Supreme Court Leak Investigation Heats Up as Clerks Are Asked For Phone Records in Unprecedented Move (cnn.com) 343
Supreme Court officials are escalating their search for the source of the leaked draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, taking steps to require law clerks to provide cell phone records and sign affidavits, three sources with knowledge of the efforts have told CNN. From the report: Some clerks are apparently so alarmed over the moves, particularly the sudden requests for private cell data, that they have begun exploring whether to hire outside counsel. The court's moves are unprecedented and the most striking development to date in the investigation into who might have provided Politico with the draft opinion it published on May 2. The probe has intensified the already high tensions at the Supreme Court, where the conservative majority is poised to roll back a half-century of abortion rights and privacy protections. Chief Justice John Roberts met with law clerks as a group after the breach, CNN has learned, but it is not known whether any systematic individual interviews have occurred.
Lawyers outside the court who have become aware of the new inquiries related to cell phone details warn of potential intrusiveness on clerks' personal activities, irrespective of any disclosure to the news media, and say they may feel the need to obtain independent counsel. "That's what similarly situated individuals would do in virtually any other government investigation," said one appellate lawyer with experience in investigations and knowledge of the new demands on law clerks. "It would be hypocritical for the Supreme Court to prevent its own employees from taking advantage of that fundamental legal protection." Sources familiar with efforts underway say the exact language of the affidavits or the intended scope of that cell phone search -- content or time period covered -- is not yet clear.
Lawyers outside the court who have become aware of the new inquiries related to cell phone details warn of potential intrusiveness on clerks' personal activities, irrespective of any disclosure to the news media, and say they may feel the need to obtain independent counsel. "That's what similarly situated individuals would do in virtually any other government investigation," said one appellate lawyer with experience in investigations and knowledge of the new demands on law clerks. "It would be hypocritical for the Supreme Court to prevent its own employees from taking advantage of that fundamental legal protection." Sources familiar with efforts underway say the exact language of the affidavits or the intended scope of that cell phone search -- content or time period covered -- is not yet clear.
Pathetic attempt to distraction heats up (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember guys Roe v Wade wasn't about abortion it was about privacy. Do you like cryptography? Do you like having secure communications the government can't ease drop on using back doors? All those privacy protections rest on the same legal foundations as Roe versus Wade. Once we tear down those legal protections we lose 70 years of privacy laws.
Longer in fact because in order to justify tearing down a clear and obvious legal precedent for political reasons the court has had to reach back to the 16 and 1700s and to somebody who literally sentenced women to death for witchcraft. They've had to go back to legal justifications that predate the Constitution and make flimsy excuses about why those legal justifications have any bearing on the thoughts and writings of the founding fathers.
In short, to overturn a precedent as well as supported as Roe they're going to have to wreck our entire legal system and all of your privacy protections that come with it. Opening the floodgates to the government spying on you using mandatory back doors in all your devices. Buckle up guys it's going to be a bumpy ride
More about the privacy doctrine (Score:3)
A quick overview for people in a hurry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It mentions the privacy-related cases that led up to Roe.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Pathetic attempt to distraction heats up (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
All things that conservatives disapprove of. The party of limited government sure is very concerned about what adults are doing behind closed doors.
They simply want government limited to only what they want, and what will keep them in power.
Re:Pathetic attempt to distraction heats up (Score:5, Informative)
Most of the laws are reserved to be passed and enforced at the state level...federal law is supposed to be limited and narrow.
Um, what? The 14th Amendment in all the above cases was used to ban laws that States enacted. Every single one was SCOTUS reminding States that citizens have rights even if they are not all enumerated.
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree (Score:2, Flamebait)
When judges make a ruling that isn't based on literal readings they're not making shit up, they're saying "the document guarantees
Re: (Score:2)
There are numerous historical analyses of the Court's decisions on controversial issues, and I guess it's by some miracle that they have a funny tendency to OK things that recently passed 50% in popularity.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
the court has had to reach back to the 16 and 1700s
ah yes, the UNITED STATES supreme court will look back on a time when the UNITED STATES did not exist. lets bring back taxation without representation while you're at it
Re: (Score:2)
Legal systems existed before the United States. Early judges based their decisions on existing precedent and legal standards from England and the colonial period. Existing precedent is continually building and growing and has been for centuries.
Re:Pathetic attempt to distraction heats up (Score:4, Insightful)
and today's supreme court are still considered early judges basing their decisions on England's legal standard? yes lets look back on witchcraft to determine privacy standards. the whole reason for roe v wade is because there was nothing to base their decisions on OR that society has progressed to a point where we don't, ya know, burn people at the stake
Re:Pathetic attempt to distraction heats up (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah I base all my legal opinions on the buoyancy of witches.
Re:Pathetic attempt to distraction heats up (Score:5, Insightful)
It is like saying the American Civil War wasn't about Slavery but State rights. It was about State Rights to Slavery.
You are also applying a sliding scale argument to its outcome if overturned.
The real issue is Row v Wade has just became a partisan talking point. Striking up a lot of feelings to a population who mostly is not affected by it in any way, except for the feeling of getting a nod saying that My side was right and your side is wrong! And depending on your stance you feel victory or defeat.
The republicans are not really for Pro-Life, as they support the Death Penalty, and reject services meant to help a woman care for their child.
The democrats are not really Pro-Choice, as this would be for more gun rights, as well a lot less in rules and regulations
The Abortion issue actually has a political dissonance, in ideology. As it is the Conservative parties pushing for more rules and regulations, while the Liberal Parties are advocating for less rules, on this particular topic. The core of this just comes down to how this is a topic, that religions that account for a good portion of the population have a strong opinion on, so the republicans wanted to tie themselves with the Religious folks, so just around that one topic they can get a bunch of votes.
If the GOP overturns Roe v Wade, and if the Democrats decide not to sustain it as a big issue, this could hurt the GOP, as the Christian groups will no longer have that one topic for the single issue voter, and many religions may encourage followers to be more proactive in social justice concerns which the democrats have a stronger stance on.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pro-abortion. In fact, it should be mandated in many cases. However, the right to privacy that was cobbled together for Roe was always tenuous. The other "privacy" items cited in the parent relate directly to the 4th amendment and search and seizure. Scotus was not able to apply that directly to abortion because nothing is being searched or seized, so scotus made up a new right. The consequence is that the foundation is weak.
It's sort of bizarre really that the Constitution doesn't explicitly offer
Re:Pathetic attempt to distraction heats up (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, to be fair, when the constitution was passed, a lot of it was based on the majority of people at least having some common sense, and back then, the US was much more homogenous in its general ways of thinking.
Hell, the US was much more homogeneous in general about MOST things as short as maybe 10-15 years ago before things really started splintering and fringe groups getting a more amplified voice via social media, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pro-abortion. In fact, it should be mandated in many cases.
I wonder if there will be lawsuits brought against the new/stricter abortion laws on the basis of religious freedom.
I've read/heard several articles/interviews (even Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]) that Judaism allows (or even encourages) abortion in order to save the life or health of a pregnant woman and several (even Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]) that there is no explicit prohibitions on a woman's right to abort under Islamic law.
Even going back to earlier in the US, most states allowed abortion until the quickening [wikipedia.org] -- when movement of th
Citations, please (Score:3)
Please don't read hostility or malintent into this. I just want to know the specific justifications and cases you're referring to. Legal issues are often fairly complex and being able to see relevant precedent is one of the ways I'm able to discern fact from fiction.
Re:Pathetic attempt to distraction heats up (Score:4, Interesting)
Which is what makes this ruling even more disturbing. The Court has effectively said the state can dig into your personal life at will. Which, unless I'm mistaken, is about as far from the original intent of the Constitution as one can get.
Then entire point of the Constitution was to limit the power of the government over the people. This was of course a reaction to the monumental oversight of public and private life the Crown implemented.
But now these so called "originalists" have said, "Nope, don't like it. Not one bit. Have at it, government. Get your paws into people's personal lives. Dictate at will."
In all honsety, I hope people ignore this ruling since it is so anathema to the Constitution's meaning.
As a side note, I would love to see a state implement a law making it illegal for married couples to have affairs, then implement a second law saying a person could collect a $10K reward if they report a married person having an affair.I would live to see the contorted backflips a certain group of people would perform trying to find reasons why either would be unconstitutional after this court ruling.
Re: (Score:3)
And it was a follow up to the SCOTUS case allowing birth control. A lot of "unenumerated rights" that we enjoy at the moment that are a lot shakier once "unenumerated rights" aren't protected or given low priority Birth control, even marriage to someone of a different race (which was illegal within my lifetime), and you can bet your ass someone will immediately try to overturn same sex marriage.
Re:Pathetic attempt to distraction heats up (Score:5, Insightful)
Your post is nothing but a cut/paste from a group that makes money off of abortion and is lying about what was in the decision in order to protect their money flow.
Who makes money from abortion?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You're not supposed to mention that. Next you'll spill the beans about getting paid to wear masks!
Re: Pathetic attempt to distraction heats up (Score:5, Informative)
Abortion makes up ~3% of PP's services, it is not in any way an outsized profit center for PP, and no government funding goes toward abortion since their budget is specifically bifurcated to avoid it by federal law.
But none of the right wing news sources you follow reported those inconvenient facts, have they? Nor do they discuss where the other 97% of womens care will come from if PP is shut down. It's partisan political theater, and you fell for it.
Re:Pathetic attempt to distraction heats up (Score:5, Informative)
Every sperm is sacred (Score:3)
This comment brought to you by Poe's law.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Pathetic attempt to distraction heats up (Score:4)
Weren't there some studies or research released not that long back that showed the Planned Parenthood really didn't do much more than abortions? That aside from that, they provided very few other services in reality.
For the record, I lean pro-choice.
Only if you listen to right wing news sources. They'd have you believe there is an abortion conveyor belt. The vast majority of the services they offer are sexual health screening and birth control.
Re:Pathetic attempt to distraction heats up (Score:5, Informative)
that is a bunch of garbage. even ruth ginsburg said that roe v wade was not about privacy. then if you actually go and read the leaked paper it specify mention and why they are not affected and are different from this case. Your post is nothing but a cut/paste from a group that makes money off of abortion and is lying about what was in the decision in order to protect their money flow.
Go back and read Roe v Wade, it's copy pasted straight from Roe v Wade, primary sources and what not. - 77 This right of -=PRIVACY=-, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation. - 78 On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of -=PRIVACY=- also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The -=PRIVACY=- right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of -=PRIVACY=- previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 S.Ct. 358, 49 L.Ed. 643 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 47 S.Ct. 584, 71 L.Ed. 1000 (1927) (sterilization). - - 79 We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal -=PRIVACY=- includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation. - - 82 Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of -=PRIVACY=- , however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach. - - I have read the leaked draft. I'm not convinced. I found their reasoning to be flimsy at best, self-serving and dishonest at it's worst. Which passages did you find most compelling? Why?
Re: (Score:3)
Ginsburg wanted the case to be decided as a matter of equal protection, which would have provided a stronger individual right to abortion than Roe's privacy rationale.
The leaked opinion basically said that other rights dependent on a right to privacy are not affected "because reasons." At no point was there a real attempt to distinguish between other rights dependent on privacy and abortion. Alito's reasoning looked at whether abortion was a "deeply held right at the time of the writing of the constitution"
Re: (Score:2)
We should lie, steal, send in militants followed by thoughts and prayers, you know, basically reply in kind to their playbook on how to enact laws.
If lying, cheating, and stealing helped the Leftist cause, it would have worked by now. It hasn't. It has only made the nation less compassionate, less loving, more self-centered, and arrogant. Abortion was made legal not by the normal democratic process of convincing the population that it was moral, just, and right, but rather by the SCOTUS back door.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pathetic attempt to distraction heats up (Score:5, Insightful)
If lying, cheating, and stealing helped the Leftist cause, it would have worked by now.
Noting that The Right does all three. For examples, the "Stop the Steal" campaign was (is) literally an attempt to steal the election using clearly false and misrepresented information ... Senator Mitch McConnell says Obama can't replace a Supreme Court judge during an presidential election year, but then does exactly that when Trump is in power.
Just sayin' ...
Re: (Score:2)
Is democracy broken if it doesn't support your notion of rights? There are definitely places in the US where people feel deeply that a woman has a right to kill the living human being depending on her for support. There are also places in the US where people feel they have the right to kill a person trespassing on their property. In both cases, the language is changed to deny the dignity of human beings - one is called "just a clump of cells", and the other "trespasser", but never will either admit, "this is a human being, created in the image and likeness of God."
Until I can claim a positive pregnancy test on my income taxes and buy insurance on a fetus, your argument is invalid. So god looks like a person? That's interesting.
Re:Pathetic attempt to distraction heats up (Score:5, Insightful)
So god looks like a person? That's interesting.
Actually, they would seem to be claiming that god looks like a fetus (i.e. like a tadpole since ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny)? Or maybe an earlier version. A blastocyst? I suppose if it actually goes back to the moment of conception, god looks like a fertilized egg?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Pathetic attempt to distraction heats up (Score:5, Informative)
It's not because of religion (Score:5, Insightful)
This is about punishing people for having sex. It's the American puritanical belief that enjoyment in life must be stamped out and replaced with blind obedience. It's a tool that dishonest church leaders use to drain money from their flock. It's the exact opposite of both the old and new testament teachings.
Re: (Score:2)
The leaker will fess up in 50 years when they are dying of cancer, just like Deep Throat. Don't hold your breath in the meantime.
This is a search and seizure (Score:5, Insightful)
The Constitution does not grant you a right to privacy.
In the case of their papers and effects you are very wrong, it's called the 4th amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Supremes have long held that cell phones come within "papers and effects" are protected from warrantless searches and seizures. Whether you can then translate that into further rights of privacy is another matter but yeah there is definite hypocrisy here. It doesn't have to be the executive branch for the 4th amendment to apply, so unless they want to sign a warrant they're dodging the very foundation of their office.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Constitution does not grant you a right to privacy.
In the case of their papers and effects you are very wrong, it's called the 4th amendment:
I hate to be a pedant, but technically isn't wrong: The Constitution doesn't say anything about privacy. What you're referencing is the Bill of Rights. Still 100% under the purview of the Courts, but I don't want OP claiming a moral victory on a technicality.
Re:This is a search and seizure (Score:4, Interesting)
The Bill of Rights were passed as Constitutional amendments. Meaning that they adjust/amend the Constitution, becoming part of it.
Re:Pathetic attempt to distraction heats up (Score:5, Insightful)
The Constitution does not grant you a right to privacy
Ninth amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
I have the right to privacy until it is made invalid by laws. I have the right to whatever until a law makes it not a right. The Constitution is a limit to what regulations the law may apply. The Constitution doesn't give us free speech, we have it by simply existing. The Constitution simply says that Congress, and by extension of the 14th Amendment everything that indicates that it upholds the law, cannot make laws that limit this preexisting right. The Constitution doesn't give us a right to privacy, we have it by simply existing. The 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th and 14th amendment limit the encroachment of that right on several fronts. Indicating that law enforcement requires a due process before they can get you on any perceived crime. And you have a right to fight back on that discovery. If you had no right to privacy, why would any court allow you to fight back?
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Neither the 4th or 9th Amendment's don't grant privacy? That's interesting. I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Odds are good that the leaker will be exposed, and probably banned from legal practice / blackballed / disbarred for life.
Not going to happen. How do I know? No matter who the person is, someone out there will want them. Look at Bill Barr. Arguably one of the most corrupt AGs this country has had. Not only was he
Re:Pathetic attempt to distraction heats up (Score:5, Insightful)
The "right to privacy" is what we call the general proposition that the government should be limited to its own business. This line of reasoning where people demand an explicit enumerated right for it to exist is exactly what the founders feared when they debated whether to write a bill of rights. The worry was that people would interpret the bill of rights as an exclusive list of rights. So that's why they included the 9th Amendment to attempt to discredit that line of reasoning. The draft opinion basically renders the 9th Amendment dead letter.
The problem is one of framing. The correct framing is not that individuals have a right to privacy. The issue is that the GOVERNMENT DOESN'T have a right to intrude on private lives. The Constitution is about what the government can and cannot do, not what individuals can and cannot do.
Theater (Score:5, Interesting)
The most reasonable theory I've seen suggests that this was done by someone on the right to lock-in a swing justice's vote. If that's true, we'll probably never find out
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you listen to Fox they tell you daily that the "radical left" and Antifa are looking to burn down your city next.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Nah...that was last year when it was actually happening in many major cities around the US.
They aren't really reporting it today as that it has calmed down more or less for the time being.
Now, it is more just general criminals in action since they now aren't as afraid of law enforcement, hence the rise in shoplifting (under $900), smash and grab and violent crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, Seattle is nothing but a smoking crater. I hear someday they might rebuild it.
Re: (Score:2)
No Problem At All (Score:2)
In the United States, frankly, it seems that the rule of law, the authority of the courts, and the need for anybody to obey any mandates from any governmental bodies is simply "not applicable". Just find your partisan reason to wave it all away. Provided you're related to politics, you'll be fine.
Just say no. Works a lot.
No1curr (Score:5, Informative)
Nobody cares about the nature of the leak or the circumstances that led up to it. People care about the content.
Focusing on the leak itself is for right wing apologists only.
Re: (Score:2)
...people who care about the rule of law should care that the laws are obeyed.
If that were true then BOTH of the major party 2016 Presidential candidates would be in prison right now.
That they both aren't, and neither is likely to be, should tell you everything you need to know about the "rule of law" in the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
What law was broken by the leak?
It is in everyone's best interest that laws be obeyed. Look at the result of riots in black communities decades ago[...]. If we don't entice obediance to all laws, the whole infrastructure of society will collapse.
I hope you're not talking about the race riots and civil disobedience that occurred during the civil rights movement. And I really hope you don't mean to suggest that it was immoral for Black Americans to disobey the Jim Crow laws.
Consistency (Score:2)
"It would be hypocritical for the Supreme Court to prevent its own employees from taking advantage of that fundamental legal protection". Well at least they would be consistent with all their other decisions so far.
Privacy? OK for me, but not for thee.
They just have to wait. (Score:5, Insightful)
Rights? (Score:2)
We ask these people to support our rights while stripping them of theirs? Not likely to work. The investigation is federal, so these people have all the due process rights, including 4th & 5th Amendments. It cannot be a "condition of employment" as it might be in the private sector. The federal government is bound with respect to everyone including its' employees and agents.
I don’t wan the government keeping secrets (Score:3)
Justices? (Score:3)
However unsettling this is, if anyone is to be searched on suspicion, then everyone should be. Including all the Justices. Reduce the hypocracy slightly.
Radical/Extremists threaten the court not leakers (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope they have discover who it is, but whomever leaked the draft opinion is a hero. It won't change the atrocity that is clearly already set in stone as far as the Republican majority is concerned, but at least the issue got some attention in media that was sorely needed.
Beyond that we have also gotten some attention on issues that also have been festering, such as Clarence Thomas' numerous conflict of interest issues, his wife being an activist for sedition, Kavanaugh's mysterious debt relief, and most of all where the millions of dollars to promote right wing activists to the the court comes from.
The "conservatives" are furious because their game plan and behind-closed-doors machinations were exposed. They no longer can hand down the decision then bang the gavel, shutting the door to questions they don't want to answer, leaving the public reeling, which by a 4-1 margin does not want right wing extremist views to prevail on the subject of abortion.
As I wrote above the "opinion" such as it is will be handed down unaltered, but at least they can no longer hide behind the pretense that it was deliberated carefully, when in fact it is little more than the enactment of a long cherished dream of a particularly nasty teenage boy.
Citations? (Score:3)
Fake news (Score:5, Insightful)
"Some clerks are apparently so alarmed over the moves, particularly the sudden requests for private cell data, that they have begun exploring whether to hire outside counsel."
"Some". "Apparently." "Sudden." No names, no attribution. Sounds like they talked to ONE clerk who said others probably think the same. In other words, fake news.
I think it's just as likely (Score:3)
Republicans shouting (Score:4, Insightful)
My Body My Choice! over vaccines. Why does it not work for abortions? How about smoking pot? Suddenly they're very much about the government telling other people what to do.
Re:Republicans shouting (Score:5, Interesting)
And unlike smoking pot or having an abortion, not being vaccinated actually CAN have a negative impact on the people around you, not just yourself.
Even though one could argue that pregnancy is a kind of a STD...
Re:Republicans shouting (Score:5, Interesting)
I would have an easier time accepting the conservative opposition to abortion if they weren't also opposed to comprehensive sex education, widely and freely available contraception, cheap health care, and a strong welfare state. They claim to care about the life of the child, but that claim rings hollow to me in light of the above.
My current working hypothesis, which fits all the data I've seen so far, is that conservatives believe that women (and only women) who have sex for fun should be punished.
Re:Republicans shouting (Score:5, Informative)
My current working hypothesis, which fits all the data I've seen so far, is that conservatives believe that women (and only women) who have sex for fun should be punished.
Conservatives, despite banging on about the constitution actually want the law to enshrine a particularly extreme version of Christian beliefs in blatant violation of the first amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's absolutely true that the war on some drugs has been a thoroughly bipartisan effort. The bulk of voters have responded positively to it every time, which is incredibly depressing. Recent polls suggest that public opinion has shifted strongly on both medical and recreational cannabis since the last major effort, though.
Re: (Score:2)
The key phrase is "other people."
Why the secrecy? (Score:2)
Any law that has to be drafted in secrecy lest the people who it is going to affect learn about it before it's too late can't be a good one.
D.C. v Heller (Score:2)
I mean, if we're overturning old rulings we don't like, we should add that to the list...
Investigation of what crime, exactly? (Score:2)
I read an article that says there is no body of law governing US court procedures. That the leak wasn't against any law, or federal regulation. It was just traditional court behaviour.
Isn't this "investigation" exactly the same as an employer going all manic over who left their tuna in the fridge?
I mean, cooperate if you want to keep your job, but otherwise, I think they can say "bite me".
The only one nervous is the leaker (Score:2)
The leaker is the one that's nervous. Everyone else has nothing to hide...right?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Having a draft opinion before something getting to court, and having stated it was established law under oath, is an issue as well.
How dare those people point out our wrong doing! We should lock them up for showing how bad of a person we are!
I am actually a Pro-Life, however I also like to think of myself as a pragmatic person, where if a judge plans to vote is opinion without the actual details of a case being presented is just wrong, and immoral and a mockery of justice. Creating an issue where such a jud
Re: (Score:2)
Having a draft opinion before something getting to court, and having stated it was established law under oath, is an issue as well.
I think you might misunderstand the SC's procedures. The opinion was written at the proper time:Supreme Court shit [uscourts.gov]
The timing of the release (and actions taken afterward) look more in line with coercing the judges to switch their opinion, but I can't prove that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The early release of the opinion would only have negative consequences for the majority opinion. Remember all the stories of well-known conservatives
Re:Unprecedented (Score:4)
The legislature should have handled this long ago. The RvW decision was a miscarriage of justice, even if made for the "correct" reasons. Removing a crappy decision from case law is a good thing. As repealing the decision would not outlaw anything directly, the reasons for the so-called conservative camps to pre-blast the opinion world-wide don't make sense.
Actually, repealing the decision would cause a bunch of trigger laws in 13 states to immediately come into force. So it would potentially outlaw abortion fairly directly.
So if even one of the conservative justices wants to overturn Roe because he or she feels the precedent was improper, but still wants women to retain the right to abortion, then the best way to achieve such a result would be by prereleasing this, causing Congress to panic and *maybe* take action.
The early release of the opinion would only have negative consequences for the majority opinion. Remember all the stories of well-known conservatives not being able to go to restaurants with their families without being screamed at incessantly? Remember the groups of non-conservative folks who liked showing up at well-known conservatives homes and shouting threats at their families? Do you remember non-conservative politicians and media members condoning this actions, and outright calling for more? If you remember any of those situations (or the burning cities as covid-proof people "expressed" their opinions through violence and looting), you'd understand that your examples of a conservative leaker are unlikely.
Well first, you can safely assume that the conservative justices will become targets by extremists the second the decision is formally announced no matter what, short of them changing their positions. Prereleasing the opinion just changes the timing of the risk to their safety. So that cannot realistically be seen as a reason for or against leaking it early.
Second, if they believe that Congress, with its Democrat majority and a few pro-life Republicans in the Senate, will take action to fix things, but will not risk the political backlash from doing so unless they feel that they have no choice, then releasing the decision early provides some slight possibility that the conservative justices would be able to avoid that risk by getting a law passed that would allow them to vacate the case as moot.
Third, if you assume that their goal is to get such a law passed, leaking the opinion early gives the best chances of that happening, before Congress gets in the middle of the busiest part of election season and becomes hopelessly afraid of taking action on anything of substance.
Fourth, if you assume that the conservative side of the court is politically motivated to get more Republicans into Congress, then forcing the Democrats into a corner and making them vote for a law that upholds Roe could be a strategic way to separate Democrats from a few voters in more conservative districts, particularly in the southern U.S. Releasing this decision earlier, at a time when it can affect a larger number of state primaries, could be seen as useful in that regard. And given that the first midterm election in a president's career is the election in which the president's party is most likely to lose seats, this is the ideal time for them to force the Democrats to act.
So again, I can think of a *lot* of plausible reasons why someone on the conservative side of the court might leak this, and those reasons are just as plausible as reasons why someone on the liberal side of the court might do so.
Re: (Score:3)
What are you talking about? Arguments for the case (Dobbs v Jackson Womens Health) were heard on Dec 1, 2021. The 'draft opinion' was written in Feb 2022.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Secret SCOTUS already exists (Score:5, Interesting)
The SCOTUS is increasingly issuing shadow docket rulings that are unsigned with essentially no explanations or reasoning. No accountability, plausible deniability, and critics picking away any logical and legal contradictions that aren't published.
It's interesting that a group of justices with lifetime appointments that are answerable to no one (well, ostensibly answerable to a theoretical impeachment that is not possible in today's politicized senate) still feels the needs for secrecy and plausible deniability. Either they're just too lazy or they feel the need to preserve their legacy.
Re: (Score:3)
It wasn't illegal at all. There is no criminal statute governing that document. Not only that, the people own the court so the work-product of the court belongs to the people.
You're upset that your hand was tipped and your piss-poor reasoning for taking away reproductive rights - all the while decrying any attempt to regulate firearms as an assault on oyur freedom - was exposed for all the world to see.
If you can't assemble a coherent political ideology, considering borrowing one until you can.
Re:Unprecedented (Score:5, Insightful)
Just FYI, if Roe is overturned...it doesn't mean abortions are outlawed nationwide.
It is just throwing it back to the states for them to decide for each state what its citizens want.
If you want abortion nationally, it likely needs a constitutional amendment, and if the nation wants it as a whole nationwide, it can be an ammendment.
Ahh...but you see THAT right was seen to be important enough that a constitutional amendment to spell this one out was made...and part of that amendment was stating "not to be infrigned"...I hope you can see at least a slight difference here.
By the way, I'm pro-choice....but I do try to calm down and take emotion out of my decisions and how I view what's happening. Laws and such should not be passed based on high emotion of a moment.
You get stuck with shit like the Patriot Act when you do that....and we're still stuck with that POS.
Re:Unprecedented (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a ridiculous argument. The ultimate mark of a free society is upward mobility and self-determination, to live in the place we want to live. Saying "if you don't like it, move" is absurd - how is that consistent with self-determination? You're making the decision for them.
There's no constitutional right to abortion because at the time the Constitution was written, abortion was a thing that happened just like appendectomies. Some laws were passed in the 1800s but they were all quite reasonable compared to the extra-judicial nonsense that Texas is trying to push presently.
The intellectually honest position is "the ability to determine reproduction is a right inherent in the right to self-determination" and abortion laws shouldn't exist. Every stance opposing this requires a great deal of intellectual dishonesty to embrace.
It's not up to me to bring consistency to these folks' arguments - that's a fault of their incoherent worldview.
Re:Unprecedented (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't necessarily mean it's left to the states. States that are outlawing abortion are looking to extend their enforcement outside of their boundaries by prosecution or allowing civil suits against anybody "aiding and abetting" an abortion. The Republican leadership has already indicated they would consider a national abortion ban, which will likely at least come to a vote if they get majorities in Congress.
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't count on the current SCOTUS overturning anything. They basically already decided that basically nobody has standing to challenge the Texas law allowing civil vigilante action against abortion providers (which need not have had any direct contact with the state). No, nobody gets charged with out of state gambling, but no states have attempted to extend such a law. More importantly, there isn't a powerful political constituency that has stacked the court for the specific goal of overturning legal g
Re:Unprecedented (Score:5, Informative)
[...] if the nation wants it as a whole nationwide, it can be an ammendment.
What in the world leads you to believe this is true? The US does not have proportional representation; Republicans are overrepresented in both the House and the Senate.
Re:Unprecedented (Score:5, Interesting)
"Originalism" doesn't mean the Constitution is to be taken "literally." It means the Constitution is to be interpreted as it would have been when it was written (which may or may not have been literal). Also worth noting that the literal meaning of words has changed over the last 250 years in some cases.
The problem is that peering through the lens of hundreds of years of history is difficult, to say the least. The reality is that there were bitter political disputes then, as now, and it's quite likely that even if you could summon the founding fathers from the 18th century to testify before the Supreme Court, you would get differences in opinion on how to interpret the constitution. As such, it's possible to justify a pretty wide range of opinions on the same topic as "originalist", by cherry picking historical texts.
Re:Unprecedented (Score:5, Insightful)
The leak was unprecedented and illegal but what do you expect from leftists?
It's premature to assign the leak to leftists. Maybe someone was outraged by the decision and wanted to share the outrage, or maybe someone was delighted by the decision and wanted to share the delight.
Let's wait on some facts, for a change.
I don't really care left or right (Score:3)
Re:Unprecedented (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Many "left-leaning," progressive countries have taken away most or all guns. To say that a "left" position in the United States doesn't even consider the possibility of taking away guns is just another illustration of how far right "the left" in the U.S. has become.
Actually, it just indicates that moderate leftists in the US aren't completely stupid. Do you know what it would take to repeal the second amendment? Among other things, support of 3/4 of the state legislatures. Right now, you can't get the support of more than 10-15% of the population for taking most or all guns away, which means you probably can't get a majority of even one state legislature.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not seeing where that would be "other definitions of the word 'regulated'?" A 'well regulated' militia would indeed be 'organized, armed, and disciplined.' I will certainly agree with you that, had the text above been adopted, it would foreclose an 'individual right to bear arms' protected by that alternate 2nd amendment (though perhaps the 9th or 10th would serve)... but it wasn't, was it? I also do not see how you can bootstrap from "there was a possible alternate second amendment wording" to:
Very clearly the claim that the right is "individual" is highly dubious, at best.
It do
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Your other
Re: Unprecedented (Score:3)
Isn't that hilarious? The US is in such a political bubble that we don't realize that Bernie would be consider just left of center in the majority of political spectrums around the world. Granted, the US always leans Right, having kicked the only Leftists out by our 2nd president (Rep/Dem party killed the Federalists).
I don't blame Americans thou, it's really the media that spins the story. Extremes sell.
Re: (Score:2)
Twice so if it had been a black person.
Hell, he was a government employee by the time, wasn't he? He'd not even be tried.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering the shit job he's been doing to date as the Atty. General for the US, I'd say we dodged a bullet on that one. So, let's just chalk it up to fate that we got lucky on that one.