[capguy255]

You think it's a good thing that the judiciary is an ivory tower with absolutely no regard for public perception? These nine people are unelected and appointed to their positions for life. They are insulated from political pressure by the other branches of government. But it is incredibly damaging to a democratic republic if government is unaccountable to the people.

Not to mention, the basic premise of THIS OPINION is that public debate about controversial issues is healthy. Anyone complaining about this leak being damaging are doing a great job of undermining the basic premise of the opinion.

[johnnyanmac]

>You think it's a good thing that the judiciary is an ivory tower with absolutely no regard for public perception

yes, the point of the supreme court is to interpret established law (which IS made through public opinion) and make judgement that isn't trying to appeal for their re-election campaign.

>These nine people are unelected and appointed to their positions for life.

in a vacuum, yes. In reality, they are appointed by the president (elected official) with approval from the senate (elected officials). Checks and balances, it's not perfect but it's made so that no one person can basically rule the country like a monarchy.

>the basic premise of THIS OPINION is that public debate about controversial issues is healthy.

no, the basic premise you replied to is "things are so polarized that even state officials are trying to skew opinions through leaks".

Whether it be revealed yesterday or in 2 years, this ruling would not have changed the obviously charged discourse that such a landmark case would bring. There isn't any particular justification that it's in the public's interest to hear this ruling earlier (since, well...it's been ruled over by now I assume. They aren't just going to re-judge the case over some pre-emptive protests). It is in the courts' interests to not have employees release documents off cue.

[fundad]

If it’s not a political operation it should be transparent. It’s simple

[refurb]

You think it's a good thing that the judiciary is an ivory tower with absolutely no regard for public perception?

Yes! That the entire point of the Supreme Court.

It’s amazing how many comments don’t even understand basic civics and how the US government is structured.

[capguy255]

Factually inaccurate. Your statement could be said about the political branches as well, given that direct elections didn't exist when the Constitution was originally drafted the Congress/President were appointed by state legislatures.

But more specifically -- when the country was founded jurisdiction of the court was limited in nature and mainly involved mediating disputes between state governments. The idea that the Court was the ultimate arbiter of constitutional interpretation was a radical idea that was essentially imposed by the first Supreme Court justice.

If you think that the Court shouldn't be concerned with public opinion, well, the court staying out of public opinion is a large part of Alitio's reasoning here and that belies his argument. If being tasked with issuing public and controversial opinions, the justices shouldn't be political activists who are imposing their own personal agendas regardless of political opinion.

[refurb]

Huh? Your argument is "that role for the Supreme Court wasn't decided until 1789"?

I mean, that's correct, but isn't that relevant to the discussion of the Court's role 230 years later.

I think what you want to say is "when the court rules the way I like, it's correct, but when it doesn't, the court is acting incorrectly".

It doesn't work that way

And what’s most hilarious is nobody actually read the draft opinion it says “Roe vs Wade has not resolved it, far better to have Congress resolve it”.

How is that an opinion worthy of attack?

HN likes to think it has as a more intelligent and logical discussion but looking at these comments it’s clear about 90% of it typical social media commentary you’d find anywhere. The few well thought out comments are downvoted to oblivion.

[pen2l]

> These nine people are unelected and appointed to their positions for life.

That's not entirely true, the people voted for them by proxy. We live in a republic not an athenian democracy, this is how a lot of things work, it's how it's supposed to work.

And I would further argue that the justices are pillars of the government in that the foundations are not easily swayed if indeed they are impervious to the temporal whims of galvanized crowds.

This was ultimately the choice of the country within the current framework of the government.

[rayiner]

> You think it's a good thing that the judiciary is an ivory tower with absolutely no regard for public perception?

Roe exists only because Supreme Court Justices in their ivory tower overturned the laws the “public” had supported. People are afraid of Roe being overturned only because they are afraid of the laws duly elected officials will enact with public support when it’s gone.

The Supreme Court, as conceived by liberals, is an ivory tower where elite lawyers dish out rulings on moral issues without regard to the public perception.