This is the inside story of how the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion — shooting down compromise and testing the boundaries of how the law is decided.

To dismantle that decision, Justice Alito and others had to push hard, the records and interviews show. Some steps, like his apparent selective preview of the draft opinion, were time-honored ones. But in overturning Roe, the court set aside more than precedent: It tested the boundaries of how cases are decided.

  • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldEnglish
    412·
    6 months ago

    This story is as fascinating as it is dark. At every step of the way, Alito abandoned all pretense and smashed through guardrails, because he knew that he would only get what he wanted if he did it quickly and in a way that limited his colleagues’ ability to find a middle ground compromise. Alito was willing to burn the legitimacy of the Court to the ground to get what he wanted all along, and because of that I hope hell exists so he can burn there for eternity. The blood of women is on his hands, and I hope the horror stories that have come out over the past year keep him and everyone in his extended family awake in a cold sweat. Fuck him.

    • Cranakis @lemmy.one
      211·
      6 months ago

      Fuck them all. This episode highlights what an absolute sham SCOUTS has become. I’ve lost all trust in the courts. It’s just more political bullshit. There is no “justice,” just a bunch of religious assholes forcing the rest of us to follow their backwards ass rules.

      Let’s also not forget Darth McConnell’s role in all of this. Straight up stole a supreme Court pick from Obama. This court is illegitimate.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldBEnglish
    6·
    6 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    The timing of her death highlighted a singular feature of the federal judicial system: The United States is the world’s only major constitutional democracy without term limits or a mandatory retirement age for its highest judges.

    Justice Kavanaugh, facing a narrow confirmation vote in 2018, had assured Democratic senators that he considered Roe to be “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis,” or adhering to past decisions.

    As Mr. Stewart, the Mississippi solicitor general, prepared for his turn at the lectern during oral arguments, he was urged by conservatives among the elite Supreme Court bar to mention a middle ground that might appeal to the chief justice and help ensure at least a partial victory.

    The strategy was “to really put pressure on what this was going to mean, for the integrity of the court, to reverse such a longstanding, individual, personal liberty, and the chaos that it was going to create,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represented the clinic, in an interview.

    The young lawyers, dependent on court relationships for future jobs, were asked for access to their personal phones; location data going back nearly a year; and emails, texts, voice messages and photos.

    Amid all the procedural questions surrounding Dobbs, “the leak is the biggest potential stain on the case, especially if it was intended to influence deliberations,” said William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor and former clerk to Chief Justice Roberts.

    The original article contains 6,839 words, the summary contains 251 words. Saved 96%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • Hyperreality@kbin.social
    61·
    6 months ago

    Precedent based common law is stupid. A variant or something similar to the Napoleonic Code is better.

    Why should judges effectively make laws, based on how they interpret a centuries old judgment about some medieval farmers and a sexy cow? Have the legislature legislate. Have judges judge if the law has been followed.

    I don’t think it’s a huge coincidence that Common Law in the UK has arguably entrenched century old privileges and vestiges of aristocratic privilege and feudalism.

    • silence7OP
      8·
      6 months ago

      Doing that legally is really tough: it takes a 2/3 vote in the Senate.

      It’s more realistic to expand the court, which doesn’t require as many votes.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        6 months ago

        It would require legislation to expand the courts. And Democrats love the filibuster more than justice.

          • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
            11·
            6 months ago

            Not in the slightest. Democrats have had the choice to codify Roe or preserve the filibuster. They chose the filibuster. They had the choice to pass the John Lewis voting rights act or preserve the filibuster. They chose the filibuster over voting rights. Every successful Republican filibuster is an example of Democrats choosing their precious Jim Crow relic excuse for inaction over the people who voted for them.

            Democrats could get rid of it forever and relegate it to the shitpile of history where the it’s always belonged with a simple majority vote, but they don’t want to.

            • silence7OP
              21·
              6 months ago

              You’re using “Democrats” here to refer to the fact that they had 50/100 votes in the Senate, so even a single Democrat who objected could stop them. Manchin did that.

              • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
                13·
                6 months ago

                And if we had 55 votes, we would have 6 votes against ending the filibuster. There are always enough Manchins,

                • silence7OP
                  1·
                  6 months ago

                  People kept saying that about climate legislation. Then they actually passed significant climate legislation despite the bare-minimum majority.

                  Getting a few more and better Democrats would make a world of difference in terms of what’s possible.