U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

“To take this deeply annoying topic a little further, is the European Union an example of "a country made up of a bunch of little quasi-countries"?

Was the USSR? Was the British Empire? What about the current United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?”

no. No. No. And no.

Also, even if Roe v Wade somehow survived, provision is already near non existent in much of the US as I understand it? It’s de facto unavailable even if the law currently says otherwise. The Guttmacher Institute had this paragraph in their most recent report on availability:

In 2017, 89% of U.S. counties did not have a clinic facility that provided abortion care, and 38% of women aged 15–44 lived in these counties (Table 4); these figures are comparable to those found in 2014—90% and 39%, respectively.1 In five states, fewer than 10% of women lived in a county without a clinic facility: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Nevada and New York. In Mississippi and Wyoming, more than 90% of women lived in a county without such a clinic.

Xp

Well, it matters if you think that Texas is like Scotland, more like Oxfordshire, or more like Bermuda (as it relates to the government based in London.)

There's a fair number of people who think Texas is more analogous to Scotland than to Oxfordshire. I am not one of them, but they are actively involved in US politics. That viewpoint is part of why we are where we are now. It's why we every American life ends up getting controlled by dickheads like Alito and Manchin and McConnell.

I guess it matters if you have nothing to say on the topic at hand. Better not talk about real issues that affect real people when you feel like diverting the thread into an abstract debate about federalism.

Yeah, the access thing has been an issue for a long time. But I always remind myself that you can’t let your guard down in the face of incrementalism (“oh well, it was already pretty bad anyway”) - incrementalism is their whole strategy.

In any case from a practical perspective it seems like the fight has to be at the state level for now. I don’t really know how involved orgs like planned parenthood get in state level elections (state legislature, Governor) but I hope they’re going to if they don’t.

xp I'm not sure how "abstract" the discussion is. We here in the U.S. have seen the real (and devastating) consequences of our fractured government in this pandemic. And now we are looking at a wholesale deprivation of the rights of half the population, and what might be done about it.

i believe abstract was referring to the debate about whether other forms of government are like federalism rather than any of those things

^

A hell of a thread. Share with your anti-abortion relatives:

I taught a class on reproductive bodies at Princeton this semester, a course that explored ideas about conception and attempts to regulate who could provide care during labor from antiquity to the Enlightenment.

A thread on historical precedents and legal opinions: 1/16

— Melissa Reynolds (@melkatrey) May 4, 2022

Feticide is a minor offense in the Old Testament compared with murder.

worth clicking through to this thread too:

1/ Can we talk about how problematic Alito’s logic is? Alito reaches back to the 17th c. English Common law to provide a precedent for his decision, but the 17th c. judgments he cites only made abortion a crime if it happened after the child “quickens” or moves (about 20 weeks). pic.twitter.com/VWnvN5XL9r

— Holly Brewer (@earlymodjustice) May 4, 2022

i would like to point out if no one else has

Respondents and the Solicitor General also rely on post-Casey decisions like Lawrence vs Texas and Obergefell vs Hodges. These attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one's 'concept of existence' prove too much. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could licence fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like.

Number of states where using illicit drugs is illegal: 0
Number of states where having sex with a sex worker is illegal: 0

lol that's a good point

also luv 2 equate abortion with prostitution and drug use, it just makes sense deep down

I'm wondering if there's a typo or I'm missing something

re: who leaked the opinion,

it may actually matter, far beyond the pearl-clutching "the dignity of our institution has been soiled!" take. it may actually, very much, matter, in terms of locking in a decision that wasn't necessarily going to be so broad and terrible.

this is a tpm "prime" article but i have this exclusive share token:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/putting-together-the-pieces-on-the-campaign-to-stop-roberts/sharetoken/ayjTUiKurJV4

it has way too many links and quotations to quote here. the gist is that it was almost certainly a leak from the conservative wing, and that it was likely a part of a power struggle (with history) between Roberts and the other 5 conservatives. Roberts wanted a narrow ruling and was trying to "pick off" another conservative justice to form a majority with the liberal wing. leaking it early short-circuited that strategy and "locked" in one of the worst supreme court opinions of all time

i'm so accustomed to hearing why what i think is completely wrong, so i'll go ahead and agree that yes, if roberts would have been able to narrow the opinion and keep a sliver of Roe alive, life in the 21st century would still completely suck and we would still be on a path toward the more broad ruling that is going to happen instead. however, i think there are degrees of fucking awful, and in this horrible world we should be rooting for the least horrible outcomes

oh, also another way i'm potentially completely wrong - there was no chance of picking off another conservative justice. roberts was completely wasting his time. roberts himself is worse than satan, and there are no differences between him and the other 5 conservative justices. so even me bringing it up is pretty much the dumbest thing i've ever heard

I could see Roberts trying to get the others to sign on to a ruling that doesn't threaten other precedents

Chief Justice John Roberts said in a public appearance on Thursday that the leak of a draft opinion in a major abortion case is "absolutely appalling."

"If the person behind it thinks that it will affect our work, that's just foolish," Roberts added. -- via @Reuters

— Lawrence Hurley (@lawrencehurley) May 5, 2022

In other words, Roberts is probably still trying to do just that.

being foolish?

First, this thread:

Justice Alito's invocation of Sir Matthew Hale in his leaked majority opinion is so, so much more fucked up than people realize. I'm a professor with a PhD, and my area of expertise happens to be women and gender in the early modern era (1500-1700). Here is what you need to know. pic.twitter.com/MfMSi1g4D2

— Dr. Literature_Lady 💌📚📜🎙 (@Literature_Lady) May 5, 2022

Second, this news story:

https://people.com/politics/indiana-republican-accused-killing-wife-wins-local-primary-jail/

He probably was thinking of Matt Hale of the World church of the Creator but this Matt would do too.

sorry to ask, but what is Rod Derher's take on this. need to keep a pulse on my neighborhood catholics

Castrate the sodomites.

Wait, so when there's a vote on the SCOTUS, does Alito think they should count the female members' husbands' votes?

"How does Justice Mrs. Jesse M. Barrett vote?"

In a bid to demonstrate the respect for women’s rights on the conservative wing of the court, and 10th “honorary” seat will be added so that Ginny Thomas may observe the proceedings and give her perspective

and hopefully choke to death

Castrate the sodomites.

dr literature lady

seems strange to me that some enterprising young antifaer hasn’t decided to shoot one of these assholes yet, though obviously I could neither advise nor condone such an act (hi feds)

How long is the DC media going to pretend that everyone in town isn’t whispering that insurrectionist loon Ginni Thomas leaked Alito’s opinion because Bret Kavanaugh was wavering? There’s one discussion in front of the cameras and another behind.

— Dave Zirin (@EdgeofSports) May 8, 2022

^contains some plausible conjectures, but it's still no more than gossip atm

I hate these 'act properly please!' fucks almost as much as I hate the Alito/et al.

I say this as someone who is not a conservative & disagrees with Kavanaugh on a whole lot: Harassing someone outside their family’s private residence is grotesque. It’s not healthy. And it says something that crossing this line is seen by many as virtuous. https://t.co/LVEbxRICpk

— Billy Binion (@billybinion) May 8, 2022

uncle baby billy binion

lol @ reason boy

God forbid they be mildly inconvenienced or annoyed, that's just going too far

Regarding the leak theories, I find it kind of implausible that a fucking Supreme Court Justice would "waver" based on a leak. These are literally the most self-regarding motherfuckers on the planet. All nine of them. You think they're going to change their mind because of what someone might think?

I said upthread I think all this speculation is bullshit, but the "occam's razor" explanation to me is that it was a liberal clerk who was horrified and wanted to warn everyone, not some 4-D chess bullshit.

Seems predictable that people will get upset when you decide to use the power granted to you to uphold the public good to instead take away a constitutionally guaranteed right that has a direct and profound effect on their daily lives.

Imo more ppl should be outside Kavanaugh's house

Protesting at Kavanaugh's house after said house has been reduced to ashes...might be too much. But let's try it and find out first.

Regarding the leak theories, I find it kind of implausible that a fucking Supreme Court Justice would "waver" based on a leak.

The way I understand it, it’s the other way around - the point of the leak is to prevent wavering, rather than to cause it. The idea is that when the particulars of the opinion aren’t known, there’s room for negotiating, persuasion — chances of opinion, as it were. But once the majority opinion is public, in the extreme Alito form, it makes it (the idea is, I think) more difficult to modify that extreme opinion in a way that preserves maximum face saving (which, despite of their ultimate tenure jobs, seems to be the most important function of a sc justice)

Only a movement that disrupts business and property can reverse this.

Just a reminder: because of non-proportional representation and demographics: in order to break the filibuster and overcome the R+6-7 bias in the Senate, Democrats would need to win 3 straight elections by 19 points to make abortion legal nationally. 1/n

— Brynn Tannehill (@BrynnTannehill) May 9, 2022

I'm feeling this:

One of the consequences of the myth of indispensable men — the graveyards are full of them — is that we tolerate positions of extreme social power and importance being held by single individuals for absurdly long periods, because these people will supposedly be so difficult to replace.

This is of course ridiculous: the merit myth is just that. While Sotomayor has been an excellent justice, there are, conservatively speaking, tens of thousands of people who would also be excellent SCOTUS justices. Indeed thousands of them are Hispanics, and in a nation where within another decade or so one out of every five Americans will be Hispanic, it should be considered unacceptable for the Supreme Court not to have at least one Hispanic justice, which obviously has profound consequences regarding the question of who should replace Sotomayor on the Court.

Ideally, of course, we would have a legislative scheme that would require justices to take senior status from the Court after a reasonable number of years, while ensuring that they were selected to the Court in the first place in a more rational manner than the current haphazard non-system. Proposals limiting justices to 18-year terms, guaranteeing that each president gets two nominations per presidential term would accomplish this goal directly, while indirectly ensuring that, demographically speaking, the Court not look like the late-stage Soviet politburo.

But such reforms are extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future, meaning that we will need to depend on informal norms rather than formal laws to get individual justices to do the right thing.

It’s an overwhelming moral imperative, under our present system, that progressive justices retire strategically. For pragmatic reasons, it would be best if SCOTUS justices didn’t serve for the ridiculously long terms that have become standard in recent decades, and that they retired before all the perils of our current gerontocratic practices became evident in their individual cases.

Who among us couldn't imagine a multitude of reforms that would make our system more responsive to the needs of ordinary people, but which will never happen because it removes power from those unwilling to relinquish it.

How long is the DC media going to pretend that everyone in town isn’t whispering that insurrectionist loon Ginni Thomas leaked Alito’s opinion because Bret Kavanaugh was wavering? There’s one discussion in front of the cameras and another behind.

— Dave Zirin (@EdgeofSports) May 8, 2022

People are protesting outside Justice Kavanaugh's house. Someone said "But think of his neighbors" and Kavanaugh's neighbor replied "We ARE his neighbors. We organized the protest"

— Chad Loder (@chadloder) May 8, 2022