More SCOTUS Leaks To Politico: Alito's Majority Still Holds Five, And No Other Draft

[anatta]

Another day, another leak. Despite the ongoing investigation, information continues to spill out of the Supreme Court. The latest story comes from Politico. Now, Josh Gerstein and Alexander Ward share a byline with Ryan Lizza, who is the Chief Washington correspondent. And this story comes out the day before the scheduled May 12 conference, the first conference since the initial leak. (Though I think it likely that the Justices have met in some unscheduled fashion over the past week.)

The story makes six new claims.

First, we learn that no other draft dissents or concurrences have been circulated:

Justice Samuel Alito's sweeping and blunt draft majority opinion from February overturning Roe remains the court's only circulated draft in the pending Mississippi abortion case, POLITICO has learned, and none of the conservative justices who initially sided with Alito have to date switched their votes. No dissenting draft opinions have circulated from any justice, including the three liberals.

The fact that no other opinions are even in the mix explains why the Court could not quickly put out the decision to quell the current maelstrom. Whoever provided this leak has up-to-date information about the status of draft opinions. Of course, it is possible that Roberts privately circulated his concurrence to Kavanaugh and Barrett. Recall that in Casey, Kennedy, O'Connor, and Souter largely worked independently of others. Scalia was stunned when he learned that the votes flipped. I will return later in this post to (wildly) speculate why no other opinions have been circulated.
(see link for entire story)
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/1...ther-draft-opinions-have-been-circulated-yet/

 

[Taichiliberal]

Right wing wonks, christo-fascists all decry a "nanny state", and squeal like stuck pigs regarding any state or federal oversight or accountability in their lives. Any SCOTUS ruling to that effect is seen as "activist judges" who do not obey the Constitution and it's amendments.

Yet, they are perfectly fine with this "nanny state" and "activist judges" making it possible to force a woman who is a victim of rape or incest, who is not capable of financially supporting a child, or who does not want another child from a recently divorced husband to have that child.

Of course, there is no clear cut solution to better regulation and financing assistance to single mothers or the state foster care system/adoption services.

Put this reality to the "pro-life" folk, and the torrent of smoke and BS would put a used car salesman to shame.

 

[anatta]

Right wing wonks, christo-fascists all decry a "nanny state", and squeal like stuck pigs regarding any state or federal oversight or accountability in their lives. Any SCOTUS ruling to that effect is seen as "activist judges" who do not obey the Constitution and it's amendments.

Yet, they are perfectly fine with this "nanny state" and "activist judges" making it possible to force a woman who is a victim of rape or incest, who is not capable of financially supporting a child, or who does not want another child from a recently divorced husband to have that child.

Of course, there is no clear cut solution to better regulation and financing assistance to single mothers or the state foster care system/adoption services.

Put this reality to the "pro-life" folk, and the torrent of smoke and BS would put a used car salesman to shame.

did you read the link as to why this (another leak) is happening?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Right wing wonks, christo-fascists all decry a "nanny state", and squeal like stuck pigs regarding any state or federal oversight or accountability in their lives. Any SCOTUS ruling to that effect is seen as "activist judges" who do not obey the Constitution and it's amendments.

Yet, they are perfectly fine with this "nanny state" and "activist judges" making it possible to force a woman who is a victim of rape or incest, who is not capable of financially supporting a child, or who does not want another child from a recently divorced husband to have that child.

Of course, there is no clear cut solution to better regulation and financing assistance to single mothers or the state foster care system/adoption services.

Put this reality to the "pro-life" folk, and the torrent of smoke and BS would put a used car salesman to shame.

did you read the link as to why this (another leak) is happening?

Whether it was a move by a Dem party wonk to shame the christo-fascist backers in the GOP, or an actual move of conscience or a little of both, I sure glad it happened.

 

[anatta]

Whether it was a move by a Dem party wonk to shame the christo-fascist backers in the GOP, or an actual move of conscience or a little of both, I sure glad it happened.

I support Roe v Wade (or more correctly not overturning it)
But that doesnt mean i support destroying the confidentiality and working of SCOTUS

 

[Matt Dillon]

I support Roe v Wade (or more correctly not overturning it)
But that doesnt mean i support destroying the confidentiality and working of SCOTUS

You support murdering babies in the womb. That's a pretty fucked up thing.

I've read humans were shown that by the Nephilim. That's the angels God kicked out of heaven.

They bred with humans for a while and then died out. That's why there were giants and Greek Mythology n stuff.

 

[anatta]

You support murdering babies in the womb. That's a pretty fucked up thing.

I've read humans were shown that by the Nephilim.

oh please.
If you want to discuss this use medical terms like a fetus

But the reason I support it is overturning Roe doesnt ban abortions, it places an undue (unequal ) burden
on women in states that would use severe restrictions
It also needlessly undermines stare decisis -50 years of precedent is a long time

For me personally (not being married and dating women way past child bearing age)
it destroys the implied right to privacy, and undermines bodily autonomy -already under attack
such as vaxx mandates

 

[Concart]

So it is obviously a staffer for one of the five. Or actually one of the two. And they are most likely lying about this. No other reason to leak that information except an attempt to put to rest the theory that there IS another draft. And that it isn't five any longer. It supports the theory. It doesn't blow it up. The leaker is a scumbag.

 

[Matt Dillon]

So it is obviously a staffer for one of the five. Or actually one of the two. And they are most likely lying about this. No other reason to leak that information except an attempt to put to rest the theory that there IS another draft. And that it isn't five any longer. It supports the theory. It doesn't blow it up. The leaker is a scumbag.

It's definitely a leftist shitbag like you.

 

[Concart]

It's definitely a leftist shitbag like you.

I'm sure it's some shitbag that doesn't pay his taxes, right Matty?

 

[Matt Dillon]

I'm sure it's some shitbag that doesn't pay his taxes, right Matty?

Deez Nutz are what you're looking for right now.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Whether it was a move by a Dem party wonk to shame the christo-fascist backers in the GOP, or an actual move of conscience or a little of both, I sure glad it happened.

I support Roe v Wade (or more correctly not overturning it)
But that doesnt mean i support destroying the confidentiality and working of SCOTUS

Vietnam, Watergate ... without leaks, the institutionalized evil continues. The SCOTUS will survive....it better, because without it you can have states that can put women barefoot and pregnant back in the kitchen, and Jim Crow makes a come back.

 

[Walt]

First, we learn that no other draft dissents or concurrences have been circulated:

There clearly would be a dissenting opinion draft, but whoever leaked this does not have access to that. They only have access to the majority opinion draft circulated to the conservative Justices.

 

[zymurgy]

There clearly would be a dissenting opinion draft, but whoever leaked this does not have access to that. They only have access to the majority opinion draft circulated to the conservative Justices.

that is seriously elementary school logic

the possibility that they saw no benefit of leaking the dissent is certainly worth considering - yet you don't.

 

[anatta]

Vietnam, Watergate ... without leaks, the institutionalized evil continues. The SCOTUS will survive....it better, because without it you can have states that can put women barefoot and pregnant back in the kitchen, and Jim Crow makes a come back.

SCOTUS deliberations are not " institutional evil" whether you agree or not= false comparisons

 

[Walt]

the possibility that they saw no benefit of leaking the dissent is certainly worth considering - yet you don't.

The benefit to leaking the draft is that it is locked in place. The next step with the draft was to run it by political advisors who would have told them to not overturn Roe v Wade. There was a real danger this would have ended up like every draft overturning Roe v Wade in the last 50 years.

The benefit to leaking the dissenting draft is that it tells the public the pro-Roe v Wade argument.

 

[zymurgy]

The benefit to leaking the draft is that it is locked in place. The next step with the draft was to run it by political advisors who would have told them to not overturn Roe v Wade. There was a real danger this would have ended up like every draft overturning Roe v Wade in the last 50 years.

The benefit to leaking the dissenting draft is that it tells the public the pro-Roe v Wade argument.

the dissent is probably extremely weak - they recognized that the dissent opinion would be ripped to shreds by legal scholars, so they only leaked the majority opinion

that theory is more plausible than yours - one where the dissent would absolutely be leaked. I still laugh at the childishness of that theory

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Vietnam, Watergate ... without leaks, the institutionalized evil continues. The SCOTUS will survive....it better, because without it you can have states that can put women barefoot and pregnant back in the kitchen, and Jim Crow makes a come back.

SCOTUS deliberations are not " institutional evil" whether you agree or not= false comparisons

Sweetheart, let me hip you to some of the SCOTUS less respectable history: https://www.thoughtco.com/racist-supreme-court-rulings-721615

Institutional evil does not have to be constant, just occasional. My previous statement stands as supported by history and current events.