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.”

225 points
*

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.

permalink
report
reply
89 points
38 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
57 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
18 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

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).

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

SCOTUS is either blind or bought off

OH, OH, I KNOW THIS ONE!

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
51 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
47 points

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.
permalink
report
reply
9 points

Most people probably don’t realize that this is super common in senior leadership roles. You’ll share drafts and get buy in for critical things well before you send it out officially. It’s much easier to handle issues outside of official processes that might include certain procedures or ceremony. At the very least you’ll know what type of push back you can expect.

This probably is more indicative of them coordinating prior to release of the opinion. Possibly in an attempt sway other justices by how quickly it was signed off on.

permalink
report
parent
reply
41 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
1 point
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

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.

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 20K

    Posts

  • 511K

    Comments