DiscussMormonism.com

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/0 ... n-00029473

"We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court.

Alito’s draft opinion ventures even further into this racially sensitive territory by observing in a footnote that some early proponents of abortion rights also had unsavory views in favor of eugenics.

“Some such supporters have been motivated by a desire to suppress the size of the African American population,” Alito writes. “It is beyond dispute that Roe has had that demographic effect. A highly disproportionate percentage of aborted fetuses are black.”

That’s an interesting gambit Justice Alito is taking. On occasion I’d hear the same opinion from Black activists in that Planned Parenthood has disproportionate presence among communities of Color, and is a tool by the White elites to control their populations (and thus voting power).

It’s definitely a real possibility that the the Supreme Court can and will overturn RvW.

- Doc

This will signal glad tidings at mosques and conservative churches across America. It signals that a strong religious patriarchy is back in charge of this medical decision.

Moksha wrote: ↑

Tue May 03, 2022 11:14 am

This will signal glad tidings at mosques and conservative churches across America. It signals that a strong religious patriarchy is back in charge of this medical decision.

Don’t forget a strong religious matriarchy, too. Aunt Amy Coney Barrett Should be wearing brown robes, frankly.

- Doc

How are we feeling about this draft being leaked? I think this is a pretty bad precedent and comes with a lot of complications. Generally I like that the Supreme Court work goes on behind the scenes to avoid the political theatre that exists so prominently in other sectors, especially the Legislative arm. I appreciate that lots of deliberation happens in a way and place that both those arguing cases before them and the Justices can discuss freely without fear of the media circus. For all we know the actual opinion will be drastically different than this one that circulated in early February.

I'll disagree with the overturning, if it does in fact happen (which was highly likely before this release but seems a certainty now), but I'd rather do so when it actually happens and by addressing the arguments actually released by the majority.

Xenophon wrote: ↑

Tue May 03, 2022 4:17 pm

[...] Generally I like that Supreme Court work goes on behind the scenes to avoid the political theatre that exists so prominently in other sectors, [...]

Ah, those were the days. Since Trump won office and made the appointments he did (after the Republicans had refused to let Obama appoint anyone), I think the days of being able to reassure oneself that the Supreme Court is not part of the 'political theatre' are long gone.

Xenophon wrote: ↑

Tue May 03, 2022 4:17 pm

How are we feeling about this draft being leaked? I think this is a pretty bad precedent and comes with a lot of complications. Generally I like that Supreme Court work goes on behind the scenes to avoid the political theatre that exists so prominently in other sectors, especially the Legislative arm. I appreciate that lots of deliberation happens in a way and place that both those arguing cases before them and the Justices can discuss freely without fear of the media circus. For all we know the actual opinion will be drastically different than this one that circulated in early February.

I'll disagree with the overturning, if it does in fact happen (which was highly likely before this release but seems a certainty now), but I'd rather do so when it actually happens and by addressing the arguments actually released by the majority.

I'm feeling livid. Unless the leaker was a Justice, they should be summarily fired and, if a lawyer, disbarred.

Immediately after oral argument, the justices take a quick, initial vote. The Chief Justice assigns someone to draft a majority opinion. It is very common for the Justice assigned to write the majority opinion to circulate multiple drafts. Draft dissents can circulate as well. It is not unusual for first drafts of the majority opinions not to get the necessary four other Justices to sign on for all kinds of reasons. Sometimes, what starts out as a majority opinion ends up being a concurring or even a dissenting opinion. Justices do change their opinions of a case as a result of this circulation and discussion of drafts. Doing this privately, in a process somewhat shielded from political actors, is an important part of giving the Justices the ability to issued principled decisions. What they do with that opportunity is a separate question, but they should have it.

If this was done by a Justice, then Supreme Court needs to get off its assess and create a written code of conduct so it has written standards for policing itself. Every other court in the country has published ethics rules and standards. The Supreme Court has to stop pretending that there is no need for them to have one. Personally, if this was done by or at the direction of a Justice, I think they should have the integrity to step down.

Like you, Xeno, I'll address whatever the published opinion says when it is issued.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑

Tue May 03, 2022 3:24 am

Alito’s draft opinion ventures even further into this racially sensitive territory by observing in a footnote that some early proponents of abortion rights also had unsavory views in favor of eugenics.

“Some such supporters have been motivated by a desire to suppress the size of the African American population,” Alito writes. “It is beyond dispute that Roe has had that demographic effect. A highly disproportionate percentage of aborted fetuses are black.”

That’s an interesting gambit Justice Alito is taking. On occasion I’d hear the same opinion from Black activists in that Planned Parenthood has disproportionate presence among communities of Color, and is a tool by the White elites to control their populations (and thus voting power).

It’s definitely a real possibility that the Supreme Court can and will overturn RvW.

- Doc

I think that's a really tricky issue because of the uneven distribution of poverty. PP concentrates on providing health care services to woman who cannot afford adequate healthcare. Because of the distribution of poverty, that means providing services to a disproportionate amount of black women. If there were no racial disaparity in access to healthcare, I think the abortion rates between the two races would be much, much closer.

Chap wrote: ↑

Tue May 03, 2022 4:45 pm

Xenophon wrote: ↑

Tue May 03, 2022 4:17 pm

[...] Generally I like that Supreme Court work goes on behind the scenes to avoid the political theatre that exists so prominently in other sectors, [...]

Ah, those were the days. Since Trump won office and made the appointments he did (after the Republicans had refused to let Obama appoint anyone), I think the days of being able to reassure oneself that the Supreme Court is not part of the 'political theatre' are long gone.

You're right that the battle for control over the court has long been sucked into that (long before Trump, in my opinion) but more of what I'm referring to is the actual debate and deliberation that goes on behind closed doors after those appointments are made. That was a process that had been mostly preserved and I see this as a very negative erosion to that process.

I'm curious what even is the political calculus behind the leak, if there even was any.

If it was leaked by those disagreeing with the overturn I think they've made matters worse. I doubt you convince the majority to flip with any sort of public backlash. And worse, if the majority had already flipped and the court actually wasn't going to overturn you've now sullied that flip and setup a fairly easy argument that the only reason the court caved was because of public pressure. Accelerating the outrage timeline just doesn't make much sense to me.

I appreciate your input as well Res, especially about needing to codify the conduct in a much more official capacity.