Supreme Court leaked draft opinion

[RabbiKnife]

For those that haven't heard, Politico has reported a leaked DRAFT opinion of the Supreme Court in which SCOTUS overturns Roe v Wade and returns the issue of abortion to the states and elected officials.  It is likely a 5-4 opinion.  As it is only a draft, only the author (Alito) is named, as the others are only named in the final.  I anticipate that Roberts will side with the liberal arm of the court (likely in a separate concurring opinion only as to stare decisis), and that Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Thomas, and Gorsuch will be the majority opinion.  You can read the entire DRAFT here.   Please NOTE:  THIS IS ONLY A DRAFT. 

 https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21835435/scotus-initial-draft.pdf

Here's how this works.  After oral argument, the next week the Court takes an initial vote.  If there is a majority, then a person on the majority is assigned to draft the opinion.  it is drafted and then circulated to the other 8 justices for comment.  A lot of horsetrading goes on in terms of precise language, etc.   At the same time, Justices often start writing their concurring opinions or dissenting opinions.  Typically, the majority opinion is held until all of the concurring and dissenting opinions are finished, but this is not a requirement.

This leak of a draft is unprecedented.  Not that SCOTUS would overturn long held precedent -- that's been done a number of times -- , but that a draft opinion was leaked to the press before the final opinion is published.  This is treasonous, in my opinion.  It is a direct assault on the independence and integrity of the Supreme Court and its independent judicial role.  Only 45 people have access to the draft, with the possible exception of a few more legal secretaries and support staff, but generally, only the 9 justices and their 36 law clerks (each has four) have access to draft opinions.

This is a remarkable political move, an obvious effort by those supporting Roe and opposing its overturn to throw the SCOTUS into chaos and to try to bring popular and political pressure against it.  The left is already in full bore hysteria.  There are already calls for codifying Roe into law and for packing the Supreme Court.  Expect Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema to get blasted, and I fully expect both of them to blast the left beyond measure.

Ladies and gentlemen, the riots of 2020 and the lockdown of 2020 and 2021 were just the opening precursor.

This unfathomable action by someone to attempt to influence the Court through the press and public opinion is the first shot in the coming war.

Prepare yourselves in every way imaginable; there will be open civil unrest in every major city in America; churches will be targeted; Pro-life Christians will be targeted.  Make sure you have enough food and water on hand for a three week period at all times.  You are likely to see supply chain disruptions like you have never seen.  The BLM riots of a couple of years ago are getting ready to look like a Sunday School picnic.  This is all about trying to reverse the trend seen in the upcoming midterm elections.

Arm yourselves for spiritual warfare as you have never armed yourself.
A Smith and Wesson might not be a bad idea, either.

I can be a bit of a provacateur, I recognize, but if this opinion -- which reads like Alito, and is remarkably detailed -- is eventually published in total or without significant change, we are indeed looking at the possibility of undeclared civil war in this country, not of state against state, but of faction against faction.

Pray for our country, for our Supreme Court Justices, for our President, for Congress, and for the citizens of our great land.

This is truly remarkable.  You are experiencing history on the level of the first shots at Fort Sumter, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy Assassination, the Challenger explosion.  Remember this day.

[Athanasius]

I'm working; what's the tl;dr?

- Roe v Wade overturned
- Abortion laws are now state laws, not federal laws
- Some questions about other rights, laws, etc., that used Roe v Wade as foundation?
- Increasingly polarised social divisions between red and blue states

From what I've read from the people I know, they're taking this as first abortion, then gay marriage, then X, Y, and Z rights as the US trends towards a religious theocracy. Is this decision banning abortion, or is it overturning Roe v Wade and leaving it up to the state to decide what to do, and there are ~22 states that will ban abortion as a result?

What would be the salient concern if Roe v Wade was overturned but no state banned abortion, then what is this much ado about? (Personally, I don't think abortion should be banned, but that's a regretful position.)

[RabbiKnife]

Your four takeaways are mostly correct.

Draft Opinion is very clear that this is abortion related only,  not a precursor to anything related to marriage or sexuality.


Leaves it up to states to regulate abortion if they do it correctly.

This is a well written, very thorough analysis returning the Court to its proper function.

[Athanasius]

Your four takeaways are mostly correct.

Draft Opinion is very clear that this is abortion related only,  not a precursor to anything related to marriage or sexuality.


Leaves it up to states to regulate abortion if they do it correctly.

This is a well written, very thorough analysis returning the Court to its proper function.

Got it, I'll have to read it through properly. Throughout the day I've been neck deep in legal YouTube, and watching / listening to

[IMINXTC]

The draft contains the same language and arguments we were accustomed to hearing & using in 1973.

Current jargon & arguments pit the rights of the unborn against a woman's "reproductive rights."

Absurd.

There will of no doubt be a revisiting of the concept of "right to privacy," which I believe is a late-day construct, not laid out in the constitution per se.

[Sojourner]

The Supreme Court never should  have taken up the issue of abortion, making it a "right." Too many women are terminating pregnancy as a form of birth control rather than for medical reasons. Abortion, like same sex marriage, transgender issues and other hot button topics are matters best decided by individual state legislatures. If Roe is overturned, the states can go back to deciding the issue in accordance with local laws. Controversy and sharp division will exist in this country regardless.

[Athanasius]

Oh oh oh, I know all about transgender issues.

What's the deal with some of the laws that have been passed recently, suggesting that if you reside in X state you can be fined/imprisoned/whatever for seeking an abortion (let's say) in another state? Is that the case or have I been misinformed, and if it's not the case, then at what point does the Fed step in and nix this kind of overreach?

[RabbiKnife]

I think that is misinformation.

States don’t have the power to control the behavior of its residents outside state borders

Just fearmongering 

[Kingfisher]

Oh oh oh, I know all about transgender issues.

What's the deal with some of the laws that have been passed recently, suggesting that if you reside in X state you can be fined/imprisoned/whatever for seeking an abortion (let's say) in another state? Is that the case or have I been misinformed, and if it's not the case, then at what point does the Fed step in and nix this kind of overreach?

I live in Texas. The law is a fetal heartbeat law. Basically if there is a fetal heartbeat an abortion is restricted except for narrow health reasons. A heartbeat can usually be detected around the 6 weeks mark.

Where the law is controversial (But makes the law difficult to challenge) is that it allows private citizens to sue anyone who performs an abortion or “aids and abets” a procedure.

I have no idea if the law allows private citizens to sue an out of state provider. The Texas law is effective because it is extremely difficult to challenge in court. To me, it seems that suing across state lines using a state law would be easier to challenge, so I have a hunch that what you heard was incorrect...but I certainly could be wrong here.

[IMINXTC]

A fetus will be protected in certain states while open season continues in others. 

[Athanasius]

Where the law is controversial (But makes the law difficult to challenge) is that it allows private citizens to sue anyone who performs an abortion or “aids and abets” a procedure.

How does that even work, practically? Like, who is doing the suing, and who is going to tell Mielke?

[Kingfisher]

Where the law is controversial (But makes the law difficult to challenge) is that it allows private citizens to sue anyone who performs an abortion or “aids and abets” a procedure.

How does that even work, practically? Like, who is doing the suing, and who is going to tell Mielke?

It's too early for me to tell how it's going to work. I'm not for abortion but I don't really support the deputizing of citizens in this manner. Seems like a Wild West approach of litigation.

[Kingfisher]

A fetus will be protected in certain states while open season continues in others.

If black lives matter then shouldn't all black lives matter?
https://twitter.com/abigaildodds/status/1522047133863530496

[IMINXTC]

A fetus will be protected in certain states while open season continues in others.

If black lives matter then shouldn't all black lives matter?
https://twitter.com/abigaildodds/status/1522047133863530496

Indeed! A frightening mind-set that decides who matters.

[Athanasius]

Where the law is controversial (But makes the law difficult to challenge) is that it allows private citizens to sue anyone who performs an abortion or “aids and abets” a procedure.

How does that even work, practically? Like, who is doing the suing, and who is going to tell Mielke?

It's too early for me to tell how it's going to work. I'm not for abortion but I don't really support the deputizing of citizens in this manner. Seems like a Wild West approach of litigation.

I'm not in favour of abortion (that's putting it academically nicely) generally, but I understand that women are going to pursue abortions anyway (for better and worse reasons), and that there are instances of its necessity, so I'd rather it at least be not illegal and ensure that women aren't putting themselves at risk either their health or retribution from the state, neighbours, etc. I just don't know how we allow for abortion while disallowing abortion in X, Y, and Z circumstances.

Like, could you imagine going through a stillbirth only to get immediately arrested because hospital staff reported you?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/10/texas-woman-murder-charges-dropped-self-induced-abortion

Or when abortion legislation complicates medically necessary work? I mean, it's nothing new is it?

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/04/03/austin-couple-abortion-restrictions-led-stillborn-/

If anything the case to be made is for vast social improvement rather than a 'morally' informed role of voluntary state informant, but I don't think the US is particularly in a position for that, especially when I come across Christians who are far too into legislating morality.