"Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows"

[CharlesPhipps]

Not to undermine the magnitude of the decision's effect on countless women and families but there's also other elements to be noted:

1. Five justices lied under oath about having no desire to overturn Roe and that they said it was established precedent.
2. The attacks on the leaker underscore how ridiculous the idea of a "leak" for a Supreme Court decision are in a free and democratic society.
3. The argument directly attacks the court case that establishes gay marriage.

[TGLS]

What if it's fake? Like one of the justices wrote up a bogus opinion and made it all look official because the court's going to be ruling the opposite way?

[CmdrKing]

Unlikely, it’s not written as a dissent from what I’ve seen.

Now, the final vote is not set in stone, these opinions are negotiated until the end, but it’s highly unlikely to change the actual ruling and indeed less likely in light of the leak (a fact which is the running theory for why it was leaked at all).

[TGLS]

Unlikely, it’s not written as a dissent from what I’ve seen.

Yeah, and if you want to fuck with people you don't write it as a dissent. You write up a fake decision that says "We're overturning Roe v. Wade". Then you watch all the paranoia of the other justices. Make them think, "Well if the libs are going to hate us anyway, fuck 'em. We might as well not piss off the conservatives too."

[CharlesPhipps]

What if it's fake? Like one of the justices wrote up a bogus opinion and made it all look official because the court's going to be ruling the opposite way?

Roberts said it was real and he was furious that someone leaked it.

You can't get more official than that.

[Rocketboy1313]

It is also important to note that 3 judges on the court were appointed by a president that lost the popular vote, a president who did not win reelection.

While you may consider that part of the process (rather than seeing that as why the process is deeply flawed), the fact of the matter is they represent an interpretation of law that is in the minority. They are in their position of power and influence not because they reflect any sort of popular will, but because of a poorly constructed system that has not been properly reformed in more than a century. They are a symptom of minority rule, an issue that has plagued the United States since its creation.

Policies that are impacted by this decision, and that have been targeted by law makers for the coming years as this appears to be coming to pass are all FAR MORE PUBLICALLY POPULAR than any president who appointed any of these judges.
Abortion (60% approval):
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... ost-cases/
Interracial Marriage (94% approval):
https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/app ... -high.aspx
Gay Marriage (70% approval):
https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/rec ... riage.aspx

Beyond all of the questions of popular will, the interpretation put forth by the judges does not make sense. the idea that there is no right to privacy specifically called out in the Constitution is a meaningless sentiment. Privacy is so assumed that rights specifically evoke the concept without having to spell it out. People do not get to search your property without good reason, people cannot compel you to speak at trial or without council, people cannot invade your home... The idea of autonomy and privacy exists on a level so fundamental that these specifics are built on it. The idea that some concepts are so basic as to remain unsaid is why the 9th Amendment exists,

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

[clearspira]

It is also important to note that 3 judges on the court were appointed by a president that lost the popular vote, a president who did not win reelection.

While you may consider that part of the process (rather than seeing that as why the process is deeply flawed), the fact of the matter is they represent an interpretation of law that is in the minority. They are in their position of power and influence not because they reflect any sort of popular will, but because of a poorly constructed system that has not been properly reformed in more than a century. They are a symptom of minority rule, an issue that has plagued the United States since its creation.

Policies that are impacted by this decision, and that have been targeted by law makers for the coming years as this appears to be coming to pass are all FAR MORE PUBLICALLY POPULAR than any president who appointed any of these judges.
Abortion (60% approval):
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... ost-cases/
Interracial Marriage (94% approval):
https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/app ... -high.aspx
Gay Marriage (70% approval):
https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/rec ... riage.aspx

Beyond all of the questions of popular will, the interpretation put forth by the judges does not make sense. the idea that there is no right to privacy specifically called out in the Constitution is a meaningless sentiment. Privacy is so assumed that rights specifically evoke the concept without having to spell it out. People do not get to search your property without good reason, people cannot compel you to speak at trial or without council, people cannot invade your home... The idea of autonomy and privacy exists on a level so fundamental that these specifics are built on it. The idea that some concepts are so basic as to remain unsaid is why the 9th Amendment exists,

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

The elephant in the room to your "this isn't popular" theory is the fact that 22 states are ready to get rid of abortion. That's nearly half of all the states in America. These are the people that YOU voted in to represent you. I would also caution you about putting too much faith into polls. They are only as good as the people who took part. Wiki for example states that there significant differences in opinion between those from rural, suburban and urban communities as well as within different ethic groups. We are talking a 20% swing in some cases.

And as for your 9th ammendment protecting privacy, there is man named Edward Snowden that would argue that the US government really doesn't give a shit about your privacy already. You may also wish to look up exactly what your government can do to you should it wish to invoke the Patriot Act upon your ass.

[Draco Dracul]

It is also important to note that 3 judges on the court were appointed by a president that lost the popular vote, a president who did not win reelection.

While you may consider that part of the process (rather than seeing that as why the process is deeply flawed), the fact of the matter is they represent an interpretation of law that is in the minority. They are in their position of power and influence not because they reflect any sort of popular will, but because of a poorly constructed system that has not been properly reformed in more than a century. They are a symptom of minority rule, an issue that has plagued the United States since its creation.

Policies that are impacted by this decision, and that have been targeted by law makers for the coming years as this appears to be coming to pass are all FAR MORE PUBLICALLY POPULAR than any president who appointed any of these judges.
Abortion (60% approval):
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... ost-cases/
Interracial Marriage (94% approval):
https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/app ... -high.aspx
Gay Marriage (70% approval):
https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/rec ... riage.aspx

Beyond all of the questions of popular will, the interpretation put forth by the judges does not make sense. the idea that there is no right to privacy specifically called out in the Constitution is a meaningless sentiment. Privacy is so assumed that rights specifically evoke the concept without having to spell it out. People do not get to search your property without good reason, people cannot compel you to speak at trial or without council, people cannot invade your home... The idea of autonomy and privacy exists on a level so fundamental that these specifics are built on it. The idea that some concepts are so basic as to remain unsaid is why the 9th Amendment exists,

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

The elephant in the room to your "this isn't popular" theory is the fact that 22 states are ready to get rid of abortion. That's nearly half of all the states in America. These are the people that YOU voted in to represent you. I would also caution you about putting too much faith into polls. They are only as good as the people who took part. Wiki for example states that there significant differences in opinion between those from rural, suburban and urban communities as well as within different ethic groups. We are talking a 20% swing in some cases.

You realize that not only are states not of equal size, but most of them are gerrymandered to hell and back. Like in 2018 Michigan Democrats got more than half of the votes in the legislature, but Republicans got nearly 2/3 of the seats. There is not also nt a single state in the union where overturning row vs wade breaks 30%. American democracy is a complete and total farce that objectively does not reflect the needs or wants of the people and that's in no small part because it was found by slavers that hated democracy.

The good news is that the system is most likely going to change fairly soon. The bad news is that it's because the US is on course for a civil war.

[Madner Kami]

The elephant in the room to your "this isn't popular" theory is the fact that 22 states are ready to get rid of abortion. That's nearly half of all the states in America. These are the people that YOU voted in to represent you.

Waitwaitwait. As someone who lives in a country with "First Past the Post"-voting, you shouldn't throw with stones in this glas-house. Gerrymandering, the art of designing electoral districts in such a way, to skew voting results, is real, especially in the US. Unfortunately neither party seems to be able or willing to adress this issue of voter's will manipulations.

[Rocketboy1313]

The elephant in the room to your "this isn't popular" theory is the fact that 22 states are ready to get rid of abortion. That's nearly half of all the states in America. These are the people that YOU voted in to represent you. I would also caution you about putting too much faith into polls. They are only as good as the people who took part. Wiki for example states that there significant differences in opinion between those from rural, suburban and urban communities as well as within different ethic groups. We are talking a 20% swing in some cases.

I will go thru this point by point,
1) That is not an elephant in the room. Minority rule has taken place in many states, especially those that have a history of voter suppression. Gerrymandering, that is the drawing of voting districts to give disproportionate power to minority groups is a known issue and one that compounds itself. Once the smaller group (in this case white nationalist misogynists masquerading as Christians^TM) gains power they use it to suppress votes via the removal of voting stations, removal voting absentee, removal of early voting, and removal of voting rights for people who have broken laws (laws they wrote to target communities they don't like). Do you need sources for this? Because that shit is intensely available.

2) Polling is only as good as the people who do the polling, but when you get the same result for year after year, decade after decade... the idea that the polling is not reflecting the will of the public is mental.

3) The Urban and Rural split doesn't matter. The clear majority of people support access to abortion. Those who do not support abortion are not being compelled to have one, and no public funds go to providing them. Abortion is healthcare that is accepted in numerous forms by the vast majority of people and by the medical community at large. A person can and should be able to receive healthcare whether they live in a small town or a big city. the idea that small towns should be able to regulate their own citizens access to healthcare ignores that those people have a right to privacy the law should not be able to ask what healthcare they are receiving.

The idea that an especially large number of states were already trying to take away rights from people and they somehow reflect a popular will is just stupid. The push to take away or limit abortion, gay marriage, and interracial marriage is not a reflection of the popular will, nor is it a reflection of the public's ability to have privacy in regard to healthcare.

Neither pregnancy nor abortion is contagious and in no way is providing abortion a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the public at large. There is no material interest in restricting this healthcare.

And as for your 9th ammendment protecting privacy, there is man named Edward Snowden that would argue that the US government really doesn't give a shit about your privacy already. You may also wish to look up exactly what your government can do to you should it wish to invoke the Patriot Act upon your ass.

I don't know what point you think you are making here.
The thrust of everything I have said (that minority rule is a problem and is pushing policy that is against the public's desires and interests) is not refuted by the fact that other bad stuff is already being done by the government.