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

[crazy canuck]

The equivalent of the Chevron test in Canada has been replaced by a test which does not give deference to the decision maker, but instead requires the reviewing court to consider the decision maker's interpretation of its home statute on a standard of reasonableness - with some exceptions.

[The Larch]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls for supreme court justices to be impeached
The congresswoman says Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch lied under oath to Congress about their views on Roe

Political pressure is mounting on Joe Biden to take more action to protect abortion rights across the US as firebrand New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for supreme court justices to be impeached for misleading statements about their views on Roe v Wade.

Ocasio-Cortez's remarks took aim at justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. Both were appointed by former president Donald Trump and had signaled that they would not reverse the supreme court's landmark 1973 decision in Roe v Wade during confirmation hearings as well as in meetings with senators.

On Friday, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch formed part of the conservative majority which in effect ended legal access to abortion in most states, and Ocasio-Cortez said "there must be consequences" for that.

"They lied," the leftwing, second-term representative said on NBC's Meet the Press. "I believe lying under oath is an impeachable offense ... and I believe that this is something that should be very seriously considered."

Ocasio-Cortez added that standing idly by "sends a blaring signal to all future nominees that they can now lie to duly elected members of the United States Senate in order to secure ... confirmations and seats on the supreme court".

She also mentioned impeaching Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife Ginni emailed 29 Republican lawmakers in Arizona as she tried to help undermine Biden's victory over Trump in the 2020 presidential election. Thomas has not recused himself from election-related cases, drawing criticism.

"I believe that not recusing from cases that one clearly has family members involved in with very deep violations of conflict of interest are also impeachable offenses," Ocasio-Cortez said.

House members can impeach a judge with a simple majority vote. But to be removed from office a justice would need to be convicted by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

Biden's Democratic party controls the House with a clear majority, but its standing in the Senate is much more tenuous. The Senate is split 50-50, though Biden's vice-president, Kamala Harris, can serve as a tiebreaker for votes that can be carried by a simple majority.

The president dismissed the overturning of Roe v Wade as "cruel" but stopped well short of calling for the impeachment of any justices. He has also rejected the strategy proposed in some quarters to expand the supreme court in a way that would allow for the addition of more liberals and blunt the bench's current conservative majority.

IIRC I brought up the possibility of impeaching the offending SC justices back in the day and it didn't seem to be very feasible. Now, with even Republican senators like Collins and Murkowski feeling that they were taken for fools, and I believe that Manchin also came out against them, could it be a possibility?

[Barrister]

IIRC I brought up the possibility of impeaching the offending SC justices back in the day and it didn't seem to be very feasible. Now, with even Republican senators like Collins and Murkowski feeling that they were taken for fools, and I believe that Manchin also came out against them, could it be a possibility?

50 Dem senators plus Murkowski and Collins is 52.  You need 14 more in order to remove.

Unless you have a reasonable prospect of getting those 14 additional votes calling for impeachment is purely performative on the part of AOC.

[The Larch]

IIRC I brought up the possibility of impeaching the offending SC justices back in the day and it didn't seem to be very feasible. Now, with even Republican senators like Collins and Murkowski feeling that they were taken for fools, and I believe that Manchin also came out against them, could it be a possibility?

50 Dem senators plus Murkowski and Collins is 52.  You need 14 more in order to remove.

Unless you have a reasonable prospect of getting those 14 additional votes calling for impeachment is purely performative on the part of AOC.

So then we can add "Lying to the Senate under oath" to the list of things that are meaningless from now on, then.

[alfred russel]

They obfuscated not outright lied. No one said, "I won't vote to overturn roe v. wade." If people really believed that they would have lost a bunch of republican votes and the nominations would have failed.

They just created as much ambiguity as possible and said stuff about it being settled law etc. to give cover to moderates to vote for them. Everyone understood the game being played which was why they didn't lose anti abortion senate votes and pro choice groups opposed their nominations.

[crazy canuck]

Collins is either lying or she did not understand what she was being told in the way you described it AR

[Sheilbh]

She's lying. At best they were wilfully blind and wanting to be fooled.

I agree with AR - I don't see how saying "Roe is the settled law of the land" is an indication that they don't think it should be overturned, or that they wouldn't overturn. It's just a factual statement with very little meaning - unless you're basically looking for a pretext to support them.

[DGuller]

You can't impeach three justices without 2/3 Senators, but you can add 6 justices to accomplish the same goal:  the first three to cancel out the ones who shouldn't be there, and the next three to put the ones in place who should've been there.

[DGuller]

She's lying. At best they were wilfully blind and wanting to be fooled.

I agree with AR - I don't see how saying "Roe is the settled law of the land" is an indication that they don't think it should be overturned, or that they wouldn't overturn. It's just a factual statement with very little meaning - unless you're basically looking for a pretext to support them.

To be fair, did they specify that something being a settled law should mean something?

[Sheilbh]

I think they were being pushed on whether it's like Marbury v Madison or Brown v Board of Education - as in not only a precedent but more or less unquestioned. I don't think any of them agreed with that but they would go so far as to say it's "settled law", which adds to the predictability of the law.

As I say that all seems relatively factual - it is a precedent - and slightly theorectical - precedents, especially if re-affirmed several times, add to the predictability of the law. I don't think any of it amounts to a statement or indication about what they'd do, or any sort of promise. As I say the only reason I can see why you'd give weight to that over everything else we know about most of these justices is if you're looking for an excuse to vote for them.

[The Minsky Moment]

This is what the Collins notes record Kavanaugh as saying in their meeting in response to her request for assurance that he would not overturn Roe:

Start with my record, my respect for precedent, my belief that it is rooted in the Constitution, and my commitment and its importance to the rule of law. I understand precedent and I understand the importance of overturning it. Roe is 45 years old. It has been reaffirmed many times. Lots of people care about it a great deal, and I've tried to demonstrate I understand real-world consequences. I am a don't-rock-the-boat kind of judge. I believe in stability and in the Team of Nine.

Now the literal words "I will not overturn Roe under any circumstances" are not in here.  But it cannot be squared with the language and result of the Dobbs majority opinion.  Collins may be naive but she can fairly say she was misled.

[crazy canuck]

She's lying. At best they were wilfully blind and wanting to be fooled.

I agree with AR - I don't see how saying "Roe is the settled law of the land" is an indication that they don't think it should be overturned, or that they wouldn't overturn. It's just a factual statement with very little meaning - unless you're basically looking for a pretext to support them.

I disagree.  The words he used in the meeting he had with Collins have meaning, and particular legal meaning.  You can fault her for believing him.  But you cannot claim she is lying when she says she believed he would not support what the court has now done.

[Sheilbh]

I disagree.  The words he used in the meeting he had with Collins have meaning, and particular legal meaning.  You can fault her for believing him.  But you cannot claim she is lying when she says she believed he would not support what the court has now done.

I just don't think someone who's been a Senator for twenty five years can realistically be that credulous or naive.

How is it that no-one here is really surprised that Kavanaugh voted to overturn Roe - given his ideological credentials and who nominated him and that it's the number one goal of the conservative legal movement that he comes from - but Susan Collins or Joe Manchin are?

I think the more likely argument is that one wanted to vote with their party and the other was up for re-election in West Virginia. But they both wanted to get to "yes" - that seems more plausible than all of us being smarter or more cynical.

[Iormlund]

Yeah, it was all theater.

They all knew what they were doing.

[crazy canuck]

I disagree.  The words he used in the meeting he had with Collins have meaning, and particular legal meaning.  You can fault her for believing him.  But you cannot claim she is lying when she says she believed he would not support what the court has now done.

I just don't think someone who's been a Senator for twenty five years can realistically be that credulous or naive.

How is it that no-one here is really surprised that Kavanaugh voted to overturn Roe - given his ideological credentials and who nominated him and that it's the number one goal of the conservative legal movement that he comes from - but Susan Collins or Joe Manchin are?

I think the more likely argument is that one wanted to vote with their party and the other was up for re-election in West Virginia. But they both wanted to get to "yes" - that seems more plausible than all of us being smarter or more cynical.

Well that is consistent with your other views about politics and the judiciary.  So points to you for being consistent.  But you and AR are ignoring that up until now, the importance of precedent was not a sham that everyone understood to be a mugs game.  Further, you do a lot of damage to the underpinnings of the Rule of Law by suggesting that it was ever so.  It is a constant theme in our discussions.  But as I said, at least you are consistent.