5 ms·

I'm not at all surprised. Though I wonder if the risk of leaks going forward might act as a normalizing force on "hot take" court opinions (in either direction)

I'm not at all surprised. Though I wonder if the risk of leaks going forward might act as a normalizing force on "hot take" court opinions (in either direction). I'm looking forward to a post-leak Supreme Court, at least for now. I can't foresee negative outcomes yet so I'm open to a counter-thought to the one I presented above.

hammock 4y ago
Aka a chilling effect (a phrase invented in high court opinion) on justice, if unpopular
- vkou 4y ago
  The SC has always taken public opinion into account when making their decisions. No 19th century SC would have ruled gay marriage to be legal. Judges care about their legacy, and most of the time, most of them don't want a legacy of being the asshole on the wrong side of history.
  - KerrAvon 4y ago
    Unless they’re the end product of a 60-year old project to remake america in the image of the John Birch Society. Then anything goes.
- aaomidi 4y ago
  - pdonis 4y ago
    > Banning abortion is a death sentence or worse for so many people. Why? (And why is abortion itself not a death sentence for the aborted fetus?)
    - KerrAvon 4y ago
      Do some reading on the subject? The arguments here are very well documented. If you don’t want to read non-fiction, try Harlan Ellison’s Neither Your Jenny Nor Mine.
      - pdonis 4y ago
        > The arguments here are very well documented. What arguments? The parent to my post didn't make an argument, they made a claim unsupported by argument. If the claim is so obvious, it should be simple to post a sentence or two of supporting argument instead of me having to guess what they're talking about.
        ModernMech 4y ago
        I think it's self evident. When abortion is made illegal it's not eliminated it's just made unsafe. People resort to unsafe abortive methods which will result in more dead women along with the fetus. Banning abortion also means that when one does need an abortion for medical reasons, it's difficult or expensive to have one, which will result in fewer women seeking a lifesaving abortion. That America lacks socialized healthcare compounds the problem. Also it means that someone other than a doctor will be deciding on whether the abortion is medically necessary, and that decision will not be made on the basis of the woman's health (because if it were, the woman and the doctor would be the only ones to make it, and the government and the supreme court would have no say whatsoever). Life and death decisions related to a woman's health that are not grounded purely in actual medicine rather than politics and religion will necessarily result in more deaths (otherwise then I think we should make lawyers and priests into doctors because they are more effective at saving lives). > the Mississippi law under review in this case does not make abortion illegal until after 15 weeks of pregnancy (and even then there are exceptions like the health of the mother) I don't think you understand what's happened here. The Mississippi law was written for a world where Roe is still active. This opinion eviscerates Roe. Mississippi has a "trigger law" already on the books for just this occasion, and it will place a total ban on abortion as soon as the opinion is issued. Total abortion bans are going to be a thing very soon, even in the case of rape, even in the case of incest, and yes, even in the case where the health of the woman is threatened. That is all currently on the table.
  - Mountain_Skies 4y ago
    The Supreme Court isn't banning abortion. It's moving the issue from the federal level to the state level. It will be members of state legislatures and their governors who will be banning abortion and obviously not in all states.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - aaomidi 4y ago
      This is such a bad faith argument I don't even know how to cover it. People are gonna die because of this and you're here AXTUALLTIing this?
      - throwpp034578 4y ago
      - rayiner 4y ago
        I think you’re the one making a bad faith argument. “People are going to die” because democrats let the ETC expire. That’s the nature of legislation. Pretty much all of it is impactful enough that you can come up with a body count. But at the end of the day the rule of law and the process matters. Roe prohibited Americans from banning second trimester abortions, which most Americans think should be banned, and which most liberal European countries do ban. It was substituting the moral views of an elite against the judgment of the public on a fundamental moral line drawing issue.
        pdonis 4y ago
        > Roe prohibited Americans from banning second trimester abortions, which most Americans think should be banned, and which most liberal European countries do ban. It's even worse than that. As the brief for petitioners [1] notes, only three countries in the world do not ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The US is one. The other two? China and North Korea. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/202...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - robmiller 4y ago
    To borrow an observation from Matt Stoller[0], SCOTUS is only powerful because congress refuses to legislate. [0] https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/1506273112320577546 https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/150627311232057754...
    - krapp 4y ago
      I thought the government which governs least, governs best?
WillPostForFood 4y ago
The court works on their opinions in public silence for months, what "hot take" court opinions are you talking about?
- eganist 4y ago
  > The court works on their opinions in public silence for months, what "hot take" court opinions are you talking about? The subject of public discourse at this hour. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abort...
  - LeoNatan25 4y ago
    A draft for the majority of SCOTUS opinion can hardly, and should not, be seen as a “hot take”.

hammock 4y ago

Aka a chilling effect (a phrase invented in high court opinion) on justice, if unpopular

vkou 4y ago
The SC has always taken public opinion into account when making their decisions. No 19th century SC would have ruled gay marriage to be legal. Judges care about their legacy, and most of the time, most of them don't want a legacy of being the asshole on the wrong side of history.
- KerrAvon 4y ago
  Unless they’re the end product of a 60-year old project to remake america in the image of the John Birch Society. Then anything goes.
aaomidi 4y ago
- pdonis 4y ago
  > Banning abortion is a death sentence or worse for so many people. Why? (And why is abortion itself not a death sentence for the aborted fetus?)
  - KerrAvon 4y ago
    Do some reading on the subject? The arguments here are very well documented. If you don’t want to read non-fiction, try Harlan Ellison’s Neither Your Jenny Nor Mine.
    - pdonis 4y ago
      > The arguments here are very well documented. What arguments? The parent to my post didn't make an argument, they made a claim unsupported by argument. If the claim is so obvious, it should be simple to post a sentence or two of supporting argument instead of me having to guess what they're talking about.
      - ModernMech 4y ago
        I think it's self evident. When abortion is made illegal it's not eliminated it's just made unsafe. People resort to unsafe abortive methods which will result in more dead women along with the fetus. Banning abortion also means that when one does need an abortion for medical reasons, it's difficult or expensive to have one, which will result in fewer women seeking a lifesaving abortion. That America lacks socialized healthcare compounds the problem. Also it means that someone other than a doctor will be deciding on whether the abortion is medically necessary, and that decision will not be made on the basis of the woman's health (because if it were, the woman and the doctor would be the only ones to make it, and the government and the supreme court would have no say whatsoever). Life and death decisions related to a woman's health that are not grounded purely in actual medicine rather than politics and religion will necessarily result in more deaths (otherwise then I think we should make lawyers and priests into doctors because they are more effective at saving lives). > the Mississippi law under review in this case does not make abortion illegal until after 15 weeks of pregnancy (and even then there are exceptions like the health of the mother) I don't think you understand what's happened here. The Mississippi law was written for a world where Roe is still active. This opinion eviscerates Roe. Mississippi has a "trigger law" already on the books for just this occasion, and it will place a total ban on abortion as soon as the opinion is issued. Total abortion bans are going to be a thing very soon, even in the case of rape, even in the case of incest, and yes, even in the case where the health of the woman is threatened. That is all currently on the table.
- Mountain_Skies 4y ago
  The Supreme Court isn't banning abortion. It's moving the issue from the federal level to the state level. It will be members of state legislatures and their governors who will be banning abortion and obviously not in all states.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - aaomidi 4y ago
    This is such a bad faith argument I don't even know how to cover it. People are gonna die because of this and you're here AXTUALLTIing this?
    - throwpp034578 4y ago
    - rayiner 4y ago
      I think you’re the one making a bad faith argument. “People are going to die” because democrats let the ETC expire. That’s the nature of legislation. Pretty much all of it is impactful enough that you can come up with a body count. But at the end of the day the rule of law and the process matters. Roe prohibited Americans from banning second trimester abortions, which most Americans think should be banned, and which most liberal European countries do ban. It was substituting the moral views of an elite against the judgment of the public on a fundamental moral line drawing issue.
      - pdonis 4y ago
        > Roe prohibited Americans from banning second trimester abortions, which most Americans think should be banned, and which most liberal European countries do ban. It's even worse than that. As the brief for petitioners [1] notes, only three countries in the world do not ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The US is one. The other two? China and North Korea. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/202...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- robmiller 4y ago
  To borrow an observation from Matt Stoller[0], SCOTUS is only powerful because congress refuses to legislate. [0] https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/1506273112320577546 https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/150627311232057754...
  - krapp 4y ago
    I thought the government which governs least, governs best?

WillPostForFood 4y ago

The court works on their opinions in public silence for months, what "hot take" court opinions are you talking about?

eganist 4y ago
> The court works on their opinions in public silence for months, what "hot take" court opinions are you talking about? The subject of public discourse at this hour. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abort...
- LeoNatan25 4y ago
  A draft for the majority of SCOTUS opinion can hardly, and should not, be seen as a “hot take”.