Someone choose to leak it, knowing it would be published. That someone presumably saw a benefit in doing so.
“Heading towards”?
We’ve reached the situation the UK was in in 1832, and it’s going to take a Constitutional reform on a level unprecedented in American history to fix it, if it’s even possible.
What’s to fix? Why not simply leave it up to each state to decide? At least then you’ll have a choice; if you don’t like the laws of your state government, choose another one. You don’t have that choice when the federal government makes the decision.
It’s worth keeping in mind that, unlike most other countries, we don’t have a national government. We are a federation of states, and have a federal government. When the federal constitution is silent on an issue, it’s best to invoke the 10th Amendment, IMO.
Worth also keeping in mind that a number of states are trying to pass “It is illegal to leave the state to get an abortion in a state where it’s legal” laws. Which are almost certainly blatantly unconstitutional but given the current court I’m not sure we can rely on that being confirmed as so.
But we do have a national government. It has a great deal of power, and had since before i was born. And some geographically large, thinly populated states have WAY more power over the rest of us than seems reasonable.
Trump won with a minority of the popular vote. He was propped up by legislators who represent a minority of the population. And even if you happen to like this ruling, trump did a great deal of damage to our country.
It’s illegal for the states to pass such laws, but the federal government can.
You’re not giving them enough credit. If they really wanted to, I’m sure they could bend over backwards and onvent some new BS principles. “Oh, well many states that approved the 13th did so under duress, so the amendment is null and void.”
Nope. But he might rule that it is up to the states, not federal government, to decide if his marriage is valid or not.
What, you think these Republicans and Conservatives don’t pay for their daughters or mistresses to get abortions? Why should they be less hypocritical about interracial marriage than abortion?
Both what about Manchin’s heroic stand to prevent the fillibuster from being changed under democrat rule? Won’t that shame the Republicans into behaving?
Hahahaha no of course not.
Until such time as Alito writes that Congress didn’t have the power to amend the Mann Act.
There’s a whole thread on how this could happen, so I won’t re-argue it here. Suffice to say, states can pass any laws they want. The laws may seem to be unconstitutional, but that’s up to the current court to decide.
I’ve seen a lot of speculation, but it’s hard to say.
Conservatives are saying that a liberal did this in order to generate public pressure on SCOTUS, perhaps affecting the eventual release of the decision. I could very easily see Sotomayor saying “you’re not hiding on this one, assholes.”
The argument against that theory would be… have you actually SEEN this court? The conservative wing would absolutely relish the opportunity to say “fuck your outrage, I’m in this job for life and you can’t touch me.” They were put on the court to give liberals the middle finger loudly and often! Ginning up public pressure would be a stupid and naïve strategy, but there are definitely liberals who are still that stupid and naïve.
As a more liberal person I have a theory that the Republican/Federalist cabal are doing the same thing they did to get through the Trump years: if you have outrageously unpopular news, get it out early in drips and drops. Let your lapdogs prepare their talking points in advance. Make sure that when the actual event happens, the public is exhausted and resigned and numb.
The argument against that theory is that this Court seems to have demonstrated some sensitivity to public opinion via their penchant for secrecy and cowardice… abuse of the shadow docket, issuing unsigned opinions at midnight, attacking critical journalists.
If it does turn out to be Sotomayor… well, conservatives have told us that with regard to judicial ethics, Clarence Thomas isn’t bound by jack shit because screw you. Choices have consequences, so get used to seeing the shoe on the other foot.
IMHO that part is obvious. The limit they want is for it to be legal for them and their close family should the need arise, but illegal for everyone else. Why else would there be so many “pro choice” people who vote Republican?
Illegal really means “You can’t do it if there are consequences and people to enforce them,” I’ve learned. Otherwise I can do what I like.
Technically, that’s not correct. Slavery is abolished as a concept by the 13th amendment but there isn’t a criminal statue that says “Slavery is illegal and the penalty for it is X, Y, Z”. Widespread “peonage” extended slavery long past the end of Reconstruction, in fact FDR cracked down on it when entering WW2 to avoid enemy propaganda. But slavery isn’t illegal - it is abolished as a concept (except for as punishment for crime), and there is no longer a legal class of people who are considered non protected by law. But the act of slavery itself is not directly criminalized anywhere in federal law.
There is in fact federal law against forced labor with specifics on what that means and what the punishment guidelines are.
Are corporations people, with freedom of speech? Are corporate campaign donations protected speech? I don’t see that in the Constitution either.
IF Democrats would vote based on social issues, this will energize the vote. But historically, Democrats behave nothing like Republicans. Every Republican should be painted as an anti-abortion Putin apologist. Especially Susan “he’s learned his lesson” Collins.
In a weird way, Putin’s Russia and the GOP are similar. They’ve both built up an image of a tough, perhaps unbeatable foe. We’re seeing the lie as far as Russia goes right now. Next is to somehow do the same to the Republicans.
Also, they both love Putin and persecuting gays, but I’m sure that’s a coincidence.
I don’t think that’s quite the same. Freedom of speech is certainly there, and if we didn’t treat corporations like people (at least to some extent) then a law could be passed banning the NYT from publishing stories, because they aren’t people and therefore don’t get the rights of people.
Don’t get me wrong- I’m happy to have Roe. But I do think there’s some merit to the constitutional argument against the decision. But then, I’m in pharmaceuticals, so what do I know.