this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2023
400 points (98.8% liked)

News

23364 readers
4528 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

New York Times reports conservative supreme court justice had no changes to 98-page draft of opinion that removed right to abortion

The conservative supreme court justice Neil Gorsuch took just 10 minutes to approve without changes a 98-page draft of the opinion that would remove the federal right to abortion that had been guaranteed for nearly 50 years, the New York Times reported.

According to the paper, Samuel Alito, the author of the opinion in Dobbs v Jackson, the case that struck down Roe v Wade, from 1973, circulated his draft at 11.16am on 10 February 2022.

Citing two people who saw communications between the justices, the Times said: “After a justice shares an opinion inside the court, other members scrutinise it. Those in the majority can request revisions, sometimes as the price of their votes, sweating sentences or even words.

“But this time, despite the document’s length, Justice Neil M Gorsuch wrote back just 10 minutes later to say that he would sign on to the opinion and had no changes.”

all 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Cranakis@lemmy.one 209 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

Well yeah. Alito was executing "the plan" they all already agreed on back at the Federalist Society. SCOTUS has been captured by far right forces. The court is illegitimate and corrupt to the core.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 81 points 11 months ago (2 children)
[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 35 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Until the Supreme Court is completely overhauled, it's going to be extremely difficult to substantively change the heading of this country. Conservatives see this as a win, but they're too short-sighted to realize they shot themselves in the foot just the same.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 19 points 11 months ago (1 children)

We could also water it down, adding justices seems to be the only option since they don't/won't hold themselves accountable.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

I'm no legal expert but I've always thought the randomized or rotating court idea (perhaps > 9) filled by lower circuit courts would be better and less partisan overall.

[–] buddhabound@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

There are 13 circuit courts full of judges, all with their own lifetime appointments. I believe the proposed idea is that the current supreme court could be made up of random, rotating judges on temporary assignments from the 13 circuit courts. Currently, the 9 justices oversee one or more of the 13 circuits. So, we could expand the court to match the 13 circuits, and then, as justices retire/die, their replacements are randomly assigned to terms of 18-24 months from the circuits they oversee. It would still meet the constitutional requirements for the supreme court, as it only requires that there is a supreme Court made up of appointed justices in good standing.

I'm sure it's more complex than that, but those are the basics of the random appointments and rotating seated justices.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I've never heard of that option, but they're appointed too right? Not sure if that would fix it.

[–] girlfreddy@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

All of Canada's judges are appointed (which, iirc, isn't what happens in America).

It is rare to see any judge up here so politically partisan. Part of that may be that we repatriated our Constitution in 1982 (to formally acknowledge our independence from Britain) so judges are basing decisions on a newer document. The other thing is Canadian courts do not put "original intent" above all ... they consider the changes in society's mores and beliefs just as important.

Up here all judges abhor being reversed so work very hard to base their rulings on facts. I'm not sure if it's the same in America.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

abhor being reversed

Who reverses them, do you have a Supreme Court type of system?

[–] girlfreddy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yes, provincial and the Supreme Court of Canada (SCoC) ... just like America does (state/SCOTUS).

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago

It looks like you're pretty similar, just not as corrupt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Canada#Current_members

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

They are but they tend to be constantly cycling out at a given time and so seem less concentrated or determined by individual presidents. They are also possibly subject to less lobbying targeting given which group presiding over a specific case would never be certain.

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee -5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Why would Republicans care about that? They aren't black! Except for the black one taking the most bribes so they consider him white!

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 13 points 11 months ago

Thomas isn't the one taking the most bribes, it's just the one they focus on in the media.

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 20 points 11 months ago

It's not a recent thing.

There was about 5 minutes under Warren where the court looks like it might actually be progressive. Other than that essentially it's entire history it's just a archconservative institution that exists as a check on civil rights.

[–] modifier@lemmy.ca 5 points 11 months ago

Wow, that was a hell of a read. Thank you.

[–] girlfreddy@sh.itjust.works 54 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Instead of protecting the Constitution, specifically the 9th Amendment, the current SCOTUS is instead denying and disparaging the basic rights of all those people who can get pregnant.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

SCOTUS is either blind or bought off ... or both.

[–] Feirdro@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago

It’s a lot of people. If we add in all of those who can get someone pregnant but aren’t ready to be parents or who love someone whose life is affected by a problematic pregnancy, the number grows massively.

But we don’t live in a representative democracy anymore.

[–] chaogomu@kbin.social 10 points 11 months ago

The 9th amendment? Those FedSoc fucks never read past the 2nd.

And Gorsuch in particular disregards that pesky line in the 1st that separates church and state.

Or maybe it's that he denies the post Civil War incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Either way, he's written about how he thinks it should be legal for States to have an official religion (his own).

[–] ivanafterall@kbin.social 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

SCOTUS is either blind or bought off

OH, OH, I KNOW THIS ONE!

[–] squiblet@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

It didn’t take me nearly 10 minutes to figure out which one.

[–] ickplant@lemmy.world 47 points 11 months ago

Of course he did. Overturning Roe was on all of their agendas as they were getting confirmed. They would just never admit to it. Conservatives are liars.

[–] derf82@lemmy.world 41 points 11 months ago

Yeah, of course. No doubt Alito circulated the opinion to allies before circulating to the rest is the court. Hell, I’m sure Alito has had it in his drafts folder for since he was appointed.

The bigger surprises:

  • Breyer was willing to join a plurality opinion that would have allowed the 15 week ban, but upheld the right to an abortion before then. That likely lead a conservative (probably Alito, which is just personal speculation) to leak it to solidify votes.
  • They agreed to hear the case before Ginsburg’s body was even cold. They just pretended to relist it so it didn’t look like they were going to do it immediately. It was enough to even cause Barrett to vote to not hear the case.
  • They let Mississippi completely change arguments midway, a tactic usually punished by the court but rewarded here.
[–] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 35 points 11 months ago (1 children)

These guys know how they are going to vote long before the case is even accepted to the Court.

It's a total charade, the whole fucking thing.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 30 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Think of it this way. We'd fail a 5th Grade student who didn't read a 100 page book and hold them back a year.

[–] ivanafterall@kbin.social 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This guy is an inspiration to those struggling kids! Truly anyone can be a Supreme Court Justice!

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

Someone once made the point that a Supreme Court judge really didn't have to know the law, because by the time a case got to the court it was obvious that the law was ambiguous. They argued that the Justices should be considering which interpretation was best for the most people, not which was the 'correct' way to view it.

[–] Tyfud@lemmy.one 5 points 11 months ago

Oh, he read the 100 page document. Just long before it was sent out.

[–] yukichigai@lemmy.zip 25 points 11 months ago

"Yep, that takes rights away from women alright. Good enough for me!" - Gorsuch probably.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago (3 children)

It took him 10 minutes to pull out the rubber stamp?

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It took him 9 minutes to open the attachment on his email.

[–] just_change_it@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

I can all but guarantee he didn't even open the attachment. Probably replied on his cell phone when he saw the alert.

This stuff isn't really a debate or discussion. The two sides meet on their own and talk about what their strategies are before meeting in the middle in pointless formalities. They probably worked on the draft together or went over it before it went out- the goal was for the side in control to decide on how they wanted it before putting it through the red tape of a vote. The real decisions were made long before the email was even sent.

For all intents and purposes 4 of the 5 members of the supreme court are just bench warmers until a conservative member retires or dies. At that point they are relevant until another conservative gets pushed through, or simply take over once a liberal gets through. That's it.

imo the concept of nonpartial decisions or bipartisanship is a fantasy, just like communism. There's the winning side and there's the losing side and the winners take all in this country.

[–] negativenull@startrek.website 5 points 11 months ago

There's no chance he didn't know what was in it. He was part of the cabal from the beginning.

[–] magnor@lemmy.magnor.ovh 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Given how far said stamp was jammed up his arse, I'd say that is a reasonable estimate.

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

Every time I think I can’t possibly think less of the Supreme Court they go and surprise me

[–] IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee 13 points 11 months ago

Violence is the only reasonable response.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

He knew the plan to overthrow Wade v Roe already and was just making sure it was on track.