Supreme Court

[Dickc]

Early reports are claiming a leaked opinion from the court is overturning Row V Wade.

I really think that Republicans should be careful what they wish for as this might be a step too far. While I have always questioned the logic behind the original decision, its been law for 49 years. The fallout will be big and loud, and might be the spark the
Democrats need to hold onto the house and senate.

[XtremeJibber2001]

The fallout will be big and loud, and might be the spark the Democrats need to hold onto the house and senate.

I think something like ~70% of Americans support abortion.

[throbster]

The leak is unprecedented and akin to insurrection.

Watch the violent left burn our cities over this.

[XtremeJibber2001]

The leak is unprecedented and akin to insurrection.

Was the leak a result of a violent uprising? Not seeing this anywhere ...

[throbster]

"The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government."

Whoever leaked this did it in an attempt to undermine the Supreme Court

[easyrider16]

Early reports are claiming a leaked opinion from the court is overturning Row V Wade.

I really think that Republicans should be careful what they wish for as this might be a step too far. While I have always questioned the logic behind the original decision, its been law for 49 years. The fallout will be big and loud, and might be the spark the
Democrats need to hold onto the house and senate.

The notion of substantive due process, that some rights are so fundamental that no government can be allowed to deny them, is beautiful and, I think it fair to say, central to the American story. Just look at the Declaration of Independence, which references certain inalienable rights that no government can deny. The problem is, that language is not found in the Constitution. So the Court read it in using the substantive due process doctrine. Supreme Court cases striking down laws against interracial marriage and homosexuality are based on this substantive due process doctrine.

The leaked opinion doesn't overrule the doctrine of substantive due process. It just claims that the right to an abortion is not a right so fundamental as to be covered under the substantive due process doctrine. I think it's an arguable point, but that overruling 49 years of precedent in this way is a huge mistake for the reasons you state, but also because it will be seen as a largely political decision that undermines the fundamental legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

[throbster]

There are valid arguments why RvW was a bad decision.

Only 8 countries in the world allow late term abortions. We are in the company of China and North Korea.

[easyrider16]

Only 8 countries in the world allow late term abortions. We are in the company of China and North Korea.

You once again prove how little you understand about these issues. It is perfectly legal under the Roe/Casey framework to ban late term abortions, and many states have. Even if the Court overturns Roe v. Wade, there will still be states that allow late term abortions. The leaked opinion lets the states decide, which means they can legalize all forms of abortion if they want to. As such, this decision will change nothing regarding the law in the U.S. on late term abortions.

Btw, while China and North Korea do allow late term abortions, so does Australia, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Are they also bad company?

[throbster]

Only 8 countries in the world allow late term abortions. We are in the company of China and North Korea.

Btw, while China and North Korea do allow late term abortions, so does Australia, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Are they also bad company?

Yes, if they allow this barbaric practice.

[daytripper]

Im kinda split on this one. While I believe that abortion should be legal up to 6 months, I also am a strong supporter of letting the states make their own laws. I do agree with dick that this may help dems hold onto seats in november. It was probably leaked by dems.

[easyrider16]

I think for me the issue is the broader implications of a conservative court that takes such a narrow view of the substantive due process doctrine. There are a lot of rights we take for granted that are not enumerated in the Constitution. The right to marry who we want, the right to use contraception, the right to engage in sexual relations with whom and how we want, the right to refuse life-saving medical procedures, the right to raise children as we see fit - these are all rights about which the Constitution is silent. Yet the Supreme Court has found that these are all fundamental rights based on the substantive due process doctrine. A decision that weakens the doctrine, as this case does by taking such a narrow view of it, detracts from our rights.

There is also the question of rights that have not yet been defined. Do we have privacy rights to our personal information in an increasingly technological society? What about Elon Musk's Neuralink technology and the convergence of humans and machines-what rights might we have arising from that? I think we need a strong substantive due process tradition to allow the Court to enumerate our rights as new technologies develop and complicate human existence. As a small c conservative, I think governmental power should be limited. A strong substantive due process doctrine serves to limit government power.

[easyrider16]

It was probably leaked by dems.

Interesting theory on this is that one conservative justice might be wavering, and that this was released by another conservative justice (or his staff) to try to cement support for the decision. If a conservative judge, say for instance Kavanaugh, changed his mind now to vote against this decision, he would be publicly castigated for waffling due to public pressure.

Or it could be the dems. But I think it could just as easily have been some staffer. There are news outlets that would pay big dollars for a scoop like this. Or maybe there's a staffer who felt pretty strongly about the issue one way or another and thought that people should know what's coming.

[XtremeJibber2001]

It was probably leaked by dems.

Interesting theory on this is that one conservative justice might be wavering, and that this was released by another conservative justice (or his staff) to try to cement support for the decision. If a conservative judge, say for instance Kavanaugh, changed his mind now to vote against this decision, he would be publicly castigated for waffling due to public pressure.

Or it could be the dems. But I think it could just as easily have been some staffer. There are news outlets that would pay big dollars for a scoop like this. Or maybe there's a staffer who felt pretty strongly about the issue one way or another and thought that people should know what's coming.

Can't wait to hear the GQP theories if this comes out as a conservative staffer.

If you're a staffer that feel strongly about this topic, why wait ~2 months to leak?

[easyrider16]

If you're a staffer that feel strongly about this topic, why wait ~2 months to leak?

It's possible the decision wasn't drafted until recently. These things do take time to write, and it's one among many.

[XtremeJibber2001]

If you're a staffer that feel strongly about this topic, why wait ~2 months to leak?

It's possible the decision wasn't drafted until recently. These things do take time to write, and it's one among many.

IANAL. Circulation date on the draft is Feb 10.