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.”

  • girlfreddy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Feirdro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • chaogomu@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      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).

  • ickplant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • derf82@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.
    • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Think of it this way. We’d fail a 5th Grade student who didn’t read a 100 page book and hold them back a year.

      • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Someone once made the point that a Supreme Court judge really didn’t have to know the law, because by the time a case got to the court it was obvious that the law was ambiguous. They argued that the Justices should be considering which interpretation was best for the most people, not which was the ‘correct’ way to view it.

  • Y|yukichigai@lemmy.zip
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Yep, that takes rights away from women alright. Good enough for me!” - Gorsuch probably.

      • just_change_it@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I can all but guarantee he didn’t even open the attachment. Probably replied on his cell phone when he saw the alert.

        This stuff isn’t really a debate or discussion. The two sides meet on their own and talk about what their strategies are before meeting in the middle in pointless formalities. They probably worked on the draft together or went over it before it went out- the goal was for the side in control to decide on how they wanted it before putting it through the red tape of a vote. The real decisions were made long before the email was even sent.

        For all intents and purposes 4 of the 5 members of the supreme court are just bench warmers until a conservative member retires or dies. At that point they are relevant until another conservative gets pushed through, or simply take over once a liberal gets through. That’s it.

        imo the concept of nonpartial decisions or bipartisanship is a fantasy, just like communism. There’s the winning side and there’s the losing side and the winners take all in this country.

  • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    Every time I think I can’t possibly think less of the Supreme Court they go and surprise me