Not to mention, the basic premise of THIS OPINION is that public debate about controversial issues is healthy. Anyone complaining about this leak being damaging are doing a great job of undermining the basic premise of the opinion.
yes, the point of the supreme court is to interpret established law (which IS made through public opinion) and make judgement that isn't trying to appeal for their re-election campaign.
>These nine people are unelected and appointed to their positions for life.
in a vacuum, yes. In reality, they are appointed by the president (elected official) with approval from the senate (elected officials). Checks and balances, it's not perfect but it's made so that no one person can basically rule the country like a monarchy.
>the basic premise of THIS OPINION is that public debate about controversial issues is healthy.
no, the basic premise you replied to is "things are so polarized that even state officials are trying to skew opinions through leaks".
Whether it be revealed yesterday or in 2 years, this ruling would not have changed the obviously charged discourse that such a landmark case would bring. There isn't any particular justification that it's in the public's interest to hear this ruling earlier (since, well...it's been ruled over by now I assume. They aren't just going to re-judge the case over some pre-emptive protests). It is in the courts' interests to not have employees release documents off cue.
Yes! That the entire point of the Supreme Court.
It’s amazing how many comments don’t even understand basic civics and how the US government is structured.
But more specifically -- when the country was founded jurisdiction of the court was limited in nature and mainly involved mediating disputes between state governments. The idea that the Court was the ultimate arbiter of constitutional interpretation was a radical idea that was essentially imposed by the first Supreme Court justice.
If you think that the Court shouldn't be concerned with public opinion, well, the court staying out of public opinion is a large part of Alitio's reasoning here and that belies his argument. If being tasked with issuing public and controversial opinions, the justices shouldn't be political activists who are imposing their own personal agendas regardless of political opinion.
I mean, that's correct, but isn't that relevant to the discussion of the Court's role 230 years later.
I think what you want to say is "when the court rules the way I like, it's correct, but when it doesn't, the court is acting incorrectly".
It doesn't work that way
And what’s most hilarious is nobody actually read the draft opinion it says “Roe vs Wade has not resolved it, far better to have Congress resolve it”.
How is that an opinion worthy of attack?
HN likes to think it has as a more intelligent and logical discussion but looking at these comments it’s clear about 90% of it typical social media commentary you’d find anywhere. The few well thought out comments are downvoted to oblivion.
That's not entirely true, the people voted for them by proxy. We live in a republic not an athenian democracy, this is how a lot of things work, it's how it's supposed to work.
And I would further argue that the justices are pillars of the government in that the foundations are not easily swayed if indeed they are impervious to the temporal whims of galvanized crowds.
This was ultimately the choice of the country within the current framework of the government.
Roe exists only because Supreme Court Justices in their ivory tower overturned the laws the “public” had supported. People are afraid of Roe being overturned only because they are afraid of the laws duly elected officials will enact with public support when it’s gone.
The Supreme Court, as conceived by liberals, is an ivory tower where elite lawyers dish out rulings on moral issues without regard to the public perception.
The courts will make a decision and then it's up to Congress to draft new laws if it wants.
Undermining the process of the judicial branch is not going to end well at all.
Government is ignoring processes and right at all levels to some degree. I sympathize with the idea that rule of law has become a joke since nobody can enforce it on the people in power.
Which, while perhaps unethical to someone on the other side of the political debate, doesn't contravene any rules as far as I'm aware. Same here, so I think the leak is fine.
RBG could have retired earlier when democrats had majority but probably for some selfish reason she did not do that.
His did.
I've made it myself.
Again: it did not subvert process or go against precedent. Numerous justices have long-overstayed their terms.
If people dont vote for the opposition party then what exactly can the opposition do when they dont have the majority?
Now, the justices will be facing intense public discontent from those who want a different decision to be made before the draft is finalized (not that I suspect anything can realistically be changed at this point).
If you favor the decision, then it also speaks to money not getting a significant motivating factor (taking money to leak would betray someone they are supporting, which seems less than likely).
By this line of reasoning, I am assuming it was done by someone who deeply opposes the result.
When members do not have a way to change their opinion and save face, they won't change their opinion.
Politico should have been more thoughtful about its disclosure if they preferred to see changes because now the names on that opinion will never change and we could very well see the exact language become the published opinion.
They are humans that have to live in society just like the rest of us. No one is completely invulnerable to society. I imagine being the target of some of these radical abortion groups (anti or pro) would be scary, especially for officials that are normally not in the limelight.
These are federal supreme court justices that rule on often (by the nature of the cases they receive) controversial topics constantly. It's not a position you take if you value privacy.
I'm sure now it's especially dangerous, but I don't think this is a novel factor in their life at this point.
Pro-life / anti-abortion people believe that a fetus is a unique human life; from their perspective, that's 60 million murders committed against the unborn.
Of course, for any who do not think a fetus is a living human, it is a hollow argument.
Seems to be working quite well, I'd say a success overall.
Yes, there is. You potentially lock in someone who’s been waffling on their final vote by making their initial vote public.
Edit: No, no law is “settled” and impossible to overturn. The comment said “casually overturned”, not “never overturned”.
It’s how it’s supposed to work
You don’t get to pick and choose what decisions you like and then attack the ones you don’t. If you do you undermine the decisions you don’t agree with AND the ones you do.”
And again, there is nothing stopping Congress from turning around and passing a new abortion law that maintains the status quo.
It may not be perfect but if you don’t respect the process then you might as well throw the whole system out the window.
Stare decisis, aka precedent.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/is-roe-v-wade-settled-la...
"During his confirmation to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh convinced Sen. Susan Collins that he thought a woman’s right to an abortion was 'settled law,' calling the court cases affirming it 'precedent on precedent' that could not be casually overturned."
https://theconversation.com/the-supreme-court-has-overturned...
> A person familiar with the court’s deliberations said that four of the other Republican-appointed justices – Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – had voted with Alito in the conference held among the justices after hearing oral arguments in December, and that line-up remains unchanged as of this week.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/21/brett-kavanaugh-ro...
> “We talked about whether he considered Roe to be settled law,” Collins told reporters. “He said that he agreed with what [Chief] Justice [John] Roberts said at his nomination hearing in which he said that it was settled law.”
Lisa Murkowski now openly claims to have been misled by the nominees, as well. https://twitter.com/SamanthaJoRoth/status/152152291819859148...
> degressing(?)
regressing ("deteriorating" or "degenerating" could also work)
Sure I do. This one hurts people and is being decided by a broken court, formed by illigitimate means.
Nothing except Congress being useless. When empty land gets to vote, and half of it votes against functioning government, unsurprisingly nothing gets done.
At that point the Court itself is fubar. It probably already is fubar since Trump anyway. Clarence Thomas and his wife’s Jan 6th involvement is just the cherry on top of a shit show.
In the end they are falliable humans like the rest of us so perhaps we hold too high an opinion.
Roe is so bad that it has long united libertarian conservatives (who hate it because it makes up a right out of thin air) and social conservatives (who had abortion on the merits).
In addition to that it manages to be wildly out of line with international norms, which:
1) Generally recognize abortion as an issue for the legislature.
2) Typically draw the line for elective abortions at the end of the first trimester, not viability. The abortion laws in Denmark, Germany, Italy, France, and Spain would be unconstitutional under Roe.
Isn't our take on freedom of speech rather out of line with international norms? And probably also our take on bearing arms being a right?
I don't think I buy the implied claim that being out of line with norms is necessarily a bad thing.
I'm not following how you think these are comparable.
And even if accepting this framing -- which "process" exactly has been undermined? Has someone suggested stripping the courts of jurisdiction for certain cases? Have the courts been defunded or had their staffers taken away? Have the number of courts been reduced or the justices circulated to another court? These are all "process" changes well within the power of the other political branches, that aren't happening here.
In short -- quit changing the topic and perhaps read the draft opinion, which waxes philosophically about the value of public debate on controversial opinions.
Are you aware of “separation of powers”?
Are you aware that no such leak has ever occurred before it interferes with judicial independence?
Are you aware that the courts job is to decide if laws are constitutional/valid and Congress’ job to actually create law?
You hand wave away “process” when the entire function of the government is based on process.
If you throw away process you throw away the entire system.
Specifically -- are you aware that before the Roe v. Wade decision was released in 1973, that news of the decision leaked to the Washington Post? The idea that this has "never occurred" is absurd when a) it has, b) it literally happened in the case that this will overturn.
Are you aware that there was a series of leaks during the Berger court and that everything ended up fine?
> Judicial independence, separation of powers
If the leak came from within the judiciary, how does this threaten the independence of the court?
That's not the same you realize?
I wonder if politico will acknowledge whether or not they paid for the leak.
I see two likely outcomes here:
1) The leaker is not publicly identified and their career goes along as well as it would have had they not leaked.
2) The leaker is identified. They lose their clerkship but the leak will end up pleasing about half the country and they get a really nice job with some ideologically aligned law firm/NGO, a book deal, and a lucrative speaking career as the one who bravely risked their job to save the right to abortion.
Because the opinion can still change. The votes can still change.
We can only speculate until (unless?) the details come out. It certainly could be for the money. On a hot potato political issue like this, someone who is seen as "helping the cause" could easily make millions from a Gofundme or a book deal. There is also the social capital to be gained among those who would view this person's "sacrifice" as heroic. And of course there are always true believers like Reality Winner who are blinded by ideology and fail to consider the potential consequences of their actions.