|
I AM GRANDO posted:It’s really cemented how utterly useless democrats are and how little they care about anyone. What will they do? A big rally? Have Kamala tell people to vote? They are going to fundraise harder than you can possibly imagine.
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 10:07 |
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:In what way is anything burning down? What does this change? In fact, if anything all this has done is made people sad earlier. One less day of blissful ignorance. This is, to my knowledge, the first leaked draft opinion there has ever been. SCOTUS does not leak. That’s what the surprise is about.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:27
|
|
|
Since they seem to be going with the "Constitution doesn't specifically say "abortion" argument, I assume we can now expect Thomas to rule that his marriage and right to vote are also unconstitutional, since they're not in there either.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1521296185977417732?s=20&t=-LS1-fMgQvBhfyuJOfus6g lol, signal to GOP to just ban everything and let it be challenged.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:28
|
|
|
Kalman posted:This is, to my knowledge, the first leaked draft opinion there has ever been. SCOTUS does not leak. Right but the 'burn it down' sentiment is a result of brain wormed reverence for the institution and polite politics, the leak isn't going to substantially change anything.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:28
|
|
|
Piell posted:Eat poo poo SCOTUSBlog Actually it's way more unforgivable to throw women's rights back five decades. We need to go to the streets and make the George Floyd protests look tame by comparison. Force the democrats to prove that they actually believe what they say when they want women's votes.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:29
|
|
|
Kalman posted:This is, to my knowledge, the first leaked draft opinion there has ever been. SCOTUS does not leak. I'd assume there's a lot of folks who are questioning whether an organization that does stuff like this deserves their respect.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:29
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I'd assume there's a lot of folks who are questioning whether an organization that does stuff like this deserves their respect. Call me a pessimist but I don't, those people have had plenty of decisions time to reach a conclusion about that
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:31
|
|
|
Kalman posted:This is, to my knowledge, the first leaked draft opinion there has ever been. SCOTUS does not leak. It's a surprise, yes. It's not burning anything down. What meaningful change do you think will come about from this besides at most the leaker being punished severely and the Democrats talking about how important it is that the sanctity of the SCOTUS be preserved and defended, even when we disagree with their judgments? What do you think this will achieve? How is the world in which someone leaked the SCOTUS' plan to set in motion a federal abortion ban substantially different - let alone better - from the world in which that leak does not happen and people don't find out until the official announcement?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:31
|
|
|
the yeti posted:Call me a pessimist but I don't, those people have had plenty of decisions time to reach a conclusion about that this also will be used when scolding folks about 'once again finding something more important than brunch' won't it
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:34
|
|
|
Magic Underwear posted:Actually it's way more unforgivable to throw women's rights back five decades. We need to go to the streets and make the George Floyd protests look tame by comparison. Force the democrats to prove that they actually believe what they say when they want women's votes. The problem is that they don’t and they won’t really have a problem with saying so. Can’t wait for Biden to angrily tell protesters that they’re hurting their own cause and are all a bunch of whiners anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:35
|
|
|
Magic Underwear posted:Actually it's way more unforgivable to throw women's rights back five decades. We need to go to the streets and make the George Floyd protests look tame by comparison. Force the democrats to prove that they actually believe what they say when they want women's votes. There response will be "what are you gonna do vote for Republicans? lol"
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:36
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:It's a surprise, yes. It's not burning anything down. What meaningful change do you think will come about from this besides at most the leaker being punished severely and the Democrats talking about how important it is that the sanctity of the SCOTUS be preserved and defended, even when we disagree with their judgments? It's a draft opinion, so it could be a Hail Mary attempt by a very angry staffer or by Roberts himself to pressure one or more justices into changing their vote if public outcry is strong enough. There's a 0.00001% chance of that happening but it was worth a shot I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:37
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:Democrats talking about how important it is that the sanctity of the SCOTUS be preserved and defended, even when we disagree with their judgments? This does not seem to be the tact taken by all the elected officials I've seen make statements thus far tonight fwiw
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:37
|
|
|
Why would a lifetime appointed judge fear public opinion? Anyone who cared about what the public thought about them even slightly is not someone who would even slightly consider overturning Roe v Wade. edit: sniper4625 posted:This does not seem to be the tact taken by all the elected officials I've seen make statements thus far tonight fwiw That's nice. But it still doesn't change that Biden will not pack the courts and nothing meaningful is going to change as a result of this action.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:39
|
|
|
Youth Decay posted:It's a draft opinion, so it could be a Hail Mary attempt by a very angry staffer or by Roberts himself to pressure one or more justices into changing their vote if public outcry is strong enough. There's a 0.00001% chance of that happening but it was worth a shot I guess. Changing their vote to what, though? The whole point of a republican majority is to make abortion illegal.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:39
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:In what way is anything burning down? What does this change? In fact, if anything all this has done is made people sad earlier. One less day of blissful ignorance. If the Democrats were willing to kill the filibuster so that they could pass things through the Senate, the early leak would give them additional time to draft and pass legislation explicitly encoding a federal right to abortion.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:41
|
|
|
But they're not and they won't.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:43
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:But they're not and they won't. Correct.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:44
|
|
|
Lol this leaked right as the Met Gala is going on. Just the most perfect symbolism humanly possible.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:45
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:Why would a lifetime appointed judge fear public opinion? The right wing court is explicitly political. They pretend they aren't, but they are. A decision to postpone a contentious decision until after an election is well within their playbook.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:45
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:It's a surprise, yes. It's not burning anything down. What meaningful change do you think will come about from this besides at most the leaker being punished severely and the Democrats talking about how important it is that the sanctity of the SCOTUS be preserved and defended, even when we disagree with their judgments? For one thing, I fully expect we’ll see more future opinion leaks. For another, it will make the internal atmosphere at the Court a lot more corrosive - if they don’t know who leaked it, then it could have been just about anyone, and the collegiality of the Court will absolutely be harmed (as it should be). I don’t think you’ll see many Democrats defending this, either. (E: I don’t think this is the case but by FAR the funniest option would be Breyer being the one who leaked it.)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:45
|
|
|
This RBG’s legacy, and what everyone should remember her for.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:48
|
|
|
If the draft decision is uglier than what they would actually produce then of course it is meaningful. It's laying bare the ugliness of unelected politicians on the supreme court. The SC should be a generally hated institution, like congress. It's hilarious that somehow it remains a respected institution.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:51
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:This RBG’s legacy, and what everyone should remember her for. there's at least several thousand current and former politicians sharing the credit for this as it's been 60 years of erosion, not like someone flipped a switch in 2006 and decided it was time to start kicking the legs out from under reproductive rights.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:52
|
|
|
Kalman posted:For one thing, I fully expect we’ll see more future opinion leaks. For another, it will make the internal atmosphere at the Court a lot more corrosive - if they don’t know who leaked it, then it could have been just about anyone, and the collegiality of the Court will absolutely be harmed (as it should be). How is that meaningful? Who cares if the high priests beholden to no authority save their own have their decrees leaked before they are formally made. What does that change if it happens more often? Like if this act is meaningless besides causing more meaningless acts in the future, it's still meaningless. Likewise, who cares if the collegiality of the Court is harmed. What does that change? The Republican judges will still do what they do, and the Democrat ones will still do what they do. I fail to see how the world in which this leak does not happen is different except people are happier in it because they get more happy ignorance.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:53
|
|
|
Piell posted:Eat poo poo SCOTUSBlog I can't imagine anyone who lives outside of the DC bureaucracy/journalism bubble caring about SCOTUS opinions leaking. What's the worst thing that could come out of it? Public outrage forcing the justices to change their stance and reverse the decision? They evidently don't care enough about public opinion to have it sway their own stances. Plus, it would actually be a good thing if they felt a little bit of pressure for a change.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:54
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:there's at least several thousand current and former politicians sharing the credit for this as it's been 60 years of erosion, not like someone flipped a switch in 2006 and decided it was time to start kicking the legs out from under reproductive rights. And they would have continued to fail had she not been so selfish. She knew what was at stake, and didn’t care, because her she was a self-centered prick who cared more about being an icon for women, than doing everything in her power to protect women’s rights.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:56
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:Likewise, who cares if the collegiality of the Court is harmed. What does that change? The Republican judges will still do what they do, and the Democrat ones will still do what they do. I read that as hoping that working relationships would deteriorate and the justices would be more adversarial. I don't really think this would make a difference though personally.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:56
|
|
|
JordanKai posted:I can't imagine anyone who lives outside of the DC bureaucracy/journalism bubble caring about SCOTUS opinions leaking. What's the worst thing that could come out of it? Public outrage forcing the justices to change their stance and reverse the decision? They evidently don't care enough about public opinion to have it sway their own stances. "Conservatives" will use this as proof that "the left" is out to get them and therefore they should get what they want and are entitled to this without any repercussions
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:56
|
|
|
Kalman posted:This is, to my knowledge, the first leaked draft opinion there has ever been. SCOTUS does not leak. maybe they should have considered not allowing abortion bans then.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:57
|
|
|
Mindboggling to see the mental gymnastics here that republicans will benefit from this or not be hurt by this. I don't get it. Women are the reason republicans lose elections.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:58
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:
The leak made the six republican justices uncomfortable. the yeti posted:I read that as hoping that working relationships would deteriorate and the justices would be more adversarial. Right, it will absolutely do this.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:58
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The leak made the six republican justices uncomfortable. And what is the meaningful consequence of that? What changes? I'd like a concrete answer about how things are in any way different for the average American. If the SCOTUS behaves identically while being more grumpy and unhappy, I don't really think that's a meaningful accomplishment.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 03:01
|
|
|
Shammypants posted:Mindboggling to see the mental gymnastics here that republicans will benefit from this or not be hurt by this. I don't get it. Women are the reason republicans lose elections. Yeah, getting what you want is never a motivator to vote even harder by the side that constantly gets what it wants.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 03:02
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:And what is the meaningful consequence of that? What changes? I'd like a concrete answer about how things are in any way different for the average American. If the SCOTUS behaves identically while being more grumpy and unhappy, I don't really think that's a meaningful accomplishment. More hardline decisions striking more concrete precedent.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 03:06
|
|
|
Shammypants posted:Mindboggling to see the mental gymnastics here that republicans will benefit from this or not be hurt by this. I don't get it. Women are the reason republicans lose elections. this assumes that abortion is a driving motivator for women to vote.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 03:06
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:And what is the meaningful consequence of that? What changes? I'd like a concrete answer about how things are in any way different for the average American. If the SCOTUS behaves identically while being more grumpy and unhappy, I don't really think that's a meaningful accomplishment. Ok Not sure what else you're expecting the one person who leaked this (whoever they are) to do by themselves tho Making Republican politicians uncomfortable is useful. It makes their work harder.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 03:07
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:Yeah, getting what you want is never a motivator to vote even harder by the side that constantly gets what it wants. In this case, with the way these things were written, even as a draft, I am extremely comfortable being right and saying women will be galvanized to vote. Given how everything is going, this is the Christmas Goose come early. Mooseontheloose posted:this assumes that abortion is a driving motivator for women to vote. Um
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 03:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 10:07 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Ok I'm not expecting anything. I'm just saying I don't see how this is some huge victory or 'burning down the house.' Gaining information about a future event is utterly meaningless if there is no way to prevent or prepare for the event.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 03:10
|
|