Supreme Court leak shows how far liberals will go to achieve their political ends

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  magicschoolbusdropout  •  3 weeks ago  •  128 comments

By:   Joshua Nelson

Supreme Court leak shows how far liberals will go to achieve their political ends
the leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion on abortion shows the depths liberals will go to achieve their political ends.

As "They" say .... "Never let a good crises go to waste" ..... The "Ends" will JUSTIFY "Their Means" !


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



J udicial analyst Carrie Severino said Tuesday the leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion on abortion shows the depths liberals will go to achieve their political ends.

"This is a very small tight network of people who would have had access to this opinion including really just the justices and their clerks. It shows to me the depth to which liberal activists are willing to go and presumably in this case a liberal activist clerk on the court are willing to go to try to achieve their political ends," she said.

The Supreme Court   is poised to strike down Roe v. Wade, according to the unprecedented leak of a draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito. 

The draft leak obtained by   Politico   was written in early February. It was not immediately clear if it has been rewritten or revised. The Court has declined to verify or disavow the document. Analysts have suggested the leak may represent an attempt to pressure a Supreme Court justice to change his or her vote on the pivotal case.

Until an official opinion is signed and released by the Court, Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land. Drafts circulate and change, as do votes.

Severino said that the leaker may have assumed releasing the draft opinion would encourage the court to potentially change direction

."Because drumming up protests and potentially violence like we started to see last night, some of the protests at the court. It’s almost as if there is no American institution they are unwilling to destroy in order to achieve their extreme policy goals."


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
1  seeder  magicschoolbusdropout    3 weeks ago

"Because drumming up protests and potentially violence like we started to see last night, some of the protests at the court. It’s almost as if there is no American institution they are unwilling to destroy in order to achieve their extreme policy goals."

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @1    3 weeks ago

"there is no American institution they are unwilling to destroy in order to achieve their extreme policy goals."

That is so true regarding today's gop/gqp/republicans/alleged conservatives.  

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
1.1.1  seeder  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @1.1.1    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
1.1.3  seeder  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.2    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @1.1.1    3 weeks ago
Read the Article.

There is no evidence about where the leak came from.  Since it was written by a conservative judge, it was probably by one of his conservative aides.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
1.1.5  seeder  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.4    3 weeks ago
Since it was written by a conservative judge, it was probably by one of his conservative aides.

There is no evidence about on that .

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
1.1.6  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.4    3 weeks ago
Since it was written by a conservative judge, it was probably by one of his conservative aides.

It makes no sense that it was leaked by a conservative aide due to the firestorm this brought about (and that could easily be predicted).  As these opinions are shared among all the justices it could come from anywhere and from any justice's office.  There will be an investigation and I do hope they find out who leaked this as that person has IMO broken the trust of the court and should be expelled from working there.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @1.1.5    3 weeks ago

The author of this 'article' has no evidence 'about on that' either yet it's blamed on the 'left'.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.6    3 weeks ago

These alleged conservative justices are the ones who have broken the trust of the court.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
1.1.9  seeder  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.7    3 weeks ago
The author of this 'article' has no evidence 'about on that' either yet it's blamed on the 'left'.

Just another concerned  Alexander Vindman type ?

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
1.1.10  seeder  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.8    3 weeks ago
These alleged conservative justices are the ones who have broken the trust of the court.

How ?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @1.1.10    3 weeks ago

You mean you don't know ?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @1.1.9    3 weeks ago
"The author of this 'article' has no evidence 'about on that' either yet it's blamed on the 'left'."

So no comment on that?

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
1.1.13  seeder  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.11    3 weeks ago
You mean you don't know ?

Do tell !

I like to learn new things.

You do know in order to tell....right ?

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
1.1.14  seeder  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.12    3 weeks ago
So no comment on that?

There was. Did you "Miss it " ?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.15  Ozzwald  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @1.1.5    3 weeks ago

There is no evidence about on that .

There is no evidence it was leaked by a liberal, but you don't seemed concerned with that.  Do you?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.15    3 weeks ago

Obviously not.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
1.1.17  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.4    3 weeks ago
Since it was written by a conservative judge, it was probably by one of his conservative aides.

It might have been.  Perhaps a clerk was worried that Chief Justice Roberts was getting traction persuading Gorsuch or Kavanaugh to vote to uphold Roe and leaked the draft in an attempt to pressure against any defection.  

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
1.1.18  seeder  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.15    3 weeks ago
There is no evidence it was leaked by a liberal, but you don't seemed concerned with that.  Do you?

My concern is that something was leaked from an on going case at our "Supreme" Court.

Who did it, will be what to watch, to see which reporting is correct.

For now, It has the Stench of "Left" all over it, after watching the Allowed doings and goings on by the "Left" for 6 years.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
1.1.19  seeder  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.16    3 weeks ago
Obviously not.

How do you know ?

Did someone "LEAK" it to you ?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @1.1.18    3 weeks ago

So with no proof you and the author of this 'article' blame the left.  What a surprise!

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
1.1.21  seeder  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.20    3 weeks ago
So with no proof you and the author of this 'article' blame the left.

It wasn't hard to come to a "Conclusion" like that. 6 years of watching how the "Left" has operated, helped quite a bit.

Don't you have some "Learning" from "History" yourself ?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
1.1.22  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.4    3 weeks ago
Since it was written by a conservative judge, it was probably by one of his conservative aides.

There's no way to know yet. If it was a draft to be reviewed, it would have been available to every justice, and their clerks. I think each justice has 4 clerks, so that's 45 people, at minimum.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.23  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.22    3 weeks ago
I think each justice has 4 clerks, so that's 45 people, at minimum.

But the judge that wrote it only has 4, and a conservative judge would most likely hire conservative clerks.

Not that it matters since numbers show that Roe v Wade is supported by a majority of republican conservatives as well.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
1.1.24  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.23    3 weeks ago
But the judge that wrote it only has 4, and a conservative judge would most likely hire conservative clerks.

I understand, but they all read these drafts before joining them.

 
 
 
Lucifer Morningstar
Professor Guide
1.1.25  Lucifer Morningstar  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @1.1.5    3 weeks ago

Not only is there no evidence it’s completely nonsensical to think that that would happen. Nutty comments like the one you referred to are  the reason why I can’t stand to be around here for more than a minute or two.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.26  Tessylo  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @1.1.18    3 weeks ago
"For now, It has the Stench of "Left" all over it, after watching the Allowed doings and goings on by the "Left" for 6 years."

What were the 'Allowed doings and goings on by the "Left" for 6 years"?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.27  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.26    3 weeks ago

The left used the Court for 50 years. Now that things don't go their way, they are ready to burn the whole thing down.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.28  Tessylo  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @1.1.21    3 weeks ago
"6 years of watching how the "Left" has operated, helped quite a bit"

How has the "Left" operated?

You say these things with no examples of what you're talking about like in 1.1.8

"For now, It has the Stench of "Left" all over it, after watching the Allowed doings and goings on by the "Left" for 6 years."

Please do provide some examples of the "Allowed doings and goings on by the "Left" for 6 years" and how the "Left" has operated.

The multitudes of readers here are waiting for those examples.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.30  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.27    3 weeks ago

What this whole thing is proving is that the Supreme Court is leaking credibility like the Titanic. 

In theory the best legal minds in the country should be deciding what the meaning of the Constitution is in the 21st century. In reality decisions are predetermined by the justices political ideology. They dont base many decisions on the constitution , they base them on their political affiliation. The truth is for people this smart (enough to be SC justices) , they are capable of arguing both sides of any issue and make it sound in compliance with the constitution. In fact this happens all the time, as many dissenting opinions are considered by legal experts to be as well reasoned and fact based as the majority opinions are. The idea that these justices are god like figures imparting indisputable legal wisdom to the nation is now a forlorn belief. 

Both political parties should agree to a revamping of the Supreme Court that emphasizes the nomination of justices who are political moderates. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
1.1.31  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.30    3 weeks ago

Find one. And your word salad needs some sort of dressing as it falls flat.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.32  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.30    3 weeks ago

You're 50 years too late. You had it your way with activist judges acting as if the Constitution were a granter of wishes. Now we have a Court that is dedicated to the Constitution.  You can't burn it all down now. You told us how sacred the Court was for far too long.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.33  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.32    3 weeks ago

And you're living about 50 years in the past, a past that didn't exist

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.34  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.33    3 weeks ago

How so?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.35  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.32    3 weeks ago

The Supreme Court is losing credibility, fast. They should consider this a crisis and not time for business as usual. The media is openly speculating that Roberts may have been trying to convince justices to alter their positions on abortion  for what amounts to political reasons. If the Chief justice will use politics as a persuader then the Court is not what we have believed it is, a neutral arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution. Its over , as presently constituted. The Court needs to be reformed. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.36  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.35    3 weeks ago
The Supreme Court is losing credibility, fast.

You mean among the woke?


 The media is openly speculating that Roberts may have been trying to convince justices to alter their positions on abortion  for what amounts to political reasons. 

Is that what the far left media is saying?  Where is the evidence of that? After all we have one party rule and last time I looked those who favored abortion slightly outnumbered those who didn't. Wouldn't it involve the serious problem with the "Roe" decision itself? Why not read the leaked Alito opinion?  That opinion deals with the constitutional issues that the Court ignored in Roe and dodged in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.



The Court needs to be reformed. 

Says the radical left....along with the Constitution!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.37  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.36    3 weeks ago

Vic, in 1973 the Supreme Court ruled that abortion is constitutional.  Has the constitution changed in the last 50 years? 

Any revisiting of Roe is immediately suspect in terms of politics. There is only one group in the country that is solidly anti-abortion, the conservative Christians. They have spent years working to get a Supreme Court that would overturn Roe. 

Knowing all this, and it is indisputable, how can this new decision be called a measured and politically neutral constitutional decision? It is obviously political. This set of right wing judges wouldnt even be on the Court if not for politics. 

On what basis is the present day court more correct about abortion than the one in 1973?  There is none. It is all opinion. That is because the Constitution itself doesnt even acknowledge women whatsoever, let alone women's rights to control their bodies. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.38  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.24    3 weeks ago
I understand, but they all read these drafts before joining them.

Understood.  But would a 1st draft be disseminated?  Would he want his colleagues to see all the mistakes and misspellings?  I would think that the 1st draft would be internal to the author, so he can review and fix any glaring mistakes before releasing the 2nd draft.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.39  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.37    3 weeks ago
Vic, in 1973 the Supreme Court ruled that abortion is constitutional.

John, in 1857 the Supreme Court ruled that a slave named Dred Scott, who had resided in a free state and territory was not thereby entitled to his freedom.  THEY WERE WRONG!


Has the constitution changed in the last 50 years? 

It has never changed. The Roe decision could never be credibly explained. They basically pulled it out of their ass.


Any revisiting of Roe is immediately suspect in terms of politics. There is only one group in the country that is solidly anti-abortion, the conservative Christians. They have spent years working to get a Supreme Court that would overturn Roe. 

That is wrong on many counts starting with naming the leading group against it as Conservative Christians. The primary group against Roe are those who question it's Constitutionality and that group contains many on the left like RBG and many others. Should I list them?:

  • One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” (Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School professor).
  • “As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose” (Edward Lazarus, former clerk to SCOTUS Justice Harry Blackmun).
  • What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent—at least, it does not if those sources are fairly described and reasonably faithfully followed” (Edward Lazarus).
  • “[A]s a matter of constitutional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes — if you administer truth serum—will tell you it is basically indefensible” (Edward Lazarus).
  • “Blackmun’s [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference” (William SaletanSlate magazine writer).
  • Roe “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be…. What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-à-vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it.… At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking” (John Hart Ely, clerk for Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren).
  • Roe “is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply.” (Benjamin Wittes, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution).
  • “[T]he very basis of the Roe v. Wade decision—the one that grounds abortion rights in the Constitution—strikes many people now as faintly ridiculous. Whatever abortion may be, it cannot simply be a matter of privacy…. As a layman, it’s hard for me to raise profound constitutional objections to the decision. But it is not hard to say it confounds our common-sense understanding of what privacy is. If a Supreme Court ruling is going to affect so many people then it ought to rest on perfectly clear logic and up-to-date science. Roe, with its reliance on trimesters and viability, has a musty feel to it, and its argument about privacy raises more questions than it answers…. “[Roe] is a Supreme Court decision whose reasoning has not held up. It seems more fiat than argument…. Still, a bad decision is a bad decision. If the best we can say for it is that the end justifies the means, then we have not only lost the argument—but a bit of our soul as well” (Richard CohenWashington Post columnist).
  • “Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy) …. [C]lear governing constitutional principles… are not present” (Alan Dershowitz, former Harvard Law School professor).
  • “In short, 30 years later, it seems increasingly clear that this pro-choice magazine was correct in 1973 when it criticized Roe on constitutional grounds. Its overturning would be the best thing that could happen to the federal judiciary, the pro-choice movement, and the moderate majority of the American people…. Thirty years after Roe, the finest constitutional minds in the country still have not been able to produce a constitutional justification for striking down restrictions on early-term abortions that is substantially more convincing than Justice Harry Blackmun’s famously artless opinion itself. As a result, the pro-choice majority asks nominees to swear allegiance to the decision without being able to identify an intelligible principle to support it” (Jeffrey Rosen, George Washington University Law School professor, former clerk to Judge Abner Mikva).
  • “Liberal judicial activism peaked with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 abortion decision…. Although I am pro-choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching” (Michael Kinsley, attorney, political journalist).
  • “[I]t is time to admit in public that, as an example of the practice of constitutional opinion writing, Roe is a serious disappointment. You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result. This is not surprising. As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether. It supported that right via a lengthy, but purposeless, cross-cultural historical review of abortion restrictions and a tidy but irrelevant refutation of the straw-man argument that a fetus is a constitutional ‘person’ entited [sic] to the protection of the 14th Amendment…. By declaring an inviolable fundamental right to abortion, Roe short-circuited the democratic deliberation that is the most reliable method of deciding questions of competing values” (Kermit Roosevelt, University of Pennsylvania Law School professor).
  • “The failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations…. Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution” (Archibald Cox, JFK’s Solicitor General, former Harvard Law School professor).

    illinoisfamily.org/life/what-truth-telling-liberals-say-about-roe-v-wade-2/




 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.40  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.39    3 weeks ago

Why do people need a "right" to have an abortion? Or, what is the basis for telling women that they dont have that right?  Roe v Wade was decided because a) abortion is as old as the hills , and cannot be prevented, and b) women were suffering because of the social and medical ramifications of illegal abortion. 

Nothing on earth can prevent abortion, simply because many women see nothing wrong with it. And they see themselves as needing to do it. Its not the same as "murder" , where almost all people believe murder to be wrong. Abortion is much much more in dispute. ABC has a new poll showing that 70% of Americans believe abortion to be a matter decided by a woman and her doctor. On what basis is the Supreme Court going to tell this 70% they are wrong?  Government, including state governments and the Supreme Court, has no business even commenting on abortion, let alone banning it. 

-

Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

a half-century is a long time. America is a different place, with most of its population born after Roe was decided. And a decision to overturn Roe -- which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito -- would do more to replicate Roe's damage than to reverse it.

It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.

What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it -- especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus.

This is partly a matter of stare decisis, but not just that. As conservatives, you are philosophically bound to give considerable weight to judicial precedents, particularly when they have been ratified and refined -- as Roe was by the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision -- over a long period. The fact that Casey somewhat altered the original scheme of Roe, a point Justice Alito makes much of in his draft opinion, doesn't change the fact that the court broadly upheld the right to an abortion. "Casey is precedent on precedent," as Justice Kavanaugh aptly put it in his confirmation hearing.

It's also a matter of originalism. "To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts," Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78, "it is indispensable that they" -- the judges -- "should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them." Hamilton understood then what many of today's originalists ignore, which is that the core purpose of the courts isn't to engage in (unavoidably selective) textual exegetics to arrive at preferred conclusions. It's to avoid an arbitrary discretion -- to resist the temptation to seek to reshape the entire moral landscape of a vast society based on the preferences of two or three people at a single moment.

Just what does the court suppose will happen if it votes to overturn Roe? Ending legalized abortions nationwide would not happen, so pro-lifers would have little to cheer in terms of the total number of unterminated pregnancies, which has declined steadily, for a host of reasons, with Roe and Casey still the law of the land.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
1.1.41  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.40    3 weeks ago
Why do people need a "right" to have an abortion?

I think that’s a fair question. By the 9th Amendment they shouldn’t need to have the right specifically enumerated. But rather than just say that, they made it a privacy issue, which I have always found to be a weak legal ground for abortion specifically. 

Not that I have a problem with privacy being in the Constitution. I don’t. But logically, abortion and privacy are not connected. No one objects to abortion because you keep it private. They’re concerned about - as the Court put it - the potentiality of human life. It doesn’t have anything to do with privacy.

Or, what is the basis for telling women that they dont have that right?

In Roe, the Court acknowledged that the state had an interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. It made this declaration with little in the way of legal support or persuasive argument. I’m oversimplifying, but the state basically claimed the interest and the Court accepted it. Then they weighed the competing interests.

I think it’s fair to inquire if the state legitimately has such an interest. After all, the Court also decided that - for purposes of the 14th Amendment - an embryo or fetus is not a person. Therefore, what produces the state interest?

All of this hints at what a poorly reasoned holding the Roe opinion was. That’s not to say that legal abortion is right or wrong. It has just never been a strong holding as it was written.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
1.1.42  gooseisback  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.40    3 weeks ago
Nothing on earth can prevent abortion, simply because many women see nothing wrong with it.

Did you ever think, that is one of the major problems with our society? 

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
1.1.43  afrayedknot  replied to  gooseisback @1.1.42    3 weeks ago
Nothing on earth can prevent abortion, simply because many women see nothing wrong with it.

“Did you ever think, that is one of the major problems with our society?”

Are you equating the ‘major’ societal woes we face with a woman’s right to self determination in how she conducts her life?

Guessing you have no daughters, or are diligent in grooming them according to whatever warped doctrine to which you ascribe. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.44  Ronin2  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.17    3 weeks ago

Which makes no damn sense; since the firestorm this unleashed is aimed only at the conservative judges. If Roberts was getting traction persuading one or two of the other judges; having their families threatened and protestors/rioters at their doors might just push them right into his arms, and Roe v Wade gets upheld.

A conservative clerk would have to be a real dumbass to release it. Even more so if one of the leftist lunatics decides to kill one (or more) of the conservative judges.

Pretty sure the wicked bitch of the west Nancy Pelosi has a damn good idea who the leaker is; as well a few other key Democrats. They were quick on the gun on this; and knew well before the Politico article was published. A conservative leaker also wouldn't run to the Democrats and Politico.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.45  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.40    3 weeks ago
Why do people need a "right" to have an abortion? Or, what is the basis for telling women that they dont have that right?  Roe v Wade was decided because a) abortion is as old as the hills , and cannot be prevented, and b) women were suffering because of the social and medical ramifications of illegal abortion. 

So you admit that it had nothing to do with the Constitution. It also sounds like you think that if things seem right & just they should be legal. You keep forgetting that there are others who also feel they have the moral high ground on this.


Nothing on earth can prevent abortion, simply because many women see nothing wrong with it. And they see themselves as needing to do it. Its not the same as "murder" , where almost all people believe murder to be wrong. Abortion is much much more in dispute.

And many of the people who are pro-life are women. We won't get anywhere arguing who is more moral or comparing polls. I'm only interested in what is in the Constitution. You know, that great document that you seem to think is outdated.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2  Texan1211    3 weeks ago

I fully expect the shrill cries for court-packing to start at any moment now.

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
2.1  squiggy  replied to  Texan1211 @2    3 weeks ago

One for each state and one from DC for the breaker.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.2  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @2    3 weeks ago

Do you expect the majority to have its will thwarted?

What stopped adding justices was the will of voters.

Which will change with a highly unpopular decision!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.2    3 weeks ago
Do you expect the majority to have its will thwarted?

I expect enough Americans to have the common sense to know that SCOTUS isn't responsible to the majority in its decisions.

I hope I am right that enough thinking people know what the difference is between court ruling and legislation.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.2.2  Ozzwald  replied to  JBB @2.2    3 weeks ago
Do you expect the majority to have its will thwarted?

They do.  Just look at the last few elections where conservatives won the Presidency.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.2    3 weeks ago

I don't know why anyone calls these fucking hypocrites conservatives anymore.  They're anything but conservative.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.2    3 weeks ago

Are you referring to Republican presidents who won the electoral college in accordance to law, or are you imagining something else?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.3    3 weeks ago

Labels seem important to you, perhaps that is something you should discuss with your fellow Democrats.

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
2.2.6  squiggy  replied to  JBB @2.2    3 weeks ago

“Do you expect the majority to have its will thwarted?”

The Constitution has nothing to to with majority will - it’s about morality and it keeps the majority of wolves from voting sheep for dinner.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
2.2.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.3    3 weeks ago

Do you even know what that word means??? Seems not.

"a person who is averse to change and holds traditional values." "a person favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas."

Now, you were saying..................

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.7    3 weeks ago
"I don't know why anyone calls these fucking hypocrites conservatives anymore.  They're anything but conservative."
Anyone can quote the goddamned dictionary but I see no evidence of that with these fucking hypocrites.  
Now, you were saying ............
 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
2.2.9  afrayedknot  replied to  squiggy @2.2.6    3 weeks ago

“…it’s about morality…”

And based upon just whose morality? The majority? The Right? The Left? 

The misfortune lies in not codifying Roe. Afraid we are looking at a future map of states showing those allowing choice vs. those that do not. A map that will change as the political winds blow. 

Bottom line, an egregious step back for Women’s rights everywhere. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
2.2.10  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.8    3 weeks ago

You can actually look at those two definitions and NOT see they are exactly that? You and yours are always claiming that the GOP is regressive meaning they want to maintain the way things are/were and not liberal/progressive enough and you can type that with a straight face. [ deleted ]

Now you were saying............again?

Almost forgot..............

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
2.2.11  Greg Jones  replied to  afrayedknot @2.2.9    3 weeks ago
"Bottom line, an egregious step back for Women’s rights everywhere"
How so? Women can still get abortions. The slaughter needs to stop.
Some commonsense restrictions on the procedure are necessary

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.12  Tessylo  impassed  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.10    3 weeks ago
✋🏼
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.13  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.11    3 weeks ago
"Some commonsense restrictions on the procedure are necessary"

Those are already in place.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.2.14  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.4    3 weeks ago
Are you referring to Republican presidents who won the electoral college in accordance to law

Yes.  They won in accordance to law, DESPITE not winning the majority of votes.  And despite your overwhelm desire to side track, what we are talking about is the majority having their will thwarted.

There you go, I outlined what this conversation is about, since you refuse to read it before butting in.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.15  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.14    3 weeks ago
Yes.  They won in accordance to law,

Glad to see you admit it. That is precisely what I claimed.

And despite your overwhelm desire to side track,

Forgive me for responding directly to YOUR side track comment in 2.2.2. I should know better than attempt to discuss what YOU bring up.

There you go, I outlined what this conversation is about, since you refuse to read it before butting in.

Thank you for yet another example of you erroneously assuming facts not in evidence.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.2.16  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.15    3 weeks ago
There you go, I outlined what this conversation is about, since you refuse to read it before butting in.
Thank you for yet another example of you erroneously assuming facts not in evidence.

Really?  Okay then, let's have you prove it.  

This conversation thread started with me addressing a comment by JBB.  My response was to 1 particular statement by JBB, which I specifically quoted in my response.

What was the specific statement by JBB that I addressed?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.17  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.16    3 weeks ago
Really?  Okay then, let's have you prove it.  

The proof is before you, but I can't understand it for you.

Your loss, not mine.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.2.18  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.17    3 weeks ago
The proof is before you, but I can't understand it for you.

Thank you for providing the evidence that you DO NOT read the threads before butting in.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.19  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.18    3 weeks ago

I am sorry you can't tell what I am talking about when I respond directly to what you wrote.

Seems to me you should at least try to follow the conversation.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.2.20  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.19    3 weeks ago
I am sorry you can't tell what I am talking about when I respond directly to what you wrote.

I can when you do, but you do it so rarely that is is barely a statistical blip.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.21  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.20    3 weeks ago
I can when you do, but you do it so rarely that is is barely a statistical blip.

Here is a helpful hint for you:

When I reply to you, I usually QUOTE your own words that I am replying TO.

At least that way other readers know what I am talking about even if it escapes your understanding.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.2.22  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.21    3 weeks ago
When I reply to you, I usually QUOTE your own words that I am replying TO.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

You can copy and paste.  Too bad you replies to my quotes don't have anything to do with them.  The best you usually did is quote partial sentences.  Don't believe me?  Scroll up... 

If you can't find any partial sentence to respond to, you just leave it blank and start talking out of the opposite end of your body.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.23  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.22    3 weeks ago

I quote partial sentences because I find the whole sentences much too tedious.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
2.2.24  afrayedknot  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.23    3 weeks ago

“I quote partial sentences because I find the whole sentences much too tedious.”

And on a larger scale, substitute ‘fact’ for ‘sentences’ and the entire charade becomes glaringly apparent.

Too tedious describes it perfectly. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.25  Texan1211  replied to  afrayedknot @2.2.24    3 weeks ago

yawn.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3  Jeremy Retired in NC    3 weeks ago
Until an official opinion is signed and released by the Court, Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land.

But as we already see, that's not going to stop the harpies from shrieking.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
3.1  seeder  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3    3 weeks ago
that's not going to stop the harpies from shrieking.

Nope !

They're even claiming that this is the actual Final Ruling right now, instead of one "Opinion" !

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.1  JBB  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @3.1    3 weeks ago

The opinion already has five, maybe six, votes...

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @3.1    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
3.1.3  seeder  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  JBB @3.1.1    3 weeks ago
The opinion already has five, maybe six, votes...

Maybe ..... just maybe ........ That isn't a true statement. 

MAYBE ?

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
3.1.4  seeder  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.2    3 weeks ago
Nobody ever claimed they were smart. 

True.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.5  JBB  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @3.1.3    3 weeks ago

Highly unlikely considering the decision is writ!

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
3.1.6  seeder  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  JBB @3.1.5    3 weeks ago
Highly unlikely considering the decision is writ!

"Decision" ?....or "Draft Opinion" !

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.7  JBB  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @3.1.6    3 weeks ago

A draft opinion that already has votes to pass.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
3.1.8  seeder  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  JBB @3.1.7    3 weeks ago
A draft opinion that already has votes to pass.

Who else on the "Supreme Court" has publicly weighed in on this "Draft Opinion" ?

Maybe that "Leaker" can LEAK that too !

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.9  JBB  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @3.1.3    3 weeks ago

Chief Justice John Roberts alreay confirmed that the 98 page leak is an authentic opinion authorized by a majority of the SC Justices...

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
3.1.10  seeder  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  JBB @3.1.9    3 weeks ago
Chief Justice John Roberts alreay confirmed that the 98 page leak is an authentic opinion authorized by a majority of the SC Justices...

His "Actual" words....not made up words:

SCOTUSblog on Twitter: "JUST IN: The Supreme Court confirms the authenticity of the draft opinion revealed last night by Politico. The chief justice has ordered an investigation into the leak. https://t.co/XZweHdyhCG" / Twitter

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
3.1.11  Jack_TX  replied to  JBB @3.1.9    3 weeks ago
Chief Justice John Roberts alreay confirmed that the 98 page leak is an authentic opinion

Yes.

authorized by a majority of the SC Justices...

No.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
3.1.12  seeder  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.11    3 weeks ago

Time to notify Mary Poppins on this disinformation of "authorized by the Majority of the SC Justices" !

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

America has done a lot of things under the banner of "the ends justify the means" . 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
4.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @4    3 weeks ago

This isn't one of them.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5  JBB    3 weeks ago

Liberals will get to the polls to preserve our rights...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @5    3 weeks ago
Liberals will get to the polls to preserve our rights...

And how will votes in November preserve rights?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.1  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1    3 weeks ago

Look it up...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @5.1.1    3 weeks ago

So the usual nonresponsive answer.

Thanks!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.3  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.2    3 weeks ago

original

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @5.1.3    3 weeks ago

Comical memes to hide your failure to answer just won't cut it anymore.

Own up to your failures, and try to improve!

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6  Tacos!    3 weeks ago

Some clerk has just shot their own career in the heart.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1  JBB  replied to  Tacos! @6    3 weeks ago

What if a life term justice leaked the decision?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @6.1    3 weeks ago

What if a life term justice leaked the decision?

They should be impeached. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.1.2  Tacos!  replied to  JBB @6.1    3 weeks ago

That seems very unlikely. What would the justice gain versus the loss of trust from the rest of the Court, not to mention possible impeachment? 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
6.2  Snuffy  replied to  Tacos! @6    3 weeks ago

Only if found out.  Will there be a full investigation or will it be ignored due to partisan bias?  More likely IMO will be the breach of trust that the justices will have for their fellow justices and staff.  The impact of that could be huge.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  Snuffy @6.2    3 weeks ago
Will there be a full investigation or will it be ignored due to partisan bias?

The Chief Justice has already ordered an investigation. I don't know how partisan bias would play into that.

More likely IMO will be the breach of trust that the justices will have for their fellow justices and staff.

My strong initial feeling about this is that it has to be a clerk - and one working without the knowledge of any justices. There's just no sense in a justice doing this. Admittedly, there's not much sense in anyone doing this, but a young clerk is more likely to do something stupid like this.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
6.2.2  Snuffy  replied to  Tacos! @6.2.1    3 weeks ago
I don't know how partisan bias would play into that.

That IMO would come under the bias of the Marshal of the Court.  Everybody has their political bias as well as pre-existing ideas over abortion.  I hope for a full and honest investigation but don't know the Marshal so cannot really comment on the potential for bias to color the results.  Because of the nature of the leaked opinion, that would be an issue regardless of who did the investigation.  We can only hope...

As for who leaked it, I agree.  It was most likely a clerk or another permanent employee of a Justice.  I hope they can accept that they very likely have thrown away any legal career they might have envisioned. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Snuffy @6.2.2    3 weeks ago
I hope they can accept that they very likely have thrown away any legal career they might have envisioned. 

Heck, chances are they won't hurt their career with this stunt. They stand a good chance at getting hired by some university as a teacher or something, we have seen what kinds of people some of these schools are willing to hire.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
6.2.4  Snuffy  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.3    3 weeks ago

Maybe, maybe not.  I believe that most colleges would require at a minimum some years actually practicing the law in order to teach the law.  Now they could get hired for something other than a law professor.  And I agree that there will be more than enough who would celebrate the person for what they did and wish to reward them if possible.  We'll just have to wait to see what happens.

 
 
 
TOM PA
Freshman Silent
6.3  TOM PA  replied to  Tacos! @6    3 weeks ago

Clerk?  Why not one of the other justices?  Or maybe a janitor looking to make a few hundred dollars.  

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
6.3.1  Sunshine  replied to  TOM PA @6.3    3 weeks ago
Clerk? 

Whoever it was fcked over their co-workers.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.3.2  Tacos!  replied to  TOM PA @6.3    3 weeks ago
Or maybe a janitor

yeah, ok

 
 
 
TOM PA
Freshman Silent
6.3.3  TOM PA  replied to  Tacos! @6.3.2    3 weeks ago

 Access, means, motive?  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.3.4  Tacos!  replied to  TOM PA @6.3.3    3 weeks ago

No justice could advance their career doing this. Neither would a janitor. But a clerk could turn it into something lucrative in politics or journalism. Normally, a SCOTUS clerk would be looking to advance their career in the judiciary or politics. This would then need to be someone who has decided a career in the judiciary is no longer for them. However, they could potentially end up at a firm sympathetic to whatever their reasons were for leaking the document, running for office on the same grounds, or with a lobbying firm, or maybe a TV gig.

 
 
 
TOM PA
Freshman Silent
6.3.5  TOM PA  replied to  Tacos! @6.3.4    3 weeks ago

By your logic General Benedict Arnold and Major John Andre' can't be traitors.  Janitor?  As I pointed out, "access, means, motive".  Add to the list a secretary (a few extra copies).  Losing a "right" might be important to him/her.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.3.6  Tacos!  replied to  TOM PA @6.3.5    3 weeks ago
By your logic General Benedict Arnold and Major John Andre' can't be traitors.

Uh . . . No.

As I pointed out, "access, means, motive".

You actually haven’t pointed out anything. Just repeating “access, means, motive” is not an argument.

 
 
 
TOM PA
Freshman Silent
6.3.7  TOM PA  replied to  Tacos! @6.3.6    3 weeks ago

Access- who cleans their chambers/offices?  Means- just stuff it in their pants/lunch box/whatever.  Motive- anything from money to retribution for a perceived slight.  

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7  Hallux    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
7.1  seeder  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Hallux @7    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
8  Gsquared    3 weeks ago

There is no proof that the leak came from the liberal side.  It is more likely that the leak came from the Republican side on order to lock in the conservative votes on the Supreme Court.  A hard-core reactionary judicial activist like Alito doesn't want any wavering by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, who called Roe v. Wade eatablished precedent in their confirmation hearings.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
8.1  Hallux  replied to  Gsquared @8    3 weeks ago

Even simple math points to someone on the Republican side.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @8.1    3 weeks ago

Ahhh, but in a leak case its always about who benefits.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
8.1.2  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.1    3 weeks ago

Who benefits ... Roberts? I doubt he wanted to be painted with this ruling. Then of course there is the idiot Ginni Thomas who has proven herself quite capable at being stupidly nefarious. I'm avoiding the cleaning staff because they eventually get blamed for everything. In the end neither of us knows and stupid knee jerk articles such as this one pointing fingers reek of 'if we did it blame the other side' cover up.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @8.1.2    3 weeks ago

I always like to focus on the obvious first. The leaker is probably someone who opposes the majority view and wants to bring pressure on the Court to turn one of the Justices and uphold a constitutional right to abortion. That's clear to anyone with an open mind. There is a chance we will find out who it was.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
8.1.4  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.3    3 weeks ago
I always like to focus on the obvious first

Not the brightest of moves in the web of partisan politics and you are all tangled up in it. BTW, 'obvious' and 'probable' make for an uncertain marriage.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @8.1.4    3 weeks ago
Not the brightest of moves

I beg to differ. All the recent leaks have come from the same direction. All have been obvious.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
8.1.6  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.5    3 weeks ago

You hold on to that Vic, I'm moving on to Perrie's far more interesting article.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
8.1.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Hallux @8.1.2    3 weeks ago
Who benefits ... Roberts?

Nice try.  Now apply some common sense and you'll see who benefits.

  • Democrats are bracing to have their asses handed to them in the midterms.
  • A conservative Justice writes a draft on his opposition stance on Roe v. Wade in February causing an uproar over something that isn't even official.
  • This draft is leaked to a blogger site favorited by the liberal left.
  • The blogger site, sits on the draft until a few months before mid-terms, possibly in the hopes of forcing the SCOTUS into backing that draft.
  • The Democrats use it as leverage to gain more voters in the hopes that the voters will overlook the Democrats abysmal record.

So who hopes to benefit?  Democrats.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
8.1.8  Hallux  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @8.1.7    3 weeks ago
  • Democrats are bracing to have their asses handed to them in the midterms.
  • A conservative Justice writes a draft on his opposition stance on Roe v. Wade in February causing an uproar over something that isn't even official.
  • This draft is leaked to a blogger site favorited by the liberal left.
  • The blogger site, sits on the draft until a few months before mid-terms, possibly in the hopes of forcing the SCOTUS into backing that draft.
  • The Democrats use it as leverage to gain more voters in the hopes that the voters will overlook the Democrats abysmal record.

#1 is likely true.

#2 is partially true.

#3 is where I would have leaked it to were I a conservative looking to see how it washed so as to rejig the final ruling.

#4 is pure conjecture, considering the average attention span of most americans the payout would have been far greater if they waited.

#5 is an after the fact no brainer.

What do you have against blogger sites, just about everyone left or right has one? Even Carrie Severino has one.

And of course Dems hope to benefit, it would be political malfeasance not to.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
8.1.9  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Hallux @8.1.8    3 weeks ago
#2 is partially true.

What's "partially true" about it?  What's being discussed is a draft.  Not the final signed document.

#3 is where I would have leaked it to were I a conservative looking to see how it washed so as to rejig the final ruling.

Given the that it's as trustworthy as John Gacy at a kids party, I wouldn't have sent it to them.  But then again, I have the integrity to properly do my job.

#4 is pure conjecture, considering the average attention span of most americans the payout would have been far greater if they waited.

Everything I laid out is conjecture.  As I see it, the ONLY ones that have anything to gain from this are the Democrats.  And that's still a stretch.

What do you have against blogger sites, just about everyone left or right has one? Even Carrie Severino has one.

Don't have time for that kind of bullshit.  ALL the mass media have proven themselves to be unreliable getting factual news out there. 

 
 
 
Lucifer Morningstar
Professor Guide
8.1.10  Lucifer Morningstar  replied to  Hallux @8.1    3 weeks ago

Well that’s 100% incorrect we already know it was preplanned and orchestrated by the left so didn’t even try to sell that nonsense to those of us with superior intellect.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1.11  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @8.1.6    3 weeks ago

Lucky her.

 
 

Who is online

Trout Giggles
Sparty On
Texan1211
igknorantzrulz
JBB
Sean Treacy
Wishful_thinkin
Drinker of the Wry
Ozzwald


32 visitors