THREAD My Thoughts on @politico story saying the Court voted to say Roe v. Wade is fully overruled.
I’ve quickly scanned the draft opinion and it appears legitimate. This means there was a preliminary vote to fully overrule Roe V Wade and that a majority of the Court agreed.
There are lots of signals the opinion is legit. The length and depth of analysis, would be very hard to fake. It says it is written by Alito and definitely sounds like him. It’s 60+ pages long.
If this is a deep fake, it would require a state actor or someone like that. I can’t imagine that.
It’s possible the Court could pull back from this position, but this looks like they voted that way after the oral argument.
This opinion says states can criminalize abortion, with no rape or incest exception. It is exactly the hardline position I’ve been saying the Court is going to impose for the last 3 years. It will set women back in profound ways. Congress must act ASAP. washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/0…
This is the equivalent of the pentagon papers leak, but at the Supreme Court. I’m pretty sure there has never ever been such a leak. And certainly not in the years I’ve been following the Supreme Court. END
Sorry one last thing for those wondering about Court procedure: After oral argument the Justices take a tentative vote. This would have happened in December. The senior most justice in the majority gets to assign the opinion. That might have been Roberts, but doubtful since...
Alito wrote this draft.
Now, once the draft is circulated, the justices in dissent will write an opinion. That's presumably happening now. But the tenative vote seems strong, and Chief Justice Roberts is irrelevant if the 4 + Alito hold with their tentative votes.
So there is the possibility an opinion can flip after oral argument and the tentative vote, so it's theoretically powerful the Alito opinion won't be the vote of the Court. But it would require a Justice BESIDES Chief Justice Roberts to flip.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Tmrw, the Judge is going to take up Trump's violation of the gag order. It's an obvious violation, as the Order bars Trump from commenting on prospective jurors. The DA sought $1000 fines. But the vios here are flagrant, and the judge has another solution: jail time (suspended)
The law permits a 30 day jail term for these violations. Of course, putting him in jail now is a drastic step, especially when a jury is impaneled. But the vios are flagrant. So what to do? 1 possibility is to say Trump is sentenced to a jail term, and then suspend service of it
He could tell Trump that he's doing this, and that he'll evaluate the sentence at the end of the trial. That Trump holds the keys to not serving the sentence in his own hands, if he can act like most all other criminal defendants in this nation and behave.
SCOTUS oral argument on abortion drug has just begun. Solicitor General Prelogar opens with a powerful argument, on both legal standing and the safety of the drug.
Justice Thomas asks the first question. About standing.
(My amazing law partner, Jess Ellsworth, will be arguing next. Then the challengers' lawyer, Erin Hawley, will argue.). The case is slated for 60 minutes and it will likely go double that length of time or more.
Justice Alito aggressively asks the SG if anyone would have legal standing to sue. He mentions states, and she says no.
Today, the trial of Defendant Trump for Jan 6 was supposed to begin in Washington, DC
Instead, we are widely expected to get a decision from the Supreme Court permitting Trump to remain on the ballot, despite being an adjudicated insurrectionist. 1/2
This comes on top of last week’s Supreme Ct action delaying Trump’s Jan 6 trial until possibly past the election, depriving you&me of a public trial where the evidence for/against Trump would be laid out for the world to see
I’ll cover the Supreme Ct decision live at 10AM on @msnbc. 2/2
The Colorado trial court conducted a hearing, and made the adjudication that Trump was barred from the ballot due to his conduct.
Smith's filing is really excellent. The one quibble is that he should have cited Trump v Thompson, where SCOTUS denied a stay against Trump's claim the lower court opinion was too broad. SCOTUS said no stay b/c it wouldn't make a difference to outcome of the case. Same true here
Trump's lawyer begins in a very bizarre place, that Ct can't decide this because 14th amendment allows an insurrectionist to hold office w/a two-thirds vote of Cong. Chief Justice all over him for this. And argument boomerangs--Trump's lawyer is highlighting how the 14a has a democratic solution--if Trump upset he can't run, he can go to Congress and try to get that 2/3 vote.
Justice Alito asks what precedent Colorado Supreme Ct would set -- would it mean Trump DQ'd in other states under the doctrine of collateral estoppel? Trump lawyer wisely says no, but then explains that this could lead to a 50 state disuniformity nightmare. Challengers to Trump need to hit this head on
I just love listening to Justice Kagan on the bench. She's so thoughtful, trying to really get to the essence of an argument, and she does it with humor and precision. She's getting Trump's lawyer to explain what his argument on "self executing" with specificity.
Trump is not only indicted, his name is mentioned 193 times in the indictment, and the charges go out of the way to show Trump directly violated the law