View Full Version : Not final but enough to get the crazies riled up??
TEAMRICO
05-02-2022, 20:10
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/05/breaking-supreme-court-vote-end-roe-v-wade-draft-opinion-justice-samuel-alito/
Kit up tomorrow?
The blue haired freaks will be angry over this one.
hollohas
05-02-2022, 20:36
Yeah, the leak is designed to cause trouble for sure. And an attempt to sway the midterms the Dems are (were?) sure to lose.
Wonder if the soon to be rioters at the court will see the same fate as those from Jan 6th? No chance.
ChadAmberg
05-02-2022, 20:47
Yup this is the quickest way to seize defeat from the jaws of victory for the conservatives.
Typical.
Bailey Guns
05-02-2022, 21:30
What's "typical" about this? This is unprecedented as far as I know. Conservatives likely had nothing to do with this leak. It was likely some far left clerk for one of the far left associate justices or someone in a privileged position within the court doing this to, 1) intimidate the court, and 2) garner support for democrats in the mid-terms.
RblDiver
05-02-2022, 22:10
I think the timing's off. Of course it was intended to intimidate, rile up the base, etc. However, there's so much going on, now until November is a long time. A lot of the initial steam will have died. Whoever did this is a moron of the highest caliber.
JohnnyDrama
05-02-2022, 22:22
I think the timing's off. Of course it was intended to intimidate, rile up the base, etc. However, there's so much going on, now until November is a long time. A lot of the initial steam will have died. Whoever did this is a moron of the highest caliber.
I agree with most of that. "November" starts long before actual November though. Maybe the Democrats are hoping for early victories to build momentum to carry them through the next six months.
.455_Hunter
05-02-2022, 23:18
Not a hot button issue for me on either side.
I think the timing's off. Of course it was intended to intimidate, rile up the base, etc. However, there's so much going on, now until November is a long time. A lot of the initial steam will have died. Whoever did this is a moron of the highest caliber.
I won't be surprised if there will be charges for the leaker.
Since I'm an adopted love child of the '60s, I have an existential basis against abortion.
bellavite1
05-03-2022, 03:08
I am surrounded by missed abortions every time I step out of the house...
eddiememphis
05-03-2022, 08:14
The ruling seems to be constitutionally correct. I doubt, "It will kill and subjugate women..." as Hillary Clinton said and others have echoed.
This, and many other issues should be state's rights issues, not overseen by the Feds.
The leak is unbelievable. That person should be thrown in prison for a long time, although I don't believe it is a criminal act. It undermines the stability of the court.
Yes, it will cause the crazies to get riled up, much like they have done in the past. Hundreds tried to break into the court after the Kavanaugh confirmation, along with throwing things at the justices as they left. They also rioted in the Senate chamber.
Chuck Schumer told Gorsuch and Kavanaugh they will, "pay the price."
Nuts look for this and will act accordingly, using it as an excuse for their behavior.
Could this "leak" be another hoax?
Like so many hoaxes about celebrities dying, etc.
Some news person saw the hoax on the internet (or made it up, since it is a HOT topic) and reported it as "real" news.
Only to be sensationalized and spread by more news casters?
Nawww, that sort of stuff never happens.
The court confirmed it as accurate
Confirmed it as genuine. They also confirmed that it is just a draft.
Maybe the protesters that showed up outside the Supreme Court carrying already printed signs minutes after the "leak", will all self immolate in a show of comraderie with the righteously aborted children.
There's nothing in the Constitution about abortion. The Feds need to do the few things they are chartered to do by the Constitution and get out of our lives. (Including defending our borders that they're not actually doing.)
The government closest to the people best represents those people. This is a state issue. Roe v. Wade took it away from the states and it needs to go back.
3beansalad
05-04-2022, 06:47
Outside of the possibility to rile up the blue/pink/purple haired, pussy hat wearing, my body my choice (unless it's for a MRNA shot) crowd prior to the mid-term elections, I find the thought that this was leaked to pressure the a SC Justice to change their stance very plausible. "Leave Roe alone or our cities will burn (again.)"
It's amazing that even RBG wrote in depth that the original decision was flawed and never should have been issued by the court.
I proposed a solution to someone on FB yesterday, of course I got no response. Their argument, "a mother by incest, rape, or in severe medical trauma should be forced to keep the baby no matter the risk to mom or baby?" My proposed solution- ban all abortion outside of verifiable rape, incest or the imminent death of the mother if the pregnancy were to continue.
I feel as though the vast majority of conservative Christians and pro-lifers could get behind this seemingly simple way to save babies. And it still allow the abortions the pro-choice crowd claim are so "necessary."
Not that I expect it from members here, but the other stance that I'm a man and shouldn't have an opinion is ridiculous. For that last could of years the same people have claimed men can menstruate and get pregnant. You can't have it both ways cupcake.
Outside of the possibility to rile up the blue/pink/purple haired, pussy hat wearing, my body my choice (unless it's for a MRNA shot) crowd prior to the mid-term elections, I find the thought that this was leaked to pressure the a SC Justice to change their stance very plausible. "Leave Roe alone or our cities will burn (again.)"
It's amazing that even RBG wrote in depth that the original decision was flawed and never should have been issued by the court.
I proposed a solution to someone on FB yesterday, of course I got no response. Their argument, "a mother by incest, rape, or in severe medical trauma should be forced to keep the baby no matter the risk to mom or baby?" My proposed solution- ban all abortion outside of verifiable rape, incest or the imminent death of the mother if the pregnancy were to continue.
I feel as though the vast majority of conservative Christians and pro-lifers could get behind this seemingly simple way to save babies. And it still allow the abortions the pro-choice crowd claim are so "necessary."
Not that I expect it from members here, but the other stance that I'm a man and shouldn't have an opinion is ridiculous. For that last could of years the same people have claimed men can menstruate and get pregnant. You can't have it both ways cupcake.
In nature, birds and other animals will vigorously defend their eggs or young to the extent possible short of sacrificing their own life. But when the threat of serious injury or death is imminent and likely certain the parents will save themselves and abandon the young. By doing so they go on to reproduce again which is the natural and logical process to maintain and further the species.
I think this biological understanding can properly be applied to human abortion policy, vis a vis the provisions re incest, rape, and life of the mother.
It's amazing that even RBG wrote in depth that the original decision was flawed and never should have been issued by the court.
To this I would offer this piece by George Will on the constitutional and political aspects of the ruling:
Alito?s argument is less a refutation of Roe than a starting over
The person, whose name might soon be known and should be forever odious, who leaked the draft Supreme Court opinion is an appropriate symbol of 49 years of willfulness that began with Roe v. Wade in 1973. The leaker accomplished nothing but another addition to the nation?s sense of fraying and another subtraction from the norms that preserve institutional functioning and dignity.
The leaker ? probably full of passionate intensity, as the worst usually are ? will leave a lingering stench in the building where he or she betrayed the trust of those who gave him or her access to Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.?s draft opinion overturning Roe. The leaker probably got into a position to commit this infamous betrayal by swearing never to do such a thing. If justice is done, this person will never again practice law but will experience the law?s rigors.
The leaker might have truncated, temporarily, the court?s deliberative process, much as the Jan. 6 mob temporarily truncated a constitutional process in the Capitol. Some of those who have eloquently denounced the previous president?s institutional vandalism will applaud Monday?s vandalism committed across the street from the Capitol. Situational ethics are always in season. Conservatives have backed enough lost causes to know one when they see one. Nevertheless, they should encourage Roe?s supporters to engage with Alito?s arguments, which include: That Roe, which effectively overturned all 50 states? abortion laws, curtailed debates and negotiations about abortion and embittered politics by halting the accommodations that had liberalized abortion laws in about one third of the states before 1973.
That an abortion right is not deeply rooted in the nation?s history and traditions.
That the court has long recognized that stare decisis ? respect for precedent ? is ?not an inexorable command.?
That some of the court?s finest actions have involved reversing precedents, and that absent these reversals this would be a less admirable country.
Progressives take understandable pride in their long march through many institutions; their efforts have won them substantial power in the media, academia, corporations and popular culture. But the conservative legal movement, too, has made a slow, patient march. It has passed through law schools, courts, journalism and elections featuring promises about the future composition of state and federal judiciaries.
The movement?s focus has been on overturning Roe. This is so even among conservatives who favor permissive abortion policies but who believe that Roe epitomizes results-oriented judicial fiats untethered from the Constitution?s text, structure and history.
If the nation has reached a turning- away from Roe, it is because the conservative legal movement has done the ?strong and slow boring of hard boards? (Max Weber?s description of the political vocation). And because Roe provided advocates of abortion rights incantations of ?privacy,? not a sturdy scaffolding of reasoning.
The wickedness of the leaker of Alito?s draft is not diminished by the fact that the leak?s consequences are unknown. It might affect negotiations that perhaps have been ongoing among the justices. It might even have affected ? might even still affect ? what the court says about the Mississippi law proscribing almost all abortions after 15 weeks? gestation.
Hysteria is the default mode of many Americans of all persuasions who engage in civic arguments. So, by late June, when the court would normally be expected to issue a momentous opinion, such people will have worked themselves into an apocalyptic frenzy. If the court overturns the postulated constitutional requirement for America?s almost uniquely radical abortion regime, there will still be a frenzy, but two months of emotions will have been vented.
Intelligent people of goodwill disagree vehemently about the morality of abortion; defenders of Roe?s reasoning are, however, vanishingly rare. Constitutional reasoning was almost absent from Roe, which makes Alito?s draft opinion less a refutation of Roe than a starting over regarding the core question: What may the community properly do regarding protection of human life between conception and birth?
Soon, 7,383 state legislators might be relevant, perhaps uncomfortably so, to this great question that until 1973 was the business of state legislatures. Suppose the court says that Mississippi?s law is not unconstitutional because the court was mistaken in declaring a constitutional right to abortion. Then 50 state legislatures will reacquire the traditional right to set policy regarding the legal status of prenatal life.
If so, this culturally diverse country will produce various policies. And some ?diversity? enthusiasts will suddenly be less so.
Washington Post Writers Group
Pretty good analysis:
http://youtu.be/btXj3osmzhQ
Roe vs Wade is one of many court decisions where an activist court granted federal authority over something that is not authorized by the constitution. Activist groups love to use simple majorities and legislating from the bench to push an agenda that is often in direct conflict with the constitution. This is clearly a 10th amendment issue. If either side wants to make it a federal issue they should gain the consensus necessary for a constitutional amendment. Since there isn't consensus on this issue, they want their court decision. I would be astounded to see the court actually make a constitutional decision.
I would be astounded to see the court actually make a constitutional decision.
Especially with Roberts at the helm.
It's a case where 99.9% of the people on both sides have not even read the draft opinion too.
My TLDR take on the draft in two sentences:
It's not a federal issue based on any enumerated federal constitutional right. Therefore, it's not the Supreme Court's place to legislate a policy.
It's up to elected representatives, and most certainly, elected representatives of individual states to craft legislation either way.
But even the "libertarian bros" are up in arms about the thing, without ever reading it [ROFL2]
It's a case where 99.9% of the people on both sides have not even read the draft opinion too.
My TLDR take on the draft in two sentences:
It's not a federal issue based on any enumerated federal constitutional right. Therefore, it's not the Supreme Court's place to legislate a policy.
It's up to elected representatives, and most certainly, elected representatives of individual states to craft legislation either way.
But even the "libertarian bros" are up in arms about the thing, without ever reading it [ROFL2]
I have agreed, at least once, with you.
Can't think of another at the moment
Aloha_Shooter
05-07-2022, 14:27
I think the timing's off. Of course it was intended to intimidate, rile up the base, etc. However, there's so much going on, now until November is a long time. A lot of the initial steam will have died. Whoever did this is a moron of the highest caliber.
I agree with most of that. "November" starts long before actual November though. Maybe the Democrats are hoping for early victories to build momentum to carry them through the next six months.
Remember that the Democrats started their efforts to rile up the base in 2012, 2018, and 2020 in May with Occupy Wall Street, Antifa, and Black Lives Matter protests. From a timing standpoint, this is right on schedule for them to stir up trouble and hate all summer and keep it going until early voting starts. Their new tactic is to maximize mail-in votes and early voting before the truth about any of the issues or candidates can emerge.
This is career suicide for any of the clerks who want to actually get into the judiciary but the truth will only come out if the DOJ actually wants to pursue the investigation. I wouldn't be surprised if they slow roll the investigation until it becomes "old news" and the perpetrator becomes an MSNBC or CNN commentator.
It's a case where 99.9% of the people on both sides have not even read the draft opinion too.
My TLDR take on the draft in two sentences:
It's not a federal issue based on any enumerated federal constitutional right. Therefore, it's not the Supreme Court's place to legislate a policy.
It's up to elected representatives, and most certainly, elected representatives of individual states to craft legislation either way.
But even the "libertarian bros" are up in arms about the thing, without ever reading it [ROFL2]
Very similar to the narrative of the "don't say gay" bill. The uneducated masses have no idea how our government is supposed to work, nor do they seem inclined to bother with learning about it. The talking heads on TV said this makes abortion outlawed by a bunch of Trump appointees therefore it's bad and must be opposed at all costs.
They have no idea that RBG thought Roe v. Wade was a horrible decision back in her ACLU days (and even WAPO is publishing it): https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/
A ruling that tosses Roe v. Wade simply moves the topic back to the states where it belonged before the federal over-reach.
Talk of the US Congress codifying abortion also needs to stop. It's outside their Constitutional authority.
The federal government could use significant pruning to their Constitutional directives and the sovereignty of the states needs to be returned.
eddiememphis
05-08-2022, 07:42
The federal government could use significant pruning...
Amen.
I should have stated 'pruning back to their Constitutional directives'.
There's very few things the federal government should be doing. They seem to be doing everything but those few things.
Roe v Wade was deeply flawed, nobody disputes that. However, it has stood for decades and I am troubled by the timing of them kicking this hornet's nest during a time of national crisis while the economy and supply chain are falling apart and so many other issues are currently on the table. Of course the wingnuts from both sides are jumping all over this, which includes elected representatives. It's a disgusting spectacle. As a nation, we should not be kicking this hornet's nest right now.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.