My lawyer friend offered this analysis today, curious if you agree:
“If you are not familiar with legal standards of review used by the Supreme Court, please familiarize yourself. This so-called opinion changes a standard of review - the hurdle that a government must overcome in justifying actions that it might take in all sorts of circumstances. Most essential parts of our lives get a high standard (for example "strict scrutiny") which means that any government action that impinges on a fundamental right will be closely looked at and evaluated. This applies to the right to vote, to travel, to privacy, not being discriminated against because of race, religion, etc. Abortion restrictions fall under the undue burden standard - which is a heightened scrutiny test. For example, a court has to balance the benefit of the law against the burden on the woman. But way down at the end of this leaked opinion, page 64 to be exact, the Supreme Court intends to change the standard of review to the lowest - the same standard of review that a government would be subjected to in justifying putting a street light in front of your house.
So let's reframe it for what it is - put aside abortion entirely and I mean that - legal review of ANY action that impacts a woman's body will now be lowest on the rung - the easiest hurdle to overcome. A woman will have more rights to a job (a right which is a good thing of course) than to control her own body. Think about that.”
I concur. Also, VERY concerned with the 2nd to the last Paragraph typically called the
"disposition ruling" on the last page. The authority to "regulate & prohibit" abortion is transfered to the "citizens" not the state Legislative Bodies (26 likely states) apparently authorizing "bounty laws" all in the name of "morality". Whose "morality" - Alito's? Ginni Thomas?
"To my gay friends who don’t yet see the link between the draft opinion overruling Roe v. Wade in favor of states’ rights to determine bodily autonomy, let me put it to you plainly:
The right to private, consensual sex between people of the same sex depends upon the same line of privacy cases now cast aside. Your right to intimacy in your own home with the person you choose is now directly under threat. We must join with all women in protesting, mobilizing and turning out in huge numbers this November. Our right to love whom we choose hangs in the balance. We must act."
That last point is terrifying. The whole thing is terrifying but when you couple it with changing the standard of review I'm not even sure terrifying is a strong enough word :(
The fascist (there is no other appropriate word) attacks are not just on women. Obergefell v. Hodges (gay marriage) and Sullivan v. NYT (freedom of the press) are directly in their sights. We collectively need to deliver the House and a Sinema/Manchin-free Senate majority to Biden in November. And Biden is going to need the backbone and intestinal fortitude to expand the Supreme Court if he has the chance.
None of this should be a surprise. The fascists have clearly telegraphed their intentions (Barret and Kavanaugh's faux SCOTUS confirmation hearings were clearly window-dressing from the get go). The real project of the fascists is to redefine U.S. citizenship as being only appropriate to those who agree with them, and to delegitimize and strip all effective power from the 60% of Americans who disagree with them.
The fascist fascination with firing squads, guillotines and concentration camps is another clear sign of their intentions. If democracy, reason and fact-based rationalism win in November and in 2024, I believe we can expect a decade of significant right-wing violence. However, if we lose, we can expect two decades of repression that will rival the Third Reich and the Soviet Union under Stalin.
Well this better be the single event that galvanizes the USA, and the more than 70% of the population who agree with women having the right to have an abortion!
If you all don’t get off your collective butts and start organizing AND protesting to make sure your voices are heard and stop the Republicans from gaining ANY foothold in either the House or the Senate, the Republicans will achieve exactly what they want, a country that will very rapidly not only resemble “A Handmaids Tale”, it will become a great deal just like Gilead! Because making sure that white MALE Republicans are in charge of everything and everyone else is simply subservient to them appears to be exactly what they’re working towards!
I just can't stomach expanding the Supreme Court. It would set a precedent that both sides will abuse. If Biden expands you better believe the next Republican president will do the same thing. Then the next Democratic president will have to expand. It's a slippery slope. I would rather see an amendment putting term limits.
Its pretty likely the leak was from a fanatical Alito clerk. There's an interesting thread at Twitter from Yale law professor Amy Kapczynski, @akapczynski - explaining it. Definitely worth checking out.
My lawyer friend offered this analysis today, curious if you agree:
“If you are not familiar with legal standards of review used by the Supreme Court, please familiarize yourself. This so-called opinion changes a standard of review - the hurdle that a government must overcome in justifying actions that it might take in all sorts of circumstances. Most essential parts of our lives get a high standard (for example "strict scrutiny") which means that any government action that impinges on a fundamental right will be closely looked at and evaluated. This applies to the right to vote, to travel, to privacy, not being discriminated against because of race, religion, etc. Abortion restrictions fall under the undue burden standard - which is a heightened scrutiny test. For example, a court has to balance the benefit of the law against the burden on the woman. But way down at the end of this leaked opinion, page 64 to be exact, the Supreme Court intends to change the standard of review to the lowest - the same standard of review that a government would be subjected to in justifying putting a street light in front of your house.
So let's reframe it for what it is - put aside abortion entirely and I mean that - legal review of ANY action that impacts a woman's body will now be lowest on the rung - the easiest hurdle to overcome. A woman will have more rights to a job (a right which is a good thing of course) than to control her own body. Think about that.”
I concur. Also, VERY concerned with the 2nd to the last Paragraph typically called the
"disposition ruling" on the last page. The authority to "regulate & prohibit" abortion is transfered to the "citizens" not the state Legislative Bodies (26 likely states) apparently authorizing "bounty laws" all in the name of "morality". Whose "morality" - Alito's? Ginni Thomas?
Jay has said it's not only women's bodies at issue...
I take that back/modify it - Jay said
"To my gay friends who don’t yet see the link between the draft opinion overruling Roe v. Wade in favor of states’ rights to determine bodily autonomy, let me put it to you plainly:
The right to private, consensual sex between people of the same sex depends upon the same line of privacy cases now cast aside. Your right to intimacy in your own home with the person you choose is now directly under threat. We must join with all women in protesting, mobilizing and turning out in huge numbers this November. Our right to love whom we choose hangs in the balance. We must act."
Agree. All health service providers freedom at risk as well.
That last point is terrifying. The whole thing is terrifying but when you couple it with changing the standard of review I'm not even sure terrifying is a strong enough word :(
Claudette, would it be possible for me to copy and paste your lawyer friend's comment?
She gave me permission to share, so that is fine.
The fascist (there is no other appropriate word) attacks are not just on women. Obergefell v. Hodges (gay marriage) and Sullivan v. NYT (freedom of the press) are directly in their sights. We collectively need to deliver the House and a Sinema/Manchin-free Senate majority to Biden in November. And Biden is going to need the backbone and intestinal fortitude to expand the Supreme Court if he has the chance.
None of this should be a surprise. The fascists have clearly telegraphed their intentions (Barret and Kavanaugh's faux SCOTUS confirmation hearings were clearly window-dressing from the get go). The real project of the fascists is to redefine U.S. citizenship as being only appropriate to those who agree with them, and to delegitimize and strip all effective power from the 60% of Americans who disagree with them.
The fascist fascination with firing squads, guillotines and concentration camps is another clear sign of their intentions. If democracy, reason and fact-based rationalism win in November and in 2024, I believe we can expect a decade of significant right-wing violence. However, if we lose, we can expect two decades of repression that will rival the Third Reich and the Soviet Union under Stalin.
Well this better be the single event that galvanizes the USA, and the more than 70% of the population who agree with women having the right to have an abortion!
If you all don’t get off your collective butts and start organizing AND protesting to make sure your voices are heard and stop the Republicans from gaining ANY foothold in either the House or the Senate, the Republicans will achieve exactly what they want, a country that will very rapidly not only resemble “A Handmaids Tale”, it will become a great deal just like Gilead! Because making sure that white MALE Republicans are in charge of everything and everyone else is simply subservient to them appears to be exactly what they’re working towards!
It is reprehensible that Supreme Court justices can lie to the Senate during confirmation hearings, and be allowed to continue in the bench.
I just can't stomach expanding the Supreme Court. It would set a precedent that both sides will abuse. If Biden expands you better believe the next Republican president will do the same thing. Then the next Democratic president will have to expand. It's a slippery slope. I would rather see an amendment putting term limits.
Its pretty likely the leak was from a fanatical Alito clerk. There's an interesting thread at Twitter from Yale law professor Amy Kapczynski, @akapczynski - explaining it. Definitely worth checking out.