5 ms·

People focusing on the leak rather than what was actually leaked is testament to just how effective conservatives are at propaganda and messaging.. We don't kn

by jmyeet 5y ago

People focusing on the leak rather than what was actually leaked is testament to just how effective conservatives are at propaganda and messaging.. We don't know if this is a majority opinion. It may be a minority opinion in the hopes of becoming a majority opinion. It may not even be real (although that seems unlikely). It could've been leaked by someone on the right to drum up on support but my guess is it's more likely to be someone liberal-leaning who leaked such a bombshell opinion as a massive regression for bodily autonomy and social rights. If so, that person is a hero. Straight up. Just like then Bradley now Chelsea Manning leaking Benghazi video was (and is) a hero. People have consciences whether you agree with them or not. Even in wartime and with unprecedented security measures the Manhattan Project was leaked to the Soviets basically immediately by people who saw the US having a monopoly on atomic weapons as being bad for the world. It's also why I basically don't believe pretty much every conspiracy theory out there, particularly if it involves a lot of people (eg faked Moon landings). Governments are terrible at keeping secrets simply because they're made up of people and those people have motivations of their own. The Supreme Court is and always has been a political institution. All of the talk about constitutionality is just moralizing and window dressing in expressing a political view as law. This is the same Supreme court that ruled that "citizens" did not include people of African descent [1]. This is the same Supreme Court that in the Reconstruction / Redeemer era completely undermined rights of former slaves. If you concentrate on the leaker here you're missing the big picture. You're falling into right-wing propaganda about the sanctity of the Supreme Court. It's a myth and a lie. [1]: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-americans-really-think-about-abortion/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-americans-really-t...

WillPostForFood 5y ago
"People focusing on the leak rather than what was actually leaked" Have you taken the time to read it? It is the majority opinion. They vote first, then go to write opinions and dissents. It is not a dissent..
- jmyeet 5y ago
  I have read it. My understanding from reading elsewhere is these situations can be fluid. At the time it was written it may well have been a draft majority opinion. Votes can change. Also, if you accept that the court voted to overturn Roe, the reasoning for doing so can still change. There may be other competing draft majority opinions that are, say, more limited in scope (eg 15 weeks instead of 20). Nothing is really final until it's published so I am cautious of taking it at face value as established fact. That's all.
ModernMech 5y ago
> People focusing on the leak rather than what was actually leaked is testament to just how effective conservatives are at propaganda and messaging.. HN is focusing on the leak, but I do not think the larger point here can possibly be missed. I think the male/female ratio here has something to do with the framing of the issue. Women tonight are not thinking about how the leak affects workplace relations between supreme court justices. I mean... my God, what are they going to talk about around the watercooler?
- emerged 5y ago
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    Excuse me, we're looking at a total abortion ban in half the country soon if this decision is to be the law of the land. This idea that it might be limited to a 3.5 month restriction is an old talking point that has been obviated by the news from the Supreme Court. If what was released last night comes to fruition, abortion bans predating Roe and trigger laws passed in the interim will bring full abortion bans into effect immediately. Currently candidates for State AG are campaigning on the promise they will enforce the ban in cases of rape, incest, and life-threatening health conditions caused by the fetus. How would it make you feel if your wife, daughter, or mother had to die because the government would not let a doctor perform a life-saving operation on them, on the basis that they had a moral objection to it?
    - emerged 5y ago
      You’re reacting to something which hasn’t actually happened. Even the 3.5 months thing hasn’t actually happened.
      - ModernMech 5y ago
        Not really no. It's functionally not possible to get an abortion in Tennessee now due to the laws they've been passing there. Also in Texas. Any perception that abortion rights aren't currently dissolving in this country will be laughably aged in a couple months. So sure, I'll save the majority of my feelings for when total abortion bans are actually in effect in 20+ states across the country in mere weeks. But let's not pretend that the writing isn't on the wall.
tbrownaw 5y ago
> People focusing on the leak rather than what was actually leaked is testament to ...the fact that standard politics tends to be off-topic here, but the meta about how the very unusual leak might impact the system is the sort of thing that's interesting to hackers.
pdonis 5y ago
> that person is a hero. I don't think you have fully thought through your position. See below. > People have consciences whether you agree with them or not. Yes, exactly. And many people's consciences in this country tell them that abortion is murder. Particularly abortion of a fetus after 15 weeks (which is when the Mississippi law under review here bans abortion), when the fetus, as the brief for petitioners in this case describes in some detail, already is recognizably human. You might not agree with those people's consciences, but they have them, and they're not going to go away. And on an issue like this, where different people's consciences are telling them very different things, the Federal Government--any branch of it, whether it's the Supreme Court, Congress, or the Executive--should not be dictating one policy. It should be left to the states, who will enact varying policies according to what the consciences of the majority of their citizens tell them. Some states will be more liberal about abortion, some will be more conservative--because the consciences of their citizens tell them so. That's how the US system is supposed to work. > a massive regression for bodily autonomy and social rights. This is nonsense. You talk about right-wing propaganda about the sanctity of the Supreme Court; this claim is left-wing propaganda trying to push a concept of "autonomy" that completely denies personal responsibility, without which no republic like ours can endure. As noted above, the Mississippi law under review in this case only bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. 15 weeks is more than enough time for a woman to make a decision about her "bodily autonomy and social rights" if she has an unexpected pregnancy. "Bodily autonomy and social rights" does not mean the right to dawdle over an important, life-altering decision indefinitely. The deadline this Mississippi law sets is perfectly reasonable. So how is someone who leaked a draft Supreme Court decision that will undermine our trust in a valuable institution, in the name of a policy goal that doesn't even make sense, and which goes against the consciences of many Americans, a hero, again?
- jmyeet 5y ago
  > It should be left to the states Ah, yes. The same “states’ rights” used to subjugate black people with chattel slavery should now be repurposed to subjugate women by robbing them of bodily autonomy. Your 15 weeks bit is actually where I expected this to go. Robert’s, who I genuinely believe is aware of and concerned with the perceived legitimacy of the Court, I expected him to broker a compromise that looked like that. But that’s not what this draft looks like. You may believe abortion is murder but that’s a completely arbitrary and, more importantly, a religious doctrine. As an aside, even that view is a modern reinterpretation that has its roots in segregation. In the early 1970s, Baptists said the Bible was silent on the issue. Your religion is your business. I draw the line at you imposing it on others.
pdonis 5y ago
> The Supreme Court is and always has been a political institution. All of the talk about constitutionality is just moralizing and window dressing in expressing a political view as law. I agree that many Supreme Court decisions do do this. And I think that two of those are Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. So I think the Court overturning those decisions would be a good thing, as it would send a signal that the Court is willing to back off from expressing political views as law and try to return to its proper function.

by jmyeet 5y ago

WillPostForFood 5y ago

"People focusing on the leak rather than what was actually leaked" Have you taken the time to read it? It is the majority opinion. They vote first, then go to write opinions and dissents. It is not a dissent..

jmyeet 5y ago
I have read it. My understanding from reading elsewhere is these situations can be fluid. At the time it was written it may well have been a draft majority opinion. Votes can change. Also, if you accept that the court voted to overturn Roe, the reasoning for doing so can still change. There may be other competing draft majority opinions that are, say, more limited in scope (eg 15 weeks instead of 20). Nothing is really final until it's published so I am cautious of taking it at face value as established fact. That's all.

ModernMech 5y ago

> People focusing on the leak rather than what was actually leaked is testament to just how effective conservatives are at propaganda and messaging.. HN is focusing on the leak, but I do not think the larger point here can possibly be missed. I think the male/female ratio here has something to do with the framing of the issue. Women tonight are not thinking about how the leak affects workplace relations between supreme court justices. I mean... my God, what are they going to talk about around the watercooler?

emerged 5y ago
- ModernMech 5y ago
  Excuse me, we're looking at a total abortion ban in half the country soon if this decision is to be the law of the land. This idea that it might be limited to a 3.5 month restriction is an old talking point that has been obviated by the news from the Supreme Court. If what was released last night comes to fruition, abortion bans predating Roe and trigger laws passed in the interim will bring full abortion bans into effect immediately. Currently candidates for State AG are campaigning on the promise they will enforce the ban in cases of rape, incest, and life-threatening health conditions caused by the fetus. How would it make you feel if your wife, daughter, or mother had to die because the government would not let a doctor perform a life-saving operation on them, on the basis that they had a moral objection to it?
  - emerged 5y ago
    You’re reacting to something which hasn’t actually happened. Even the 3.5 months thing hasn’t actually happened.
    - ModernMech 5y ago
      Not really no. It's functionally not possible to get an abortion in Tennessee now due to the laws they've been passing there. Also in Texas. Any perception that abortion rights aren't currently dissolving in this country will be laughably aged in a couple months. So sure, I'll save the majority of my feelings for when total abortion bans are actually in effect in 20+ states across the country in mere weeks. But let's not pretend that the writing isn't on the wall.

tbrownaw 5y ago

> People focusing on the leak rather than what was actually leaked is testament to ...the fact that standard politics tends to be off-topic here, but the meta about how the very unusual leak might impact the system is the sort of thing that's interesting to hackers.

pdonis 5y ago

> that person is a hero. I don't think you have fully thought through your position. See below. > People have consciences whether you agree with them or not. Yes, exactly. And many people's consciences in this country tell them that abortion is murder. Particularly abortion of a fetus after 15 weeks (which is when the Mississippi law under review here bans abortion), when the fetus, as the brief for petitioners in this case describes in some detail, already is recognizably human. You might not agree with those people's consciences, but they have them, and they're not going to go away. And on an issue like this, where different people's consciences are telling them very different things, the Federal Government--any branch of it, whether it's the Supreme Court, Congress, or the Executive--should not be dictating one policy. It should be left to the states, who will enact varying policies according to what the consciences of the majority of their citizens tell them. Some states will be more liberal about abortion, some will be more conservative--because the consciences of their citizens tell them so. That's how the US system is supposed to work. > a massive regression for bodily autonomy and social rights. This is nonsense. You talk about right-wing propaganda about the sanctity of the Supreme Court; this claim is left-wing propaganda trying to push a concept of "autonomy" that completely denies personal responsibility, without which no republic like ours can endure. As noted above, the Mississippi law under review in this case only bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. 15 weeks is more than enough time for a woman to make a decision about her "bodily autonomy and social rights" if she has an unexpected pregnancy. "Bodily autonomy and social rights" does not mean the right to dawdle over an important, life-altering decision indefinitely. The deadline this Mississippi law sets is perfectly reasonable. So how is someone who leaked a draft Supreme Court decision that will undermine our trust in a valuable institution, in the name of a policy goal that doesn't even make sense, and which goes against the consciences of many Americans, a hero, again?

jmyeet 5y ago
> It should be left to the states Ah, yes. The same “states’ rights” used to subjugate black people with chattel slavery should now be repurposed to subjugate women by robbing them of bodily autonomy. Your 15 weeks bit is actually where I expected this to go. Robert’s, who I genuinely believe is aware of and concerned with the perceived legitimacy of the Court, I expected him to broker a compromise that looked like that. But that’s not what this draft looks like. You may believe abortion is murder but that’s a completely arbitrary and, more importantly, a religious doctrine. As an aside, even that view is a modern reinterpretation that has its roots in segregation. In the early 1970s, Baptists said the Bible was silent on the issue. Your religion is your business. I draw the line at you imposing it on others.

pdonis 5y ago

> The Supreme Court is and always has been a political institution. All of the talk about constitutionality is just moralizing and window dressing in expressing a political view as law. I agree that many Supreme Court decisions do do this. And I think that two of those are Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. So I think the Court overturning those decisions would be a good thing, as it would send a signal that the Court is willing to back off from expressing political views as law and try to return to its proper function.