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.”
Until the Supreme Court is completely overhauled, it’s going to be extremely difficult to substantively change the heading of this country. Conservatives see this as a win, but they’re too short-sighted to realize they shot themselves in the foot just the same.
We could also water it down, adding justices seems to be the only option since they don’t/won’t hold themselves accountable.
I’m no legal expert but I’ve always thought the randomized or rotating court idea (perhaps > 9) filled by lower circuit courts would be better and less partisan overall.
There are 13 circuit courts full of judges, all with their own lifetime appointments. I believe the proposed idea is that the current supreme court could be made up of random, rotating judges on temporary assignments from the 13 circuit courts. Currently, the 9 justices oversee one or more of the 13 circuits. So, we could expand the court to match the 13 circuits, and then, as justices retire/die, their replacements are randomly assigned to terms of 18-24 months from the circuits they oversee. It would still meet the constitutional requirements for the supreme court, as it only requires that there is a supreme Court made up of appointed justices in good standing.
I’m sure it’s more complex than that, but those are the basics of the random appointments and rotating seated justices.
I’ve never heard of that option, but they’re appointed too right? Not sure if that would fix it.
All of Canada’s judges are appointed (which, iirc, isn’t what happens in America).
It is rare to see any judge up here so politically partisan. Part of that may be that we repatriated our Constitution in 1982 (to formally acknowledge our independence from Britain) so judges are basing decisions on a newer document. The other thing is Canadian courts do not put “original intent” above all … they consider the changes in society’s mores and beliefs just as important.
Up here all judges abhor being reversed so work very hard to base their rulings on facts. I’m not sure if it’s the same in America.
Who reverses them, do you have a Supreme Court type of system?
Yes, provincial and the Supreme Court of Canada (SCoC) … just like America does (state/SCOTUS).
They are but they tend to be constantly cycling out at a given time and so seem less concentrated or determined by individual presidents. They are also possibly subject to less lobbying targeting given which group presiding over a specific case would never be certain.