|
|
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource."
|
Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
|
|---|
| Parent(s) |
Container
|
| Contributor | IndyGeorgia |
| Last Edited | IndyGeorgia May 02, 2022 08:07pm |
| Logged |
0
|
| Category | Report |
| Author | Josh Gerstein and Alexander Ward |
| News Date | Tuesday, May 3, 2022 01:30:00 AM UTC0:0 |
| Description | The Supreme Court has voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by POLITICO.
The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision – Planned Parenthood v. Casey – that largely maintained the right. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito writes.
“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” he writes in the document, labeled as the “Opinion of the Court.” “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
Deliberations on controversial cases have in the past been fluid. Justices can and sometimes do change their votes as draft opinions circulate and major decisions can be subject to multiple drafts and vote-trading, sometimes until just days before a decision is unveiled. The court’s holding will not be final until it is published, likely in the next two months.
The immediate impact of the ruling as drafted in February would be to end a half-century guarantee of federal constitutional protection of abortion rights and allow each state to decide whether to restrict or ban abortion. It’s unclear if there have been subsequent changes to the draft.
No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending. The unprecedented revelation is bound to intensify the debate over what was already the most controversial case on the docket this term. |
| Share |
|
|
2¢
|
|
| Article | Read Full Article |
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
| [View All 16 Previous Messages] |
|
|
 D:1 | RP ( 5506.7227 points)
|
Tue, May 3, 2022 03:32:49 PM UTC0:00
|
This decision wouldn't reflect on that.
This decision wouldn't reflect on that.
|
|
 |
| D:1989 | RBH ( 5212.2285 points)
|
Tue, May 3, 2022 07:17:33 PM UTC0:00
|
With this leak, isn’t this opinion now locked in? The five justices in the majority can’t be seen to cave to any pressure for ego’s sake, and now everyone knows if they did.
which is the foundation of some people thinking the leak didn't come from an opponent of the decision
IndyGeorgia: With this leak, isn’t this opinion now locked in? The five justices in the majority can’t be seen to cave to any pressure for ego’s sake, and now everyone knows if they did.
which is the foundation of some people thinking the leak didn't come from an opponent of the decision
|
|
|
|
| D:1 | RP ( 5506.7227 points)
|
Tue, May 3, 2022 07:41:14 PM UTC0:00
|
With this leak, isn’t this opinion now locked in? The five justices in the majority can’t be seen to cave to any pressure for ego’s sake, and now everyone knows if they did.
The last time Roe was almost overturned in 1992s Planned Parenthood v. Casey there was a leaked memo that had a five vote majority for overturning and then Kennedy changed his mind.
IndyGeorgia: With this leak, isn’t this opinion now locked in? The five justices in the majority can’t be seen to cave to any pressure for ego’s sake, and now everyone knows if they did.
The last time Roe was almost overturned in 1992s Planned Parenthood v. Casey there was a leaked memo that had a five vote majority for overturning and then Kennedy changed his mind.
|
|
 |
| D:7 | CA Pol Junkie ( 4947.9873 points)
|
Tue, May 3, 2022 07:48:13 PM UTC0:00
|
I can't see how it helps conservatives to have this leak. It gives liberals the opportunity to warn of the impending chaos to the Court and country before it actually happens. I don't think any of the arch-conservative 5 give a s*** but you never know.
I can't see how it helps conservatives to have this leak. It gives liberals the opportunity to warn of the impending chaos to the Court and country before it actually happens. I don't think any of the arch-conservative 5 give a s*** but you never know.
|
|
|
|
| D:1 | RP ( 5506.7227 points)
|
Tue, May 3, 2022 09:04:49 PM UTC0:00
|
Well, the Republicans are all complaining about someone leaking it rather than addressing the issue itself.
Well, the Republicans are all complaining about someone leaking it rather than addressing the issue itself.
|
|
|
|
| D:1989 | RBH ( 5212.2285 points)
|
Tue, May 3, 2022 09:15:13 PM UTC0:00
|
I can't see how it helps conservatives to have this leak.
Either they lock in their 5 members, or they get to claim that a 5-4 loss was due to "intimidation".
CA Pol Junkie: I can't see how it helps conservatives to have this leak.
Either they lock in their 5 members, or they get to claim that a 5-4 loss was due to "intimidation".
|
|
 |
| I:1038 | WA Indy ( 1790.9733 points)
|
Wed, May 4, 2022 04:20:52 PM UTC0:00
|
Meanwhile, it's pretty obvious that under the federal Constitutional system that you guys are all supposed to revere, the 1973 Roe versus Wade decision was essentially based on...nothing at all. There's no text in the Constitution to suggest states can't regulate (or ban altogether) the practice of abortion.
Perhaps banning abortion is a stupid and/or unjust idea...but it's not unConstitutional. If you disagree, please feel free to cite that portion of the text of the Constitution which indicates support for your position.
The Court ruled the due process clause of the 14th Amendment provides a right to privacy and applies to abortion. That and a broader interpretation of the 4th Amendment apply. The right to privacy doesn't explicitly appear in the text of the constitution, but I'm sure you'd disagree with the idea that one doesn't exist.
Hikikomori Blitzkrieg!: Meanwhile, it's pretty obvious that under the federal Constitutional system that you guys are all supposed to revere, the 1973 Roe versus Wade decision was essentially based on...nothing at all. There's no text in the Constitution to suggest states can't regulate (or ban altogether) the practice of abortion.
Perhaps banning abortion is a stupid and/or unjust idea...but it's not unConstitutional. If you disagree, please feel free to cite that portion of the text of the Constitution which indicates support for your position.
The Court ruled the due process clause of the 14th Amendment provides a right to privacy and applies to abortion. That and a broader interpretation of the 4th Amendment apply. The right to privacy doesn't explicitly appear in the text of the constitution, but I'm sure you'd disagree with the idea that one doesn't exist.
|
|
|
|
| D:1 | RP ( 5506.7227 points)
|
Fri, May 6, 2022 02:12:56 PM UTC0:00
|
I wonder if this isn't a trial balloon to see how much it damages the prospects of a GOP sweep this November?
I wonder if this isn't a trial balloon to see how much it damages the prospects of a GOP sweep this November?
|
|
|
|
| I:1038 | WA Indy ( 1790.9733 points)
|
Fri, May 6, 2022 04:28:39 PM UTC0:00
|
I think we’re trying too hard there. I remember in 2016 some folk thought Comey’s letter was an attempt to save down ballot Republicans. A few weeks ago some folk though Smith’s slap was planned. Social media is trying to figure out the leaker. Not everything’s a conspiracy.
I think we’re trying too hard there. I remember in 2016 some folk thought Comey’s letter was an attempt to save down ballot Republicans. A few weeks ago some folk though Smith’s slap was planned. Social media is trying to figure out the leaker. Not everything’s a conspiracy.
|
|
|
|
| D:1 | RP ( 5506.7227 points)
|
Fri, May 6, 2022 04:48:45 PM UTC0:00
|
Doesn't have to be a conspiracy. The leaker has a motive to leak it.
Doesn't have to be a conspiracy. The leaker has a motive to leak it.
|
|
|
|
|
