4 ms·

As far as I know the decision isn't necessarily final after the initial vote following arguments. A prominent example of this is National Federation of Independ

As far as I know the decision isn't necessarily final after the initial vote following arguments. A prominent example of this is National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, where Chief Justice Roberts was reported to have initially voted to strike down individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare), but later changed his mind.

not2b 4y ago
Yes, this is exactly what I meant when I said that justices have switched sides before. I understand that there was a draft opinion overturning the ACA when Roberts switched sides, though I'm not certain how complete it was.
cudgy 4y ago
In fact, knowing how and why these opinions change during this phase could be quite illustrative and interesting. Would also be interesting to see if Roberts received a windfall during his deliberations. Insurance companies surely appreciate the individual mandates … it’s the closest thing to printing money they could achieve. Earlier today I heard someone state that historically the Supreme Court rules in favor of the large corporate interests. My thought at the time was it did not make sense, since technically supreme court justices are beholden to Noone. What explains this bias on the part of the Supreme Court, if it truly exist?
- cortesoft 4y ago
  They are beholden to no one AFTER they are appointed. They are only appointed, however, if their views match the people who are doing the appointing, who are beholden to many.
  - cudgy 4y ago
    Yet there are numerous examples of justices not rendering opinions meeting their appointee’s expectations. Many of these justices serve for decades which is plenty of time for any human to change their viewpoints.
  - rascul 4y ago
    > They are beholden to no one AFTER they are appointed. Article V of the US constitution makes them ultimately beholden to the states. It describes how the constitution can be amended. Such an amendment can possibly threaten the supreme court. Seems very unlikely to happen, though.
    - cortesoft 4y ago
      Congress also has the power to impeach a justice
  - datavirtue 4y ago
    They are beholden to the people and the people's perception of their credibility. At any time we can dispel that court--or just stop taking it seriously. They are terrified of being waved off. Imagine all the politicians that would jump on board if they saw a large enough groundswell (energized voting bloc) calling for the "non-constitutional illegitimate third branch" to be disbanded in favor of state courts. We are witnessing the same with the "election fraud" Trump populist fervor right now.
- fsagx 4y ago
  supreme court justices are beholden to Noone. What explains this bias on the part of the Supreme Court, if it truly exist? The people who nominate and confirm them may very well be beholden to any number of interests. Lower federal judges are also appointed for life. It would be logical that those who nominate and confirm would select judges with a record that aligns with whatever issues they (and the ones they are beholden to) find important.
  - cudgy 4y ago
    Predicting future human behavior is fraught with disappointment. Many justices act unpredictability and change opinions over time.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Which is an inherent part of the process of nominating anyone to any position. Selection is an inherently political process. The goal is to eliminate post selection influences.
lumost 4y ago
The leak itself is enough to shape legal precedent, it's made clear that the majority of the court believes that "Roe was deeply flawed". The only way for this to change would be for the court to explicitly rebuke the arguments in the leaked draft in the new majority opinion.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  I don't think "precedent" works the way for first sentence seems to think it does. The final decision will be precedent; drafts are not. And, "the majority believes that Roe is flawed" is interesting information, but it also is not any kind of precedent. Decisions are going to depend on the details of the case before the court.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    Precedent occurs when a decision is challenged and upheld. If Roe is struck down, that will not be precedent, but overturning precedent, since Row was challenged and upheld in Casey. For a decision overturning Roe to become precedent, it would need to survive at least one future challenge.

not2b 4y ago

Yes, this is exactly what I meant when I said that justices have switched sides before. I understand that there was a draft opinion overturning the ACA when Roberts switched sides, though I'm not certain how complete it was.

cudgy 4y ago

In fact, knowing how and why these opinions change during this phase could be quite illustrative and interesting. Would also be interesting to see if Roberts received a windfall during his deliberations. Insurance companies surely appreciate the individual mandates … it’s the closest thing to printing money they could achieve. Earlier today I heard someone state that historically the Supreme Court rules in favor of the large corporate interests. My thought at the time was it did not make sense, since technically supreme court justices are beholden to Noone. What explains this bias on the part of the Supreme Court, if it truly exist?

cortesoft 4y ago
They are beholden to no one AFTER they are appointed. They are only appointed, however, if their views match the people who are doing the appointing, who are beholden to many.
- cudgy 4y ago
  Yet there are numerous examples of justices not rendering opinions meeting their appointee’s expectations. Many of these justices serve for decades which is plenty of time for any human to change their viewpoints.
- rascul 4y ago
  > They are beholden to no one AFTER they are appointed. Article V of the US constitution makes them ultimately beholden to the states. It describes how the constitution can be amended. Such an amendment can possibly threaten the supreme court. Seems very unlikely to happen, though.
  - cortesoft 4y ago
    Congress also has the power to impeach a justice
- datavirtue 4y ago
  They are beholden to the people and the people's perception of their credibility. At any time we can dispel that court--or just stop taking it seriously. They are terrified of being waved off. Imagine all the politicians that would jump on board if they saw a large enough groundswell (energized voting bloc) calling for the "non-constitutional illegitimate third branch" to be disbanded in favor of state courts. We are witnessing the same with the "election fraud" Trump populist fervor right now.
fsagx 4y ago
supreme court justices are beholden to Noone. What explains this bias on the part of the Supreme Court, if it truly exist? The people who nominate and confirm them may very well be beholden to any number of interests. Lower federal judges are also appointed for life. It would be logical that those who nominate and confirm would select judges with a record that aligns with whatever issues they (and the ones they are beholden to) find important.
- cudgy 4y ago
  Predicting future human behavior is fraught with disappointment. Many justices act unpredictability and change opinions over time.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Which is an inherent part of the process of nominating anyone to any position. Selection is an inherently political process. The goal is to eliminate post selection influences.

lumost 4y ago

The leak itself is enough to shape legal precedent, it's made clear that the majority of the court believes that "Roe was deeply flawed". The only way for this to change would be for the court to explicitly rebuke the arguments in the leaked draft in the new majority opinion.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
I don't think "precedent" works the way for first sentence seems to think it does. The final decision will be precedent; drafts are not. And, "the majority believes that Roe is flawed" is interesting information, but it also is not any kind of precedent. Decisions are going to depend on the details of the case before the court.
- Maursault 4y ago
  Precedent occurs when a decision is challenged and upheld. If Roe is struck down, that will not be precedent, but overturning precedent, since Row was challenged and upheld in Casey. For a decision overturning Roe to become precedent, it would need to survive at least one future challenge.