SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion) II: Rape Isn't On My Calendar

[kuronosan]

KBJ officially confirmed.

[Guitarman]

Love it. She's immensely qualified.

[Tyrath]

I don't know. I don't really know anything about how she feels about beer.

[Melena]

I don't know. I don't really know anything about how she feels about beer.

I know, right. Next you're going to say she doesn't keep calendars of when she's going to rape someone.

[Gwynplaine]

Sounds like Breyer will retire some time in the Summer and then KBJ will take his place at that time. It's nice to focus on some good news for a change with someone highly qualified after the last three dark money chodes.

[Gredival]

Zealot or Kaslo, do you know if there's an actual term for lawyer meta-gaming with SCOTUS challenges? I remember hearing about this concept with Civil Rights cases back in the 60s and 70s where orgs like the ACLU etc. would decline to take appeals up to the Supreme Court for fear that an unfavorable ruling at the SCOTUS level would set a negative precedent.

[Zealot]

I can't remember the term but I know what you're talking about. The idea was to find an ideal client/circumstance before attempting to go in front of SCOTUS because otherwise you'd risk a negative strike against the entire movement - it's why we know Brown v. Board of Education but a ton of earlier cases that lost at the state or appeals level all stayed lost. Loving is another one like that.

[Gredival]

Yeah I'm really curious if there are scholarly articles about the decision making process used, how organizations work with each other to coordinate on that, etc.

[kuronosan]

Word on the vine is Roe bout to get cancelled.

[Tymon]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/02/polit...urt/index.html

I honestly did not expect this, even with the huge conservative tilt to the court in recent years. Though this is only a draft. May never see the floor in reality.

[archibaldcrane]

Is it weird for the court to pre-write a decision when they don't even have a case in front of them?

edit: oh nvm

The case in question is Dobbs v. Jackson. It concerns a challenge to Mississippi's 15-week ban on abortion and oral arguments were heard on December 1. The release of a final opinion in the case is expected later this Spring or early summer.

[Cail]

https://twitter.com/cami_mondeaux/st...96227291312133

[kuronosan]

Ah yes, barricades.

[Qalbert]

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/statu...95411545260035
not sure bout this take

[Tyrath]

This has literally never happened before right? Leaker trying to sound the warning bells maybe?

[Tyche]

SCOTUSblog with the dumbest of takes.

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/statu...NaUbrs7vg&s=19

[Mertron]

let’s do plessy v Ferguson next

[Kaslo]

This has literally never happened before right? Leaker trying to sound the warning bells maybe?

My best guess is, assuming this is a majority opinion (which we don't know is the case), this got leaked by accident by Barret or Kavanaugh communicating with right wing media outlets to prep them for coverage on the decision.

Or maybe Clarence Thomas leaked it to cause a distraction from his wife.

[Kaslo]

SCOTUSblog with the dumbest of takes.

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/statu...NaUbrs7vg&s=19

Not really, if this leak came from a clerk or staff member their career is effectively over.

[Tyche]

Not really, if this leak came from a clerk or staff member their career is effectively over.

To call the leak the gravest sin in the face of this decision and the ramifications thereof is an incredibly dumb fucking take. The leak isn't the gravest sin...the decision is. At best, it's an incredibly poorly phrased tweet that was not well thought out.