represent the people.
“Jr. Civics inform us that Senators represent the State. House members represent the people. ”
You either failed Civics or had a lousy teacher.
All members of Congress represent the people, and the sole difference is the set of people they represent.
House members represent the people in their district. Senators represent the people in their state.
Where in the constitution does it say that any elected official “represents” in the way you use it anyone ?
The constitution specifies how various roles are elected and what their legitimate powers are. \
Congressmen can represent big business or Russia for all the constitution says.
Ask Iowan. He’s the one who introduced it.
Q. Why did the constitution require Senators to be selected by the State, and not the people?
A. Federalism. (or ignore the constitution and make it up)
Apparently you missed the lesson about the 17th Amendment.
What lesson has been learned about the 17th amendment beyond it being the key to the rise of the administrative state and the decline of federalism?
Olly, did you read the entire exchange before you asked your question?
What lesson about the 17th are you implying was missed? Enlightium us.
Olly, are you saying that you can’t figure out for yourself what the relevance of the 17th Amendment to Iowan’s question “Why did the constitution require Senators to be selected by the State, and not the people?”
Are you saying you can’t figure out what lesson you implied?
Apparently you missed the lesson about the 17th Amendment.
Thanks to the 17th Amendment, Senators are now selected by voters. Contrary to Iowan’s insistence that only “House members represent the people,” both Senators AND House members represent their constituents.
Thanks tothe 17th Amendment, Senators are now selected by voters.Why do you suppose the Senate was created? Hint: It wasn’t to be a rubber stamp for the House.
If the Senate were going to check the House, its members could not be drawn from the same source. That meant senators could not be popularly elected. If they were, they would end up being subject to the same interests and passions as their House colleagues, gravely impairing their ability to be a corrective. According to Madison, “In the states where the Senates were chosen in the same manner as the other branches . . . the institution was found to be no check whatever against the instabilities of the other branches.”
Forget the link.
https://lawliberty.org/real-purpose-of-the-senate-to-check-the-actions-of-the-house
Olly, no one suggested that the Senate was “to be a rubber stamp for the House.”
The SOLE issue I was debating with iowan was his claim “Senators represent the State. House members represent the people.” BOTH Senators AND Representatives represent the people.
You have run and hid from explaining why, before the 17th amendment, the people did not elect Senators.
Olly @ 9:25 provided the uncomfortable truth, you hide from
Thanks, Natacha for the second grade lesson on bicameral government. (Hey did you know there another House where more populated states get MORE votes!!) Can Run Spot Run be far behind? I think if every Dimocrat lost this November and were exiled to Venzuela, we’d all be better off. So vote Republican and as the Dims say “vote early, often and using multiple ballots at your local drop box.” 81 million votes? Yeah, sure.
On no planet do people like you speak for “we” the American people. It’s not just a statistical fact, it’s an actual fact. If the Dobbs opinion stands, this will be just more fallout from the disastrous fake “presidency” of Donald J. Trump. Rick Wilson, Republican strategist, wrote a book entitled “Everything Trump Touches Dies”, and he’s right. You ought to read it, because he explains how and why Trump is no conservative, nor does he stand for values and principles of traditional Republicans. You can believe the Big Lie all you want to, but every single poll prior to 2020 found that Americans would be voting Trump out of office, which is consistent with 4 years of polling showing that Americans did not approve of Trump. Then, there’s the pandemic out of control, the trade war with China, most factories, schools and businesses shut down or nearly shut down for 2 years, unemployment above 10% and alienation of our allies and favorability shown toward Putin, a psychopathic mass murderer. But people like you still won’t believe that more Americans showed up to vote out your hero. Well, we did, so get over it. You’d better start strategizing now for how to explain away the trouncing you may be getting in November.
Aoarently Rick – like you is deaf dump, and blind.
We are not even two years into the worst failed administration in history.
Biden is looking to supplant Buchannon as the worst US president ever.
Never have we seen a president start with so much going for him and burn it to the ground so fast.
I did not vote for Trump – ever. But even I grasp he is EASILY the best president in the 21st century.
Though mostly because Bush, Obama, and Biden have been so bad.
Do you live in the real world ?
The one where it cost me $75 to fill my gas tank yesterday ?
Current polls show Trump leading Biden by 6pts, They should a 14pt nationwide swing on the generic ballot favoring republicans.
With a fawning press – Biden is less popular right now that Trump ever was. And the worst is yet to come.
Inflation will not come under control until AFTER the forthcoming recession – which appears to be starting.
Nothing is getting better for Biden anytime soon. You posit a huge political backlash – many pundits have said that for decades.
But what if you are wrong ? Soon enough we will know.
But if there is NOT a huge political backlash over Rowe – you will actually embolden A 6-3 court. There is a long wish list of reversals of progressive cases that are far less controversial that Rowe.
I would further note that a reversal of Rowe much Trump even more likely both the GOP candidate and the winner in 2024 – so long as he is up to the race.
To a huge portion of the right – this is a Trump delivered moment.
Trump’s political strength – the endurance of his supporters is not because they are enthralled – but because he keeps faith with them.
Even people like me – who do not agree with Trump on some important policies – still Trust him because he DOES WHAT HE SAYS.
That is a quality in politicians that is unherd of.
It is possible that this vast political backlash you predict will materialize.
The odds increasingly are it will not.
I see riots in NYC and DC – places Trump and republicans will never win.
Not in mississippi. Or Ohio.
But every poll has the GOP growing.
In a Trump Biden matchup today – Trump would win the popular vote by millions.
If you do not like the government that we have – change it.
There is a process for amending the constitution – if has been used over 2 dozen times.
Or where the party was, or what year it was in
We have statutes of limitation for a reason.
Maybe Ford is not lying. But it is self evident that her memory is not good enough to the relied on.
No one “sandbagged” anyone Nutacha.
Plessey V Fergessor was established law – before it was overruled.
Alito is right that Rowe is bad law – and always has been.
He is right that there is no constitutional right to an abortion.
He is egregiously wrong that no constitutional rights are involved.
The problem with the draft is not that it is wrong about Rowe – it is not.
The problem is that it is wrong about the constitution.
Alito’s draft is a full throat-ed restatement of the doctrine of enumerated rights and of judicial deference to majoritarian democracy outside of enumerated rights.
Both of those are WRONG.
No judge would ever describe an opinion he or she believed to be “egregiously wrong” to be “settled law”. They knew that Senators intended to explore their honest feelings about Roe, so they played games. Americans see this for what it is–and we’ll be voting our displeasure come November. SHOW UP AND VOTE OUT REPUBLICANS IN NOVEMBER! It’s your patriotic duty to preserve our freedoms that the MAGA crowd wants to take away from us.
Please. Did you hear that Schumer announced the Senate will take up legislation on codifying abortion rights next Wednesday? Do you think he is doing his caucus any favors with his stunt?
False.
Settled law is law that has been in place for some time.
Plessey v fergession was both settled law and egregiously wrong.
Of course they played games – that is what everyone appearing before the senate for any reason does.
Do you honestly think Jackson is unable to tell what a woman is ?
Biden nominated her specifically because she was a black woman.
It is games and everyone knows it.
And Jackson is with certainty going to have cases where what is a woman will matter.
It is near certain we will find out her answer.
Will they hang the judges before or after they burn the Supreme Court down?
No, they just wanted to hang Pence and Pelosi.
So Turley and the right-wing are upset about a leak? The right has spent millions to get control the courts, and now they are mad that their agenda was leaked? Maybe they would have been happy if it was just released by the “shadow docket” as been their custom of late.
Democrats out spend Republicans
“to get control the courts”?
How is it that something like this can be leaked from the Supreme Court, but we can’t find out what kind of scholarship Obama got from Occidental College. Something’s wrong here.
Independent Bob, is not Occidental College a private school?
So the Supreme Court being a public institution makes a difference?
Independent Bob, IMO everything that the supremes do should be open to public view; we pay their salaries.
So work to change the rules and the law.
We do not share a universal view of how things should be.
We are not free to just ignore those parts of the law we disagree with.
John B Say, is there a law stating that the supremes deliberations are secret? I doubt that it is more than convention.
With few exceptions congress does not make the rules regarding the courts processes.
The courts do.
Jury deliberations are secret.
The trial is public, the verdict is public,
The deliberations are secret.
If you think that is a convention rather than a crime – try bugging a jury.
Thank you for the nice proof of everything Turley wrote
FishWings, the Democrats have also spent millions to get their judges on the court. They even resorted to a technical lynching of Clarence Thomas. Then they spent millions against Brett Kavanaugh to try to convince the public that he was a high school rapist. With no sense of shame by the Democrats we should not be surprised at an unethical leak. We also should not be surprised that the addresses of the Justices would be made public knowledge. Your party could solve everything if it would convince the American people that your policies are best for the nation. If your party did so it would have the required majority to allow the appointment of more left leaning judges. What you say? Have more policies that the American people want? What a foolish idea when we can just change the rules of the game instead.
I haven’t seen the home addresses of the Justices posted anywhere. But assuming you’re correct, how would anyone who didn’t know them personally or work with them gain access to that information in order to post it? Either their addresses were already in the public domain because they put them there, such as on LinkedIn, Facebook, etc., or someone in their office leaked them from info in a staff directory. Maybe the same person who leaked the draft opinion….?
Have you ever heard of hacking ?
Or have you heard of “leaking” ?
If a supreme court law clerk would leak a draft decision – do you think an employee at MasterCard would not leak an address ?
Fish Wings truly does not understand the situation. Per usual.
The right has spent millions to get control the courts,
Harry Ried is responsible for the makeup of SCOTUS right now. Thank (blame) him. “By any means” was Harry’s governing principle.
He isn’t, though that won’t keeping you from lying and claiming he is.
Harry eliminated Cloture for judicial nominees.
Reid didn’t eliminate cloture for SCOTUS nominees.
Republicans informed him that would be the result. He knew, and didn’t care
Again: Reid didn’t eliminate cloture for SCOTUS nominees. No matter how much you want to lie about it, McConnell is the one who eliminated cloture for SCOTUS nominees.
If Reid never eliminated cloture for federal court Judge nominees, Cloture would still be the Senate Rule for SCOTUS.
Its cause and effect. Deny that Reid started the process.
If McConnell never eliminated cloture for SCOTUS nominees, cloture would still be the Senate Rule for SCOTUS. Reid isn’t the one who did that. Reid purposefully chose not to do it. McConnell is the one who did that, no matter how badly you want to pretend that McConnell has no agency.
Reid eliminated it for judicial nominees. That was a huge step.
extending it to scotus nominees was a small extension.
Reid did not extend it – because he had no scotus nominees he needed to force through.
That was not an act of courage or principle. He would have done it in a minute if he had a controversial nominee to push through.
The word “agency” keeps getting bandied about here – as if those using it know what it means.
agency: the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power
Like it or not McConnell has a great deal of power.
“Reid isn’t the one who did that.”
Deception is your only tool.
“This is not a crisis of the court. It is a crisis of faith.”
I’m afraid it’s much worse. Without being melodramatic, it’s a crisis of epic proportions for the United States of America.
Ms. Ballhere has it exactly right! No longer explanation needed
I am of two minds on Turley’s disquiet over what has become of the Court. On the one hand, I agree with his horror at this egregious breach of the integrity of the Court’s deliberative process. On the other, I am not so blind as to think that the Justices — human beings all — have no axes to grind or hobbyhorses to ride upon . . . and, then, will use some legality to find a way. These are, however, two separate points.
For the record: I think, Roe was (and, is — until we get a new opinion) quite literally a crime against humanity.
While there would be no surprise in the Court majority shedding the past (SCOTUS as the place where the most hot-button policy issues go to be decided), and using Dobbs to assert this position, the clumsy, disruptive manner in which that hand-off of power is presaged in the draft is alarming.
Much more careful would be for SCOTUS to declare Roe/Casey “interim law” until Congress takes up its responsibility to craft a stable compromise — a National Abortion Rights and Responsibilities Act.
Turning policy over to the red and blue states knowing this will lead to irreconcilable state-vs-state conflicts is naive — a flood of new “proxy” abortion rights cases will pour into the Federal Districts. And, SCOTUS will have done nothing in Dobbs (if the draft stands) to guide lower courts on deciding these proxy cases. Alito’s approach is not that of the committed institutional improver. Rather, he tears up a stable national policy, and takes no responsibility for the legal chaos he’s unleashing.
Perhaps the leaker just felt “here comes a policy landmine that hasn’t been thought through”.
A better respect for stability, predictability and workability would be to keep Roe in effect temporarily until Congress takes up national policy.
Unleashing bitter state-vs-state battles?….either a myopic miscalculation, or worse, an intentional exercise in legal anarchy.
Granted, the leak was a major affront to the Court. Though it might inject a measure of caution and modesty in the final product. The Court can ill afford to be seen as the place where radical, conservative activists go to get the policy they want.
Phinca. Your concept of the Supreme Court allowing Roe to be an “interim law,” until Congress handles it, is not the role of the Court. And it is not even the role of Congress. The proper venue for political issues, such as abortion, should be in the courts of each State. That is what federalism is all about. The Court cannot be used as an “interim” legislative body and the decision in Roe, pretty much did that. Now that there are some actual Constitutional scholars on the court, they have decided to correct a problem that the Court created in the Roe decision. It took a political theory, that there was a right to abortion although no such right exists anywhere in the document. Even Justice RBG, a strong supporter of abortion, said as much about that decision.
The Supreme Court is not ruling on whether abortion should or should not exist in America. It is merely doing what it is supposed to do, and this is to rule on the constitutionality or not of their decisions. Stare decisis is very highly regarded in most cases, but if the Court did not sometimes ignore that rule, we still would have Jim Crow laws on the books.
For the President and other Democrat leaders to attack the Court for doing its job, and applaud the destruction of this Court, could destroy the very fabric of our Judicial system itself. Unfortunately, there are too many attorneys today, that have been indoctrinated to have no problem with that concept.
“The proper venue for political issues, such as abortion, should be in the courts of each State.”
No, the Supreme Court is proper venue for resolving whether a given right is an unenumerated 9th Amendment right and which aspects of liberty are protected by the 14th Amendment due process clause. Some Justices — including Alito — believe that the right of bodily autonomy in determining how one’s reproductive organs are used is not such a right, but if you look at all of the Justices who’ve ruled on it, he’s in the minority.
Anonymous: This is the kind of nonsense that is political and not judicious in nature. There is no mention of abortion in any of the amendments you mentioned. Don’t blame Justice Alito for stating the obvious. You are just repeating what you have seen on the lamestream media, by the so called legal scholars that are chosen for their far-left views that the Constitution can be twisted and used to get everything they want by using the same Amendments used by you.
By the way, have you any feeling on the “leaking situation?” I doubt it, since none of your heroes seem to believe it matters whether they destroy the Supreme Court by any means necessary.
“There is no mention of abortion in any of the amendments you mentioned.”
So what? The Constitution makes no mention of women. It makes no mention of slaves. It makes no mention of all sorts of things that it nonetheless applies to.
The Founders explicitly TOLD you “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” yet here you are, suggesting that rights have to be enumerated.
“You are just repeating what you have seen on the lamestream media,”
BS. You wish to believe that, so you claim it, even though you have absolutely no evidence for it. None. If you wanted to have a good-faith discussion, you wouldn’t assume garbage that you do not know.
No, the Supreme Court is proper venue for resolving whether a given right
That’s your problem….rights are not given by SCOTUS. For…if they were…SCOTUS could take them away.
Work on your reading comprehension.
I used “given” in its adjective meaning #1: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/given
I disagree John, and here’s why: There is no guarantee that Congress keeps up lawmaking with the pace of change. Controversies (areas where the law is vague or yet undefined) land at the Courtroom door, and policy gets decided by jurists because 1) controversies still have to be settled, 2) solving the issue at the State by State level breeds more conflict, and 3) if Congress hasn’t done the work, it’s forced on the other 2 branches of national government.
The way fwd for the Supreme Court, and the past 4 confirmees have all stated this, is for SCOTUS to show deference to Congress as the place where the biggest controversies go to be settled. So, it would be natural in a case decision to announce a ruling as interim law until Congress does its job. This is much better than the Democratic theory that 5/9 unelected Justices decide a national policy with finality.
You reasonably accurately describe the unconstitutional process that is occuring.
1). Actual law is timeless – it does not need to keep up with change.
Murder is illegal new ways to commit murder do not change that.
2). neither the executive nor judicial branch have the power to make laws.
They are not a backup for failure on the part of the legislature.
3) Most modern law is unnecescary
“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.”
Adam Smith
or
“that government is best which governs least”
Henry David Thoreau
John B Say — Nonsense! Consider just the changes in laws about using the public roadways in the past 143 years.
Public roads are covered by regulations not law.
With few exceptions – things that meet the timeless definitions of crimes, government can not take your life or liberty based on your driving.
I would further note that those regulations regarding road has actually changed very little over time.
Roads have existed since before roman times.
The only changes to highway regulations I recall during my lifetime have been about the methods the police can use to catch speeders.
We do not need special new laws – because it is increasingly likely that people will be able to commit murder with lasers.
The fundimentals of contract laws are hundreds of years old.
I recently had to do a legal search for the controlling case law on some aspect of contracts.
And I tripped over a case older than I am that actually featured int he movie “the paper chase”.
Law is not about science. The foundation of law is the social contract – I surrender my right to inflict violence on others as I please in return for governments protection of my other rights.
In other words, yeild to the mob.
Be clear,none of this bru-haha is about the “draft” opinion. The “draft” is merely the pretext being used to take down any remaining belief/faith in the Court’s opinion by those who despise our Constitution.
Since when did attacking Professor Turley become sport?
It’s not, but when Turley locks in with FOXNEWS talking points and distraction from the real issue, he becomes fair game to call him out on it.
Fishwings: What are the real issues in your opinion?
Attacking the man is avoiding attacking his positions.
Turley spends almost all of his time, explaining, and when necessary, defending the Constitution. Not surprising then, is the left attacking him. The left has always seen the constitution as a blockade to their agenda. Since they cant attack Truleys positions, they left with only ad hominem attacks.
“Turley spends almost all of his time, explaining, and when necessary, defending the Constitution”
He doesn’t.
For example, his many, many columns about social media censorship are not about the Constitution. He admits that social media companies have a constitutional right to censor comments that don’t abide by their Terms. He simply wants them to ignore that right and host content anyway.
He simply wants them to ignore that right and host content anyway.
No, He has explained his position.
Is free speech a guiding principle to be defended, no matter what the circumstance. If not, what principle guides you?
You’re moving the goalposts from you false claim that “Turley spends almost all of his time, explaining, and when necessary, defending the Constitution”
That’s why you’ve used the phrase “free speech” instead of talking about the 1st Amendment and other constitutional rights.
The Constitution is what guides me here.
I defend the 1st Amendment.
Sticking up for the 1st Amendment means defending private companies’ 1st Amendment rights along with the 1st Amendment rights of individuals.
Again: your claim that “Turley spends almost all of his time, explaining, and when necessary, defending the Constitution” is false. He does not spend “almost all of his time, explaining, and when necessary, defending the Constitution.” He actually spends very little of his time defending the Constitution.
Look at his multiple columns on the leak of this draft: he hasn’t devoted even one of them to defending the Constitution. He is actively avoiding discussing the constitutional issues in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
Do YOU want to discuss the constitutional issues in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization?
“A constitutional right to censor comments that don’t abide by their terms.” Turley is correct on that, but that is not what social media companies have been doing at all. Unless their terms allow comment by anyone other than those who don’t agree with the government, and those whose beliefs are not what those who run the social media companies, than you might be correct. However, we all know that the spin used by these companies to censor what they feel harmful to the narrative of the left or the Biden administration, is what they have been censoring and not the censorship we all expect. When people like Donald Trump are censored, while the Taliban leader and the Iranian Mullahs have free reign to these platforms, it is no surprise that people like Prof. Turley question their motives and actions.
Those who do not want to see the truth come out, will just continue to hurl insults at Turley and Fox News, for tryint to use their limited platforms to help Americans understand what is really happening to free speech in this country.
When free speech became a right. Being able to exercise freedom of speech doesn’t prevent anyone from suffering the consequences of exercising it. What you see as “attacking” is nothing more than criticism well deserved. Once you open your mouth you are open to any criticism. Because criticism is that “more free speech” suggestion that Turley often says is the solution to bad speech.
Free speech has always been a right.
Excercising any right might have consequences.
Criticize away – that is actually important. We learn the strength of our own arguments by the strength or lack thereof of the critizim they receive.
I badly want you attacks on my argument, the fact that they are so poor increases the odds my arguments are good.
Snowden leaked that the government was violating the constitutional rights of millions of American and he face consequences. Don’t go against “big brother”. But has anyone from “big brother” that leaked anything ever faced consequences past an uncomfortable hearing? There will be many more leaks until their are real consequences, waiting…..waiting…..waiting………………………………
Interesting comments all around, even some from jeffsilberman. Being in medical school in 1972, I can certainly tell you all that Roe vs Wade was a thunderclap also. Especially since a large part of the country, maybe even a majority, was very much against the decision. It built a decades long effort for people to get Justices on the Supreme Court who would reverse it. The polls still show that many people never accepted it. Both parties had pro choice and pro life adherents but now they have migrated almost exclusively to their respective parties. I was an adherent to unrestricted abortion until I assisted in one and then I changed my mind. Just as I changed from a death penalty advocate to no death penalty. I could not be against abortion (with 3 caveats) but for the death penalty. It was inconsistent. The decision (draft) turns on life and the ending of it. The states make the decision on death penalties. They should make the decision that suits their state on abortion. I think in a Federal system there is room for both. There are extremely effective contraceptives for basically all women no matter what their medical condition. I suspect their use will go up.
GEB, what are your 3 caveats?
Several weeks ago the FeeBees did a pre-dawn raid on Project Veritas’ James O’Keefe and others to gather up phones and other materials in an effort to find out how he obtained the Biden diary. With that in mind will the FeeBees perform a similar pre-dawn raid on the Politico offices and reporters in order to find how they obtained the leaked opinion and from whom?
Hope springs eternal Peter but you can bet the farm that under this feckless hack who serves as AG, nothing of the sort will happen.
PeterK,
Chief Justice Roberts is going to sic the Supreme Court Marshall to investigate the leak. That is the first action the informs the masses that finding the source is not going to happen. Others are welcome to fact check, but I cant find where SCOTUS Marshall has subpoena power, or any police powers period.
The FBI is stretched thin, investigating garage door rope pulls, spying on parents that go to School board meeting, and probably organizing and leading a half dozen proud boy protests.
“The assumption is that the individual wanted to pressure the court to reconsider its purported path, and to push Congress to pass pending legislation to codify Roe. Yet, this act is such an attack on the very foundation of the court that it is dangerous to assume a specific motivation other than disruption.”
No, that’s not “the” assumption, as there are a variety of conjectures about it. That’s *your* assumption Turley, and if you truly believed that “it is dangerous to assume a specific motivation other than disruption,” you wouldn’t have assumed “that the individual wanted to pressure the court to reconsider its purported path, and to push Congress to pass pending legislation to codify Roe.”
You’re choosing to traffic in unwarranted assumptions, even though that choice feeds the “age of rage” that you often complain about.
As long as you feed the “age of rage” while complaining about it, I will consider you a hypocrite.
There is a world of difference between a reasonable inference and a wild assumption. Try to learn the difference. It may save the lives of your children and grandchildren
Turley is the one who said “it is dangerous to assume a specific motivation other than disruption,” but then proceeded to assume a specific motivation.
You consider his guess to be “a reasonable inference.” It’s a conjecture, not an inference, as the leak does not imply anything about who the leaker is or what their motivation is.
Turley’s conjecture is one of many reasonable conjectures. Here’s another, also from a law professor:
Joseph Fishkin: “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.”
Rick Hasen: “One thing to keep in mind here: some may say this SCOTUS leak benefits those who oppose overturning Roe. But it actually helps the majority that overturns by (1) deflecting commentary to breach of Court secrecy norms and (2) lessening the blow by setting expectations.”
The worst hypocrite is calling Turley a hypocrite for rendering an educated OPINON. Wow! This guy lost it.