A Completely transparent and devastating political leak which changed the news cycle

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  vic-eldred  •  3 weeks ago  •  211 comments

A Completely transparent and devastating political leak which changed the news cycle
Hours after POLITICO’s reporting on the high court’s draft opinion, Democrats privately predicted that the potential decision by its five-conservative majority to repeal the landmark abortion-rights ruling would energize their base and drive up turnout in November. The party’s governors, senators and House members took to social media and the airwaves with reactions that ranged from pleas to codify Roe to emotional personal stories.

Give them credit. Woke leftists are always thinking/conspiring to achieve their evil ends. One of the most audacious vile acts just took place as one of them leaked a majority draft opinion written by Samuel Alito. The documentation was leaked to left leaning Politico.

Here is the way Politico described the leaked info:

"The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision –  Planned Parenthood v. Casey  – that largely maintained the right. “ Roe  was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito writes."

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

Of course, we know that it was wrongly decided, however the reason the info was leaked is best explained in a related Politico article:

"The disclosure of a draft majority opinion that indicates the Supreme Court has voted to overturn  Roe v. Wade  instantly jolted Democrats from a bout of political malaise Monday night — and many hope it could change the tide of the midterm elections."

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-draft-opinion-abortion-reactions-00029518

Well, it may change the news cycle, so that the leftist media can now focus on the loss of their wrongly decided decision, rather than what plagues the average American, such as skyrocketing inflation, open borders, rising crime, indoctrination in schools and censorship. Right on cue as the primaries begin and voters head to the polls. They'll run with it, but it's not going to work. There are simply not enough woke radical progressives to counter the energized majority, who can't wait for the next election.

There are also those who think the leak was intended to intimidate the Court, yet again.


But what about the individual who leaked the info?  Do they ever get caught?  Do they ever get prosecuted/punished?

My purpose here is to counter the narrative being presented here without a response.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

Demonstrators quickly appeared outside the Court yesterday and almost on cue, the puppet Biden will speak on this matter tomorrow.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 weeks ago

So these alleged conservative judges were lying when they said they wouldn't overturn Roe v Wade?

What a shocker!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    3 weeks ago

Post 7.1.13

I even have to provide your side with a valid argument.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    3 weeks ago
"I even have to provide your side with a valid argument."

Not possible.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.2    3 weeks ago
Not possible.

So nice to see an admission, at long last, that you have no valid argument.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 weeks ago

279984017_5267695736586683_7357299274293648154_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=1SF8e_BoOBAAX-kjVPy&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT8Ds2VRygvk49qMWrISAEoYKd_hRtvLuXZRlU0lvDYu7g&oe=627776F4

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
2  magicschoolbusdropout    3 weeks ago

What a way to change the narrative of Brandons Disaster as President, to this.

I wonder if a disastrous midterm upcoming for the "Left" has anything to do with the "LEAK" !

Hmmmmmmmmmmm !

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @2    3 weeks ago
I wonder if a disastrous midterm upcoming for the "Left" has anything to do with the "LEAK" !

A leak from the SCOTUS to a left leaning blogger site?  Somebody is trying to distract from the obvious.  

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
2.1.1  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1    3 weeks ago
A leak from the SCOTUS to a left leaning blogger site?  Somebody is trying to distract from the obvious.  

Yep !

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1    3 weeks ago

I dont think Politico is a "blogger site'. It is a large news organization (500 employees). 

Politico  (stylized in  all caps ), known originally as  The Politico , is a  political journalism  company based in  Arlington County, Virginia , [3]  that covers politics and policy in the United States and internationally. It primarily distributes content online but also with printed newspapers, radio, and  podcasts . Its coverage in  Washington, D.C. , includes the  U.S. Congress lobbying , the  media , and the  presidency . [4] Politico - Wikipedia
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.2    3 weeks ago
The Politico , is a  political journalism  company

The accent is on political.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.2    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3  Jeremy Retired in NC    3 weeks ago
"The disclosure of a draft majority opinion that indicates the Supreme Court has voted to overturn  Roe v. Wade  instantly jolted Democrats from a bout of political malaise Monday night — and many hope it could change the tide of the midterm elections."

So, reality of this whole thing is, it's the democrats hopes that such a landmark decision would allow them to fabricate yet another fictitious outrage that people would forget about skyrocketing inflation, open borders, rising crime, and the rest of their pathetic existence and vote for them.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3    3 weeks ago

That is their mindset.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3    3 weeks ago

The irony of your comment.  

The implication is that "democrats" would become one issue voters.

That would make them exactly like the pro life fanatics on the right were all these decades then wouldnt it?  Maybe only "Christians" are allowed to be one issue voters. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.2.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    3 weeks ago
The implication is that "democrats" would become one issue voters.

They aren't?  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

Desperation will reek from the right as this tale unfolds.  You've been warned, for years, not to overturn abortion rights when 65% to 70% of Americans approve of Roe v Wade. The potential is there for a devastating response at the polls that could annihilate Republicans in swing congressional districts. But no, the religious fervor to overturn Roe could not be contained , and now the Republicans will rush forth to ban all abortions across America, on the theory that it could be now or never as demographics change and younger voters emerge which will in the future punish those politicians who do not provide choice. 

It is still unknown at what level the 70% will engage with this decision , but its hard to imagine that it wont be substantial and big enough to effect who will win in November. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4    3 weeks ago

235 years of tradition and integrity has been destroyed by a single leftist POS.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
4.1.1  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    3 weeks ago
destroyed by a single leftist POS.

Got a name?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    3 weeks ago

Yeah, right. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

Whoever it is will be facing a serious decision. Soon they'll be questioned on it. If they lie to the FBI, they have then committed a crime.

This will be pursued.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
4.1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.3    3 weeks ago

Only a very few people would be privy to this draft. The traitor will be identified

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1.5  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.3    3 weeks ago

The leaker should get a ticker tape parade...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.4    3 weeks ago

Don't forget it's still Biden's DOJ.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @4.1.5    3 weeks ago
The leaker should get a ticker tape parade...

I don't think many progressives would show for THAT parade.

I'm sure they are too busy dusting off their pussy hats and plotting protests nationwide.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @4.1.5    3 weeks ago
The leaker should get a ticker tape parade...

You can hold it on the Grand Concourse.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.2    3 weeks ago

Are they going to assign that know nothing Durham I wonder?  I mean how many years has he been investigating the investigators and come up with nothing?

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
4.1.10  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @4.1.5    3 weeks ago

That doesn't seem environmentally responsible.  

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
4.1.11  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.6    3 weeks ago
Don't forget it's still Biden's DOJ.

Many Dems would disagree. Garland appears to march to his own drummer. It surprises me that the right are not his biggest fans.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
4.1.12  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.3    3 weeks ago

Actually I don’t think it’s a crime. I kind of doubt the Court will even ask the FBI to investigate.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.13  XXJefferson51  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    3 weeks ago

Exactly!  

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
4.1.14  Ronin2  replied to  Hallux @4.1.11    3 weeks ago

Right, because Garland has proven he is so unbiased as AG./S

His overwhelming zeal at prosecuting every last Jan 6th rioter to the fullest extent of the law; while 90% of the BLM and Antifa rioters are released w/o charges. 

Also, his eagerness to go after parents protesting public school administrations as terrorists.

The only thing he hasn't done is gone after Trump. How many Democrat state AG's have tried and failed to get Trump? Garland isn't stupid. If the Dems give him an air tight case he will prosecute. But the Dems make evidence up as they go along; so they don't have shit either.

Which is the reason once the Republicans retake the House and Senate there will be calls for them to impeach Garland.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
5  Hallux    3 weeks ago

Now that all the pretenses that such a thing will never happen have gone poof, out come the knives of accusations? Why not someone on the right leaking this in order to soften the final ruling? The right is just too 'woke' for their own good.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @5    3 weeks ago
Why not someone on the right leaking this in order to soften the final ruling?

They'll be forced to speed up the ruling.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
5.1.1  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    3 weeks ago
They'll be forced to speed up the ruling.

Oh no, can't have that!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @5.1.1    3 weeks ago

You mean protecting the integrity of the Court?

I guess only that ideology is important.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
5.1.3  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.2    3 weeks ago

I could be wrong and I have few doubts about that, but I am guessing that history will view the current court and how it came to be as lacking integrity.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @5.1.3    3 weeks ago

Ahh, only if Ibram X. Kendi gets to write the history books.

You are on the wrong side of history.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
5.1.5  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.2    3 weeks ago
I guess only that ideology is important.

Yours or mine? I would say yours as you are on a mission.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @5.1.5    3 weeks ago
I would say yours as you are on a mission.

Think of how devoted one would have to be to leak a SCOTUS decision.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
5.1.7  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.6    3 weeks ago

Think of how devoted one must be to become a vigilante.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @5.1.7    3 weeks ago

When there is policing, there are no vigilantes.

You heard it here first.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
5.1.9  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.4    3 weeks ago
You are on the wrong side of history.

All that means is I am still alive.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
5.1.10  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.8    3 weeks ago

@!@

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.11  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @5.1.10    3 weeks ago

That makes two of us.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @5.1.3    3 weeks ago

"I could be wrong and I have few doubts about that, but I am guessing that history will view the current court and how it came to be as lacking integrity."

No, you're correct.  These #45 appointees are scum.  Lying hypocrites.  No integrity whatsoever.  I am speaking of all the alleged conservatives on the Supreme Court - the lying hypocrite scum.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.13  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.12    3 weeks ago

SCOTUS = thumper majority bench

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.12    3 weeks ago

Remember the words of a famous Democrat:

"Elections have consequences!"

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.2    3 weeks ago
"You mean protecting the integrity of the Court?
I guess only that ideology is important."
No such thing with these scumbag hypocrites
No wonder you prefer them.  You said you prefer corruption over ideology.
No wonder you approve of these alleged scumbag conservatives.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Hallux @5    3 weeks ago
Why not someone on the right leaking this in order to soften the final ruling?

Why not someone on the right just because they disagree with it?  Approval of Roe v Wade, was massively bipartisan, it is only the extreme bible thumpers that are opposed to it.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
5.3  Sunshine  replied to  Hallux @5    3 weeks ago
Now that all the pretenses that such a thing will never happen have gone poof,

There has been no ruling from the court. 

Nothing has happened except the integrity of the SCOTUS has been forever changed.

Democrats are just inventing a false narrative again.

Desperate people do desperate things.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.4  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @5    3 weeks ago

So we're not to believe any alleged conservatives on the Supreme Court when they say they won't overturn Roe v Wade like that lying hypocrite whatshername Amy Barrett?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.4.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @5.4    3 weeks ago

It's called Constitutional interpretation.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.4.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.4.1    3 weeks ago

Naw.  That's called a lying hypocritical bitch.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.4.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @5.4.2    3 weeks ago

You mean they misled congress?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.4.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.4.1    3 weeks ago

It's called Constitutional interpretation.

WRONG!  It's called Constitutional RE-interpretation.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

For some odd reason the right will squeal over the unfairness of this "leak" as if it were treason or something. 

I imagine back in the 1760's and 1770's the colonists leaked information to the public that the British government didnt want put out there. The leaks were considered justified by the Americans, Im sure. 

Also think Pentagon Papers, leaked by Daniel Ellsberg , which broke government secrecy on the Viet Nam war. 

Same principle here. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6    3 weeks ago
For some odd reason the right will squeal over the unfairness of this "leak" as if it were treason or something. 

All is fair in love and war?


I imagine back in the 1760's and 1770's the colonists leaked information to the public that the British government didnt want put out there. The leaks were considered justified by the Americans, Im sure. 

So you equate the SCOTUS with colonist rule?  How do you feel about the Constitution?  Is it obsolete?


Also think Pentagon Papers, leaked by Daniel Ellsberg , which broke government secrecy on the Viet Nam war. 

Another lefty who got away with it.


Same principle here. 

Far from it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1    3 weeks ago

You sound scared Vic. The big takeaway from this news is not that someone leaked something from the Supreme Court, although I'm sure you wish that was the big takeaway.  A right wing Court that many people consider illegitimate is going to make a ruling that will piss off the majority of the American people. That is the main takeaway. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    3 weeks ago
You sound scared Vic.

Then why are you the one who's sweating?


The big takeaway from this news is not that someone leaked something from the Supreme Court, although I'm sure you wish that was the big takeaway. 

Another first, perpetrated by the woke left.


A right wing Court that many people consider illegitimate is going to make a ruling that will piss off the majority of the American people. That is the main takeaway. 

You had 50 years of activist Courts. We get one dedicated to the Constitution and you seem to want insurrection.


PS.....You had the congress...you should have codified "Roe"

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    3 weeks ago
"You sound scared Vic. The big takeaway from this news is not that someone leaked something from the Supreme Court, although I'm sure you wish that was the big takeaway.  A right wing Court that many people consider illegitimate is going to make a ruling that will piss off the majority of the American people. That is the main takeaway."

Which will be reflected at the polls which they seem to think they have it all in the bag!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.3    3 weeks ago

We KNOW we have it all in the bag!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    3 weeks ago
A right wing Court that many people consider illegitimate is going to make a ruling that will piss off the majority of the American people. That is the main takeaway. 

Who cares if a few nutjobs think the Court is illegitimate? Their opinions don't amount to a bucket of spit.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6    3 weeks ago
Same principle here

Whatever works for John politically being  the principle. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7  JBB    3 weeks ago

The gop will suffer devastating losses at midterms!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @7    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

We'll talk after the election.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
7.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1    3 weeks ago

Amazing is it not? The court makes a decision and Congress gets the blame? What bullshit. Congress isn't pushing this. Some groups are. Methinks this isn't the saving grace that the dems are creaming their jeans over LMAO

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.1.1    3 weeks ago

They never realize how transparent it all is.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
7.1.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.2    3 weeks ago

And the thing is, they will be leaving it up to the states. NOT making it illegal. Hell California is already talking about putting abortion rights into their Constitution.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.1.1    3 weeks ago

Who is to blame? McConnell, and Trump, and Alito, Barrett, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
7.1.5  charger 383  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.1.3    3 weeks ago

one of the very few things I think California is right about

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.1.3    3 weeks ago
And the thing is, they will be leaving it up to the states.

THAT'S THE WAY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN!

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
7.1.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.4    3 weeks ago

Exactly. It is the SCotUS NOT Congress or McConnell or your fucking go to, "but Trump".

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.1.8  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.6    3 weeks ago

Are guns or speech or religion up to states?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.9  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @7.1.8    3 weeks ago

None of the above?

Your point?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.1.7    3 weeks ago

Without Trump and McConnell we wouldnt have this far right court. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.1.11  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.9    3 weeks ago

Generic Congressional ballots were trending in the Democrat's favor, but now the gop will lose seats in both houses during the midterms...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.12  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @7.1.11    3 weeks ago

Is that your prediction?

I want you on record!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.13  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.10    3 weeks ago

The Court is "far right?"   Couldn't it be that the Roe decision was an absurd ruling?

I'm surprised that you didn't remind us of what they told congress, when being confirmed - that Roe was settled law.

Why haven't you guys mentioned that?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
7.1.14  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.10    3 weeks ago
we wouldnt have this far right court. 

hahahaha okay.................

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.15  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.1.14    3 weeks ago

At least we have a few good laughs out of this.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.4    3 weeks ago
"Who is to blame? McConnell, and Trump, and Alito, Barrett, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh."

YA!  YOU ARE CORRECT SIR

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.10    3 weeks ago
"Without Trump and McConnell we wouldnt have this far right court,"

Ya!  Correct again!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.18  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.17    3 weeks ago

Ya! Ya! Ya!

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
7.1.19  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.18    3 weeks ago
Ya! Ya! Ya!

Lil Wayne ?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.20  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @7.1.19    3 weeks ago

Maybe the Beatles.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
7.1.21  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.13    3 weeks ago
Couldn't it be that the Roe decision was an absurd ruling?

What was the big protest during the "Obamacare" days?  Something about not wanting government to control your healthcare, wasn't it?  About how your healthcare should remain between the doctor and the patient, without government getting their meddling fingers in it?

NOW we see that the right really wants to control a woman's healthcare.  To get between her personal decisions and her doctor.  To legislate what a woman can, and cannot do with her own body.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.22  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.21    3 weeks ago
What was the big protest during the "Obamacare" days?  Something about not wanting government to control your healthcare, wasn't it?  About how your healthcare should remain between the doctor and the patient, without government getting their meddling fingers in it?

Actually it was about not wanting to pay for health insurance for those who never bought insurance.


NOW we see that the right really wants to control a woman's healthcare.  To get between her personal decisions and her doctor.  To legislate what a woman can, and cannot do with her own body.

We want to follow the Constitution. Let Schumer pass an abortion law and it's over.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
7.1.23  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @7.1.11    3 weeks ago

Nope...the  majority of Americans are not one issue voters

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.24  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @7.1.8    3 weeks ago
Are guns or speech or religion up to states?

Are you seriously suggesting that no states have laws pertaining to guns?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.1.25  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.24    3 weeks ago

Are you seriously contending the Supreme Court could unilaterally outlaw gun rights?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @7.1.25    3 weeks ago
Are you seriously contending the Supreme Court could unilaterally outlaw gun rights?

Not at all, and I certainly wasn't the one who brought up gun rights on an abortion seed.

Now, I answered, why do you continue to dodge?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.27  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.6    3 weeks ago

It's moronic to leave it up to the states.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.28  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.21    3 weeks ago
"NOW we see that the right really wants to control a woman's healthcare.  To get between her personal decisions and her doctor.  To legislate what a woman can, and cannot do with her own body."

Ya!  We'll see how that works out at the polls when the 'right' and the alleged conservatives KNOW they have it in the bag.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
7.1.29  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.22    3 weeks ago
Actually it was about not wanting to pay for health insurance for those who never bought insurance.

Are you claiming that was the ONLY complaint?  Would you like to rephrase your answer to better reflect what was truly complained about back then?

We want to follow the Constitution.

Bullshit.  The Constitution says that abortion is legal, and a decision ONLY between a woman and her doctor.  Right wing SCOTUS wants to change that.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.30  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.29    3 weeks ago

Please do provide where in the Constitution it states abortion is legal.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
7.1.31  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.29    3 weeks ago
Bullshit.  The Constitution says that abortion is legal, and a decision ONLY between a woman and her doctor.  Right wing SCOTUS wants to change that.

Incorrect,  abortion is not codified in the Constitution.

While access to healthcare and privacy is a basic human right (as stated in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was signed by the United States in 1948) , it is not a constitutional right per se.  Originalists have stated that outside of what is enumerated in the Constitution there is no other constitutional right to privacy.  Starting in the 1920's courts started to read the 14th Amendment more broadly to encompass child rearing, marriage, procreation and termination of medical treatments.  However the right to privacy remains an open question legally.  SCOTUS is supposed to reach their opinions based on constitutional law.  

IMO the court is not the proper place to handle this.  This needs to be codified in law.  If codified in law we can be assured that there are states who would take the challenge of this to court, very likely going all the way up to SCOTUS.  If SCOTUS ruled that the law itself was constitutional (as Congress is the outfit that makes laws) that would be a stronger precedent.   

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7.1.32  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.21    3 weeks ago
About how your healthcare should remain between the doctor and the patient,

And then vaccine mandates came along and exposed Democrats on that.

NOW we see that the right really wants to control a woman's healthcare. 

Why are you sexist. Men can get pregnant!

It's funny that people who've spent the last year calling mothers birthing people and denying they can define what a woman is, now claim this ruling affects woman.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
7.1.33  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.30    3 weeks ago

Please do provide where in the Constitution it states abortion is legal.

Is that the latest talking point you've received?  Roe v Wade was about privacy and a woman's right to make private decisions about her own body, without government interference.

Explainer: Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision hinged on women's right to privacy

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7.1.34  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.33    3 weeks ago

Is that the latest talking point you've received

It's been the main  criticism of Roe for 50 years. Are you really that ignorant on the subject that you think it's new?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.35  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.33    3 weeks ago
Is that the latest talking point you've received?  Roe v Wade was about privacy and a woman's right to make private decisions about her own body, without government interference.

Lots of words just to avoid what you were asked to provide to support THIS asinine claim:

The Constitution says that abortion is legal, and a decision ONLY between a woman and her doctor.  

I merely asked for the link to where it is in the Constitution, I figured you had it on hand since I know you wouldn't claim something that absurd without proof, right?

Either you have something to support your claim or you don't.

Looks like another bizarre claim laid to waste when pressed for proof----or just another day ending in a "y".

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
7.1.36  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.34    3 weeks ago
It's been the main  criticism of Roe for 50 years.

Bullshit.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.

If we took everything written in the Constitution based on its exact working, you would not be able to own guns in this country (for just 1 example).  The Constitution GENERALLY outlines citizen's rights and government restrictions.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.2  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @7    3 weeks ago
The gop will suffer devastating losses at midterms!

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.3  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @7    3 weeks ago
The gop will suffer devastating losses at midterms!

Oh, really?

Are Democrats going to magically explain why people shouldn't have to pay their legal debts when the Biden economy is doing so, so well?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8  author  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

The clerk who leaked this should be disbarred or prosecuted if they wind up lying to the FBI............ Right after the Court overturns Roe, of course!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9  author  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

Does anyone think this leak could lead to violence directed at Supreme Court justices?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
9.1  Snuffy  replied to  Vic Eldred @9    3 weeks ago

Scary thought but potentially yes.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
9.2  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @9    3 weeks ago

Will anti-abortionists quit violence and bombings? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @9.2    3 weeks ago

I'm worried about that nasty mob outside the Court right now.

How about you?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
9.2.2  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.2.1    3 weeks ago

I am more worried about inside the court...original

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
9.2.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.2.1    3 weeks ago
I'm worried about that nasty mob outside the Court right now.

Ah, so you protect and defend the violent mob that attacked the capital and the violent mob that has bombed clinics and assassinated doctors but claim the peaceful crowd protesting this disgusting conservative coup of our courts are the "nasty mob". I wish I could say I'm surprised, but this is just par for the course for hypocritical right wing conservative liars and their justices who all lied their asses off during their confirmations in order to get on the court. I'm sure to them, the ends justify the means, but it also exposes them for what they are, spineless pond scum fascist liars intent on forcing their religious beliefs on others while stripping women of their right to privacy contrary to established supreme court precedent and the separation of church and State.

If you thought the number of right wing evangelical Christians was shrinking before this, if they go through with it they will see their pond of religious conservative scum shrink so fast it will make their heads spin.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.2.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.2.3    3 weeks ago
Ah, so you protect and defend the violent mob that attacked the capital and the violent mob that has bombed clinics and assassinated doctors

Did I?  When was that?


but claim the peaceful crowd protesting this disgusting conservative coup of our courts are the "nasty mob".

That I did do. I saw and heard a bit of it and they were loud & nasty IMO.


 I wish I could say I'm surprised, but this is just par for the course for hypocritical right wing conservative liars and their justices who all lied their asses off during their confirmations in order to get on the court.

How about the justices who claimed to find a "right of privacy" buried in the Constitution and that somehow it was the justification of "Roe?"  What did they do to this country, aside from lying and violating the separation of powers?


I'm sure to them, the ends justify the means,

Nope, that is definitely the evil left.


f you thought the number of right wing evangelical Christians was shrinking before this, if they go through with it they will see their pond of religious conservative scum shrink so fast it will make their heads spin.

I couldn't care less.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.2.3    3 weeks ago
"I'm worried about that nasty mob outside the Court right now."
" Ah, so you protect and defend the violent mob that attacked the capital and the violent mob that has bombed clinics and assassinated doctors but claim the peaceful crowd protesting this disgusting conservative coup of our courts are the "nasty mob". I wish I could say I'm surprised, but this is just par for the course for hypocritical right wing conservative liars and their justices who all lied their asses off during their confirmations in order to get on the court. I'm sure to them, the ends justify the means, but it also exposes them for what they are, spineless pond scum fascist liars intent on forcing their religious beliefs on others while stripping women of their right to privacy contrary to established supreme court precedent and the separation of church and State. If you thought the number of right wing evangelical Christians was shrinking before this, if they go through with it they will see their pond of religious conservative scum shrink so fast it will make their heads spin."

No DP.  The only problem we had with whatshisname was his mean tweets!!!!!!!!!!!! jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

I love how you sum it all up so well and hand them their asses on a daily basis!

It sounds like certain folks here prefer the corrupt ideologues.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @9.2.5    3 weeks ago

Quoting someone who makes stuff up and attempts to argue it is a very, very poor look.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
9.3  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Vic Eldred @9    3 weeks ago
Does anyone think this leak could lead to violence directed at Supreme Court justices?

Chuck Schumer will be out and about again, trying to "insight"........ Again !

Schumer Blast from the past:

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”

He's already started this talk on the floor of the house right now !

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.3.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @9.3    3 weeks ago

Yup, he's calling for legislation.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
9.3.2  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.3.1    3 weeks ago
Yup, he's calling for legislation.

I see another "Deflection" from Brandons Disaster of a presidency coming....... The need for "Court Packing" will inundate the media narrative.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.3.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @9.3.2    3 weeks ago

That may also be what the leak was for.


 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
9.3.4  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.3.3    3 weeks ago

Came to mind.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
9.3.5  Snuffy  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.3.1    3 weeks ago

I happen to agree that Roe v Wade was a wrong take for the law and this should be an issue that is handled legislatively.  It would be very easy for the Democrats to pass this in the House, simple majority.  And I believe there are enough Republicans in the Senate who would also vote for this in order to pass, but I will never underestimate the stupidity of Chuck Schumer if he takes the nuclear option on this. But if Congress were to codify this into law, I believe that it would then easily withstand any court case and we know that there are several states who would immediately take this to court.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.3.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Snuffy @9.3.5    3 weeks ago

That would end all this. We could at least say that in 2020 the American people voted for all of this.

It truly would be the law of the land.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
9.3.7  Hallux  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @9.3.2    3 weeks ago
The need for "Court Packing" will inundate the media narrative.

Drizzle will be more like it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.3.8  Tessylo  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @9.3.4    3 weeks ago

Not possible

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
9.3.9  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Tessylo @9.3.8    3 weeks ago
Not possible

It's just like ...... you "Don't Know" !

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
9.3.10  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Hallux @9.3.7    3 weeks ago
Drizzle will be more like it.

Constant ?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.3.11  Tessylo  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @9.3.9    3 weeks ago

"Don't Know"

That would be you

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
9.3.12  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Tessylo @9.3.11    3 weeks ago
That would be you

Again ..... It's like you STILL...... "Don't Know" !

"pecan" !

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.4  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @9    3 weeks ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
9.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @9    3 weeks ago
es anyone think this leak could lead to violence directed at Supreme Court justices?

I would hope the 5 justices have armed guards to protect from left wing terrorists. 

Inciting violence may well have been the point of the leak. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.5.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.5    3 weeks ago

Hopefully there will be some security for Justice Alito.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10  author  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

The puppet reacts:


107054435-16514917592022-05-01t201833z_1288183513_rc2kyt999m3v_rtrmadp_0_usa-biden.jpeg?v=1651491786&w=929&h=523&ffmt=webp


“I believe that a woman’s right to choose is fundamental, Roe has been the law of the land for almost fifty years, and basic fairness and the stability of our law demand that it not be overturned,” Biden said.



He also said this:


President Biden on Monday mixed up his job title, telling a crowd at the White House that he was the nation’s first senator from Delaware when he meant to say president.

https://nypost.com/2022/05/02/biden-mixes-up-job-title-says-hes-first-senator-from-delaware/?

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
10.1  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @10    3 weeks ago

And the former 'n still wannabe can't remember the names of those he recently endorsed. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @10.1    3 weeks ago

Does it matter? They are both running as MAGA candidates.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @10.1    3 weeks ago

I wonder what's eating what's left of that steaming pile's brain?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @10.1    3 weeks ago

They must all have criminal records to be endorsed by #45.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @10.1.2    3 weeks ago

It's a little too early for that stuff.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
10.1.5  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.1    3 weeks ago

It matters the same as when Biden misspoke.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @10.1.5    3 weeks ago

Does it?

Biden is supposed to be the president.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
10.1.7  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.6    3 weeks ago
Biden is supposed to be the president.

Donal-doh still wants to be. Hopefully he and De Sandwich will confront each other in 2023-4. It should be a Dagwoodian hoot.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.1    3 weeks ago
Does it matter? They are both running as MAGA candidates.

The fact that Trump stumbles through his endorsements names is not about who is or isnt MAGA. It is about people like you attacking Biden constantly for being forgetful and then when your own hero does the same damn thing you are suddenly not interested. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
10.1.9  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.8    3 weeks ago

Although he STILL lives in your head rent free 24/7/365, he is no longer PotUS. See the difference there?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.8    3 weeks ago
It is about people like you attacking Biden constantly for being forgetful and then when your own hero does the same damn thing you are suddenly not interested.

I will attack him constantly. He is unfit for the job, only ran to defeat Trump and is doing what the most radical elements of the democratic party wants.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.11  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @10.1.7    3 weeks ago

Dream and I'll dream with you.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
10.1.12  Hallux  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @10.1.9    3 weeks ago
See the difference there?

I'll take peek when Hillary or Obama are evicted from their free nesting places.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
10.1.13  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.11    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
10.1.14  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Hallux @10.1.12    3 weeks ago

Who?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.15  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @10.1.13    3 weeks ago

What's this, something new?

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
10.1.16  Hallux  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @10.1.14    3 weeks ago

Them!

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
10.1.17  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.15    3 weeks ago

Hardly, it's older than you or I.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.1.18  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @10.1.13    3 weeks ago

removed for context by charger

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11  author  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

Schumer is now calling for abortion legislation.

He seems to be reading from John's script, blaming Republicans.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
11.1  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @11    3 weeks ago

The gop never accepts responsibility for their BS!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @11.1    3 weeks ago

Does that include the 5 Republican appointed Justices that voted for "Roe?"

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
11.1.2  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.1.1    3 weeks ago

Are those 5 safely interred? Wouldn't want one of those "deadly tomatoes" taking them out.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @11.1    3 weeks ago
The gop never accepts responsibility for their BS!

And what has your overactive imagination dreamed the GOP is responsible for now?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @11.1.2    3 weeks ago

The crowd out in front of the Court may have more than tomatoes.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
11.1.5  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.1.4    3 weeks ago

May have? You will of course let us know if they have what the 1-6 crowd had.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
11.1.6  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.3    3 weeks ago

The conservative majority that voted for this.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @11.1.6    3 weeks ago
The conservative majority that voted for this.

Maybe one day you will learn the difference between political parties and SCOTUS members.

Maybe................

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @11.1    3 weeks ago

No, all those alleged conservatives/hypocrites blame Biden or Democrats.

That's all they got!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @11.1.2    3 weeks ago
"Are those 5 safely interred? Wouldn't want one of those "deadly tomatoes" taking them out."

Ya!  Watch out for that flying fruit!  It can be deadly!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @11.1.5    3 weeks ago
"May have? You will of course let us know if they have what the 1-6 crowd had."

Those anti-abortionists and 1/6 domestic terrorists led on by their domestic terrorist hero #45 are the ones to be worried about.  They're the ones who will have any deadly weapons.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @11    3 weeks ago

First Schumer said that the leak was wrong. You somehow forgot to say that.

Then he said that it needs to be legislated. What did you think would be requested?

And yes, this is a Republican issue... they made it that way. They became the anti-Roe v Wade party.

And somehow, forgotten is the fact that if this court rules this way, they could do the same to Brown V Board of Ed. Both of these were decided the same way.

As an independent, who is pro-choice, I find it ironic that other people's religious beliefs are being forced on those who differing opinions while screaming my body my choice when it comes to vaccinations and mask-wearing. Holy hypocrisy. 

I guess it will be back to back ally abortions. What a step forward/ not.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
11.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2    3 weeks ago
mehow, forgotten is the fact that if this court rules this way, they could do the same to Brown V Board of Ed. Both of these were decided the same way.

That makes no sense.  First, the Court can always overrule any case. So nothing's changed. 

Second, they "weren't decided the same way."   

find it ironic that other people's religious beliefs are being forced on those who differing opinions

That's dishonest. 

while screaming my body my choice 

You mean the people who scream my body my choice when it comes to abortion  and supported government mandates on vaccines, restricting movement etc etc..

Holy Hypocrisy!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.2.2    3 weeks ago
That makes no sense.  First, the Court can always overrule any case. So nothing's changed.  Second, they "weren't decided the same way."   

Reread the Politico article.

find it ironic that other people's religious beliefs are being forced on those who differing opinions

How is that dishonest? The 5 conservative judges are all Catholic and have stated their personal opinions on abortion. 

You mean the people who scream my body my choice when it comes to abortion  and supported government mandates on vaccines, restricting movement etc etc..

I never said that it didn't rub both ways, but there is a fundamental difference. Human interaction and a health crisis would bring these items into play. But abortion hinges on the belief that 6 week old fetus is a person, which is not held by many including the medical community. I could have lived with an adjustment to the limitation of weeks, but to overturn the whole law, is to affect even those who do not believe that.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
11.2.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.3    3 weeks ago
eread the Politico article

By all means, point out where in that article it claims Roe and Brown were "decided the same  way"

How is that dishonest?

First, and foremost there is nothing in the proposed ruling that is premised on a religious argument. Zero.  You are projecting your own bias.

Second, Gorsuch isn't a Catholic.

Third, as  a Jewish person, I would assume you wouldn't be so quick to use the type of bigoted argument that is often employed against Jewish people. 

and have stated their personal opinions on abortion.

Even if that's true, so what?  But can you point me to where Alito, for instance, said he opposes abortion because he's a Catholic?

  What other religions do you believe have members who are incapable of putting aside their religious beliefs and serving as justices?  Or is it only Catholics?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.2.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2    3 weeks ago
First Schumer said that the leak was wrong. You somehow forgot to say that.

Why do I have to note that? After all he threatened Justices by name. He is hardly a man of integrity.


Then he said that it needs to be legislated. What did you think would be requested?

I'm all for the elected members of congress legislating an abortion law. He needs 60 votes in the US Senate.


And yes, this is a Republican issue... they made it that way. They became the anti-Roe v Wade party.

Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. Even RBG agrees:

“My criticism of Roe  is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on  Roe  was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

Roe   isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”




And somehow, forgotten is the fact that if this court rules this way, they could do the same to Brown V Board of Ed. Both of these were decided the same way.

They absolutely weren't. Brown was deeply linked to the Constitution. Roe had zero ties to the Constitution.



I find it ironic that other people's religious beliefs are being forced on those who differing opinions while screaming my body my choice when it comes to vaccinations and mask-wearing. Holy hypocrisy. 

It has nothing to do with religious beliefs or woman's rights. It has to do with following the Constitution. The SCOTUS is not supposed to enact legislation - they are to INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION. There is no right of privacy mentioned there. The "Roe" decision is nothing more than a shoddy & shameful joke. A decision that has divided the country.


 I guess it will be back to back ally abortions.

Most states allow abortions. Each state should have their own laws on it.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.6  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.2.4    3 weeks ago
By all means, point out where in that article it claims Roe and Brown were "decided the same  way"

Brown said that separate but equal was not constitutional by the very idea of separate. That blacks had the same rights under the Constitution. Roe says that it was a woman's right to her body as a man does. Otherwise, she is unequal. 

First, and foremost there is nothing in the proposed ruling that is premised on a religious argument. Zero.  You are projecting your own bias.

You can't say that religion has no bearing on our court. If it didn't they wouldn't ask the religious question to every justice. This is not a bias. This is a fact.

Second, Gorsuch isn't a Catholic.

He is both Anglican and Catholic and went to a Jesuit prep school, so I would say, his views are pretty much in line with that.

Third, as  a Jewish person, I would assume you wouldn't be so quick to use the type of bigoted argument that is often employed against Jewish people. 

Yes as a Jewish person I know how it goes. Maybe something like this:

My comment was not meant as anything other than the justices bring to the court not only their industry but also their own personal beliefs. If it was not true, then the above video wouldn't have happened.

What other religions do you believe have members who are incapable of putting aside their religious beliefs and serving as justices?  Or is it only Catholics?

Justice through the centuries has been metered out by faith. The Talmud stands as an enormous book of Jewish law and discussion, including on abortion. So no, it is not only Catholics, and you should know me better by now to know what my statement meant, but you decided to try to paint me a bigot instead. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.7  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.5    3 weeks ago
First Schumer said that the leak was wrong. You somehow forgot to say that.
Why do I have to note that? After all he threatened Justices by name. He is hardly a man of integrity.

Because he did the right thing that you decided to ignore, and you should do the right thing.

And yes I know what RBG said. It doesn't mean that she was right. This reversal removes a women's right from her own body. I thought that was guaranteed under the Constitution. 

It has nothing to do with religious beliefs or woman's rights. It has to do with following the Constitution. The SCOTUS is not supposed to enact legislation - they are to INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION. There is no right of privacy mentioned there. The "Roe" decision is nothing more than a shoddy & shameful joke. A decision that has divided the country.

So removing the right over my body has nothing to do with the Constitution? I find that shocking. And if you want to see division in the country, you will see it now. 

I guess it will be back to back ally abortions.

Most states allow abortions. Each state should have their own laws on it.

Only half the states support abortion politically, so no not most. And what will now happen is that this will make it harder on poor women who are living in a no allow state, who will have to choose between becoming criminals or dangerous hidden procedures. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.2.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.7    3 weeks ago
So removing the right over my body has nothing to do with the Constitution?

The Constitution never gave you any such right. Seven Justices did. They were wrong.


I find that shocking.

Then write to your congressmen to enact such legislation - oh wait, Chuck Schumer is trying to do exactly that.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.2.9  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.6    3 weeks ago
Roe says that it was a woman's right to her body as a man does. Otherwise, she is unequal. 

WHAT???

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
11.2.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.6    3 weeks ago
wn said that separate but equal was not constitutional by the very idea of separat

I have no idea what you are tryign to say and that's not in the Politico article. Brown was decided on equal protection grounds. Roe on substantive  due process. They are not the same. 

 can't say that religion has no bearing on our court. If it didn't they wouldn't ask the religious question to every justice. This is not a bias. This is a fact.

What religious question? Religious tests for office  are explicitly unconstitutional. Do you oppose that and want to go back to the 17th century where only members of certain government favored religions could hold office?

My comment was not meant as anything other than the justices bring to the court not only their industry but also their own personal beliefs. 

Of course all justices have personal opinions on subjects like abortion, the death penalty etc.  Why do you believe Catholics are uniquely unable to set aside their personal beliefs and members of other religions aren't?  

o no, it is not only Catholics, and you should know me better by now to know what my statement meant, but you decided to try to paint me a bigot instead. 

It's a bigoted statement to claim a legal opinion, which is undeniably a secular one, is really Catholics (even though one is a protestant) forcing their religious beliefs on others.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
12  author  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

FR1teVYWQAI-xvw?format=png&name=small



 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
12.1  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @12    3 weeks ago

Moscow Mitch is such a 'wordsmith'. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
12.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @12.1    3 weeks ago

He just gave an even better speech. The one where he points to the day Schumer threatened Justices by name.

I think you'd enjoy it.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
12.1.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.1.1    3 weeks ago

9.3 above is a snippet.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
12.1.3  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.1.1    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
12.1.4  Sunshine  replied to  Hallux @12.1.3    3 weeks ago
Thinking is not your forté.

oh wow.  Rubber glue...deep thinker you are.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @12    3 weeks ago

FUCK MOSCOW MITCH!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @12.2    3 weeks ago
FUCK MOSCOW MITCH!

Is that an offer?

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
12.2.2  Sunshine  replied to  Texan1211 @12.2.1    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
12.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @12    3 weeks ago

Good, let that fool pretend the leak is more important than the contents of the decision.  It will only serve to discredit the Republicans even more. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @12.3    3 weeks ago

Who have zero credibility to begin with.

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
13  Transyferous Rex    3 weeks ago

This could eventually be a majority opinion; however, as of now, there are a ton of people jumping to conclusions on that point. It would be an assumption to say that there are no competing draft opinions being circulated. This could quite possibly wind up as the dissenting opinion. Nothing is actually decided. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
13.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Transyferous Rex @13    3 weeks ago

Bingo...............released to light hair on fire......

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
13.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Transyferous Rex @13    3 weeks ago
It would be an assumption to say that there are no competing draft opinions being circulated

None that have been leaked.  Remember this is a left leaning blogger site the published the draft.  They're not going to release anything that goes against the narrative.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
13.2.1  Hallux  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @13.2    3 weeks ago
Remember this is a left leaning blogger site the published the draft.

So many squirrels to chase ... and my peanut costume is at the cleaners, oh well.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
13.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @13.2    3 weeks ago

Politico is not a blog. Is there something wrong with you? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
13.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @13.2.2    3 weeks ago

How much time do you have?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
13.2.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @13.2.2    3 weeks ago
Politico is not a blog.

You keep saying that.  Who are you trying to convince?

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
13.3  afrayedknot  replied to  Transyferous Rex @13    3 weeks ago

“This could quite possibly wind up as the dissenting opinion.”

Possible, but given the make up of the court, it would be a surprise. Roberts will be the key persuader in either upholding precedent or turning it over to the states. It will be a land breaking decision either way. 

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
13.3.1  Transyferous Rex  replied to  afrayedknot @13.3    3 weeks ago
Possible, but given the make up of the court, it would be a surprise. Roberts will be the key persuader in either

Maybe "quite possibly" is too strong. Nevertheless, the opinion, as far as I know, has not been issued. Until that time, this remains a circulated draft opinion. Each of the other justices have an opportunity to write their own, any of which, theoretically, could become the majority opinion. That's the point. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
14  Nerm_L    3 weeks ago

How do we know this purported draft is even real?  It's rather obvious that the 'leak' has been a coordinated political effort.  We do know the press will disseminate disinformation and blatant lies for political purposes.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
14.1  Snuffy  replied to  Nerm_L @14    3 weeks ago
How do we know this purported draft is even real?  It's rather obvious that the 'leak' has been a coordinated political effort.  We do know the press will disseminate disinformation and blatant lies for political purposes.

According to Chief Justice Roberts, the draft is real.

In a brief message, the court acknowledged that the leaked document is indeed real, while noting that it is just a draft and that the court has not issued a final decision on the matter.
 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
14.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Snuffy @14.1    3 weeks ago
According to Chief Justice Roberts, the draft is real.

Thanks!  That's the first confirmation I've seen.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
15  Tessylo    3 weeks ago

278982781_8013748081984343_2387089729193354442_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s600x600&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=A5ObjeTdMF4AX8yLkOD&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT-W8pQxqetAw9MT1mapc1reYF8iSvW5Ca6HSbkRNg8c-g&oe=6276CB1F

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
16  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

While we're in an investigating mood, let's investigate Clarence Thomas and his traitor wife. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
16.1  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @16    3 weeks ago

I believe the proper place for that is the United States Committee on the Judiciary.  So reach out to your House Representative to get that ball moving.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
16.2  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @16    3 weeks ago
"While we're in an investigating mood, let's investigate Clarence Thomas and his traitor wife."

Thank you!  Remember though how some here prefer corruption over ideology.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
17  author  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

Supreme Court  Chief Justice John Roberts  announced  Tuesday that he has called upon the Supreme Court marshal to investigate the leak of a draft opinion in an abortion case before the court.






When they start leaking from the Supreme Court, it makes you wonder if they could even fix an election someday?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
17.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @17    3 weeks ago
"When they start leaking from the Supreme Court, it makes you wonder if they could even fix an election someday?"

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
17.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @17.1    3 weeks ago

The leak will backfire.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
18  author  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

Obamas issue strong statement on leaked Roe v. Wade opinion

FR35A9HXEAAY9J8?format=jpg&name=small


http:// hill.cm/o7eJmtZ


An opinion piece directly from the original great divider. Obama doesn't think it should be left to the people.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
18.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @18    3 weeks ago

The original great divider (great in more ways than one - big fat ways that is) was #45 who waddled out of the White House on 1/20/21 and continues to spread his hate and division.  

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
19  Gsquared    3 weeks ago

The best considered opinion is that the leak came from the Republican side on the Supreme Court in order to lock in the conservative justices' votes.  Alito, as a hard-core reactionary judicial activist, doesn't want any wavering, especially by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, both of whom called Roe v. Wade established judicial precedent in their confirmation hearings. Note also the discussion in Comment 13 above and the comments following it in that thread.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
19.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gsquared @19    3 weeks ago

Justice Alito’s opinion is reasoned & rational. It quotes many liberal critics of "Roe."

As Yale scholar Alexander Bickel put it: "The Court “simply asserted the result it reached.” 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
19.1.1  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.1    2 weeks ago

Alito's opinion is neither reasoned nor rational.  It is dripping with contempt for democracy, precedent and for several Republican appointed justices who preceeded him.  It's as if it was written by Alex Jones.

Alito does cite as an authority a source from England who believed in burning witches.

It's about nothing more than promoting a reactionary agenda in pursuit of pure power politics.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
19.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gsquared @19.1.1    2 weeks ago

You enacted a law with "Roe."  It has now been corrected.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
19.1.3  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.1.2    2 weeks ago

I enacted a law?   What a weird comment.

 
 

Who is online


shona1


27 visitors