"It’s much more likely that a political crusading clerk leaked the opinion, and if that’s the case it stands to reason the leaker is one of the new staff instead of one of the existing staff. Someone on Barrett, Kavanaugh, or Gorsuch’s watch going rogue."
If you're suggesting this is "likely" because the new justices have the newest clerks, I think that's misguided. Each Supreme Court Justice has four clerks (sometimes less) and, in general, they refresh annually. So, with a few exceptions, there are 36 new clerks each terms. You can get a glimpse of what that looks like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_law_clerks_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
If you were suggesting some other reason why these newer justices have leaky clerks, I did not follow the train of thought.
Some states are no longer allowing the proper drugs to be mailed to be able to have a medicinal abortion. A few Midwestern states are looking to prosecute any of their residents that go outside of the state to have an abortion, or who assist others to do so.
At its heart, though, this is the result of 50 years of Congress abdicating its responsibilities for the sake of political expediency, and is unfortunately yet another example of that paradigm. Roe v Wade was prudent as a compromise, but ultimately a patch job. It should have been codified into an actual federal law since.
Understanding what this means for the fall elections is perhaps of interest. While polling suggests the nation evenly divided on the abortion question, I doubt polling is accurate. I suspect that most agree abortions should be available and rare. Roe really doesn't affect availability as you note the telemedicine script. We shall see where this goes as we approach September. The leak and the decision may or may not have that much impact on turnout.
The loss of Roe as a litmus test has huge implications. To be rid of it would be a real gift. Then if the commerce clause could be re-interpreted, I'd be happy.
The leak may be of great significance. I see some consider it the crime of the century because such leaks are rare. The lack of leaks from Durham have been amazing. Internally we can wonder what the Justices are discussing. The immediacy of the protests outside the courts almost suggest a planned event awaiting a trigger. What did organizers know and when did they know?
I think your #3, that the Boogaloo Meter *only* goes back up to mid-2020 is vastly optimistic. I think absolutely everyone has about a quarter as much fuse left after two and a half years of Covid and 16 months of J6 and inflation, and well, the ratcheting of the Kulturwar clockspring tension on both sides following the 2020 Summer of Love and the Rittenhouse trial, as they did when they went through 2020.
Clerkships are a year long, so every justice has new clerks.
Good to know, thanks!
"It’s much more likely that a political crusading clerk leaked the opinion, and if that’s the case it stands to reason the leaker is one of the new staff instead of one of the existing staff. Someone on Barrett, Kavanaugh, or Gorsuch’s watch going rogue."
If you're suggesting this is "likely" because the new justices have the newest clerks, I think that's misguided. Each Supreme Court Justice has four clerks (sometimes less) and, in general, they refresh annually. So, with a few exceptions, there are 36 new clerks each terms. You can get a glimpse of what that looks like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_law_clerks_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
If you were suggesting some other reason why these newer justices have leaky clerks, I did not follow the train of thought.
Some states are no longer allowing the proper drugs to be mailed to be able to have a medicinal abortion. A few Midwestern states are looking to prosecute any of their residents that go outside of the state to have an abortion, or who assist others to do so.
At its heart, though, this is the result of 50 years of Congress abdicating its responsibilities for the sake of political expediency, and is unfortunately yet another example of that paradigm. Roe v Wade was prudent as a compromise, but ultimately a patch job. It should have been codified into an actual federal law since.
Understanding what this means for the fall elections is perhaps of interest. While polling suggests the nation evenly divided on the abortion question, I doubt polling is accurate. I suspect that most agree abortions should be available and rare. Roe really doesn't affect availability as you note the telemedicine script. We shall see where this goes as we approach September. The leak and the decision may or may not have that much impact on turnout.
The loss of Roe as a litmus test has huge implications. To be rid of it would be a real gift. Then if the commerce clause could be re-interpreted, I'd be happy.
The leak may be of great significance. I see some consider it the crime of the century because such leaks are rare. The lack of leaks from Durham have been amazing. Internally we can wonder what the Justices are discussing. The immediacy of the protests outside the courts almost suggest a planned event awaiting a trigger. What did organizers know and when did they know?
I think your #3, that the Boogaloo Meter *only* goes back up to mid-2020 is vastly optimistic. I think absolutely everyone has about a quarter as much fuse left after two and a half years of Covid and 16 months of J6 and inflation, and well, the ratcheting of the Kulturwar clockspring tension on both sides following the 2020 Summer of Love and the Rittenhouse trial, as they did when they went through 2020.