BREAKING: SCOTUS to overturn Roe?

[Tiberius]

21 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’m curious what people think should happen to the two ‘journalists’ who broke this story. I’ve got to assume they are somehow connected to the legal world and may even be lawyers themselves. Should they have not understood the serious breach of trust that this leak represents and told the leaker to shred the document? 

Ya, let's punish people for printing something 

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

11 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Ya, let's punish people for printing something 

 

 

So you don’t believe in integrity?

[Tiberius]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

So you don’t believe in integrity?

You supported Trump, right? 

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, Tiberius said:

You supported Trump, right? 

And down the rabbit hole we go.

 

[dpberr]

Leaking a preliminary SCOTUS opinion is another piece of evidence that America is in a troubling decline.  I didn't think someone working for the Court would do that.  

[All_Pro_Bills]

48 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Ya, let's punish people for printing something 

 

 

All these law clerks and assistants working for the justices are lawyers.  The job requirements bound them to a standard of ethics and duty to the court and their profession.  One of which is adhering to the rules of order defining the process of legal deliberations between the justices.  Another is the process that law clerks do not publish or announce or reveal court rulings.  A breach of trust and ethics and a violation of the rules of conduct between the Supreme Court justices and that individual may not result in legal action but will most certainly result in disbarment and firing.

 

As for punishing people, how about Julian Assange?  He just printed something too.  But lots of people on the left that love Hillary and blame Assange for her loss in 2016 along with other government operatives that got exposed and embarrassed by that act of "printing something" have the desire to lock him up.  

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by All_Pro_Bills

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 hours ago, ALF said:

If it is overturned would mean abortion likely made illegal in Republican States , stay legal in Democrat States.

 

When SC nominees were questioned by the Senate , the ones that said Roe/Wade is now set as precedent will be highly criticized. 

The SC nominee issue is a fair point, but I'm not at all certain about "illegal in Republican states".  I think the question will ultimately boil down to a reasonable determination when the right to choose ends at some point prior to birth, with appropriate consideration for sexual assault, ***** and concerns for health of the individual.   

 

4 hours ago, ALF said:

 

Personally I'm pro life by religious belief , but I don't impose my beliefs on others. It will may now be a States right issue if overturned. It will make a partisan country even more partisan.

I think I understand what you're trying to say, but this sure sounds like you're Pro Choice.  I see a number of folks trying to thread this needle where religion is concerned and I really don't understand why.  As for the partisan nature of the country, it is what it is.  I think that whole notion is oversold to begin with.  Most politically minded folks seem to define partisanship as "We'll get along great once you square up to my way of thinking."  Abortion has been a hot button, divisive issue forever, and I'm in the camp of suggesting that if it was bad law, it was bad law.  

 

 

 

[aristocrat]

Suddenly we know what a woman is. Shocking 

[Big Blitz]

1 hour ago, 716er said:

 

Fat chance of that happening. Was SD included in the 2 states you left off?

 

 

 

 

Yes actually it was.   

 

And Mississippi 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

16 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

The SC nominee issue is a fair point, but I'm not at all certain about "illegal in Republican states".  I think the question will ultimately boil down to a reasonable determination when the right to choose ends at some point prior to birth, with appropriate consideration for sexual assault, ***** and concerns for health of the individual.   

 

I think I understand what you're trying to say, but this sure sounds like you're Pro Choice.  I see a number of folks trying to thread this needle where religion is concerned and I really don't understand why.  As for the partisan nature of the country, it is what it is.  I think that whole notion is oversold to begin with.  Most politically minded folks seem to define partisanship as "We'll get along great once you square up to my way of thinking."  Abortion has been a hot button, divisive issue forever, and I'm in the camp of suggesting that if it was bad law, it was bad law.  

 

 

 

it's a complicated issue. The politicians agenda to boil it down to us vs them is a lot of the problem here. 
 

The spectrum is wide ranging from “any form of intercourse not intended for procreation is immoral”  to “pro full term abortion.” 
 

that aside, it’s entirely feasible as a nation of majority moderate people we could probably get most to agree it’s a terrible process, but there are circumstances where it may be a better outcome for humanity. 
 

just remember these same politicians lecturing you about the sanctity of life have no compunction about sending your 18 year old kid off to die, and these same people saying you should have a right to choose what you do with your body were trying to mandate vaccines with 14 month old technology. 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

10 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

it's a complicated issue. The politicians agenda to boil it down to us vs them is a lot of the problem here. 
 

The spectrum is wide ranging from “any form of intercourse not intended for procreation is immoral”  to “pro full term abortion.” 
 

that aside, it’s entirely feasible as a nation of majority moderate people we could probably get most to agree it’s a terrible process, but there are circumstances where it may be a better outcome for humanity. 
 

just remember these same politicians lecturing you about the sanctity of life have no compunction about sending your 18 year old kid off to die, and these same people saying you should have a right to choose what you do with your body were trying to mandate vaccines with 14 month old technology. 

That's the point exactly--big picture, it's an incredibly complicated and nuanced discussion that the poli's break down to us v them.  

 

My point with @ALF is that politically speaking, being pro life for one's self but everyone else should be free to decide on their own is a Pro Choice position.  I'm not demonizing him, and respect his point of view, I just don't understand the emotional gymnastics in play.  

 

Your point on the autonomy is spot on.  There is precious little reality to "My body, my rules" when considering laws, rules, and regulations in the country.  Better stated, it goes "My body, my rules so long as I conform with the rules the state and federal government has set in place.".  

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

And down the rabbit hole we go.

 

That's what you get when you support animals like that. You can't un-ring that bell 

16 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

Ya, just like they should kick back voting rights, huh? 

 

Jim Crow was constitutional, right? 

[SoCal Deek]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

That's what you get when you support animals like that. You can't un-ring that bell 

Ya, just like they should kick back voting rights, huh? 

 

Jim Crow was constitutional, right? 

Kind of waste deep in the hysteria this morning….no? 

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, dpberr said:

Leaking a preliminary SCOTUS opinion is another piece of evidence that America is in a troubling decline.  I didn't think someone working for the Court would do that.  

Decline? From what? Jim Crow, Vietnam and Watergate? 

[716er]

11 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

That's the point exactly--big picture, it's an incredibly complicated and nuanced discussion that the poli's break down to us v them.  

 

Claims it is a complicated and nuanced discussion then likes BMANs tweet where a poli breaks down to us v them

 

24 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

Twitter sucks - example #7824

[Doc]

50 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

They know what they're doing.  Conflate and hope people don't see through it.

 

What I hope happens is Alito denies that that is his opinion.  And then see where it goes.

[BillsFanNC]

33 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Kind of waste deep in the hysteria this morning….no? 

 

Not sure how you can tell the difference from any other day?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

29 minutes ago, 716er said:

 

Claims it is a complicated and nuanced discussion then likes BMANs tweet where a poli breaks down to us v them

 

I'm happy to correct the record if I "liked" a politician using us v them posted by any member of the PPP family.   Please, show me where that happened.  

 

It's a complicated and nuanced discussion.  We agree there?  

[SoCal Deek]

4 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

Not sure how you can tell the difference from any other day?

I never said it was any different. 😉

[TH3]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

lets kick back same sex marriage, interracial marriage, racial issues, environmental legilsation, health and safety, edcational standards back to the states too!

[All_Pro_Bills]

 

SCOTUS has stated: Yesterday, a news organization published a copy of a draft opinion in a pending case. Justices circulate draft opinions internally as a routine and essential part of the Court’s confidential deliberative work. Although the document described in yesterday’s reports is authentic, it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.

 

Chief Justice John G. Roberts. Jr., provided the following statement:

 

To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. The work of the Court will not be affected in any way.

 

We at the Court are blessed to have a workforce - permanent employees and law clerks alike - intensely loyal to the institution and dedicated to the rule of law. Court employees have an exemplary and important tradition of respecting the confidentiality of the judicial process and upholding the trust of the Court. This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here. I have directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak.

[ALF]

Even if abortion is highly restricted in some states it will be less restricted in other states. I would think pro choice would come up with funding for those to travel for the procedure. The more restrictive will have them consider birth control as the option. It's not as if abortion would become illegal in the entire US.

[SoCal Deek]

8 minutes ago, TH3 said:

lets kick back same sex marriage, interracial marriage, racial issues, environmental legilsation, health and safety, edcational standards back to the states too!

Sorry....we can only deal with one society-ending crisis per day.  All lines are busy.  Please call back later.

[716er]

Another perspective on the origins of the leak. Interesting thread to read through. Blaming anyone for the leak at this point is foolish.

 

 

[ALF]

3 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

 

As soon as it goes to States its immediately legal at its minimum in 48 States.  

 

Red States have already passed heartbeat bills, illegal at 20 weeks, etc. 

 

What are Ds going to do?  Run on legalizing abortion till after birth everywhere?

 

Good luck with that.  

 

13 states have trigger laws automatically banning most or all abortions if Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

 

Thirteen states in the country are poised to enact immediate abortion bans and 13 more could quickly follow suit if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, as it appears set to do according to a draft opinion leaked to Politico.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/13-states-trigger-laws-automatically-abortion-supreme-court-roe-v-wade

 

[SoCal Deek]

9 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

13 states have trigger laws automatically banning most or all abortions if Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

 

Thirteen states in the country are poised to enact immediate abortion bans and 13 more could quickly follow suit if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, as it appears set to do according to a draft opinion leaked to Politico.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/13-states-trigger-laws-automatically-abortion-supreme-court-roe-v-wade

 

Or put another way....THREE QUARTERS of the States will see no change in abortion laws if the Supreme Court ruling comes down.  And of the one quarter that remain, even those states can re-look at the issue through legislative action.

Next!

Edited May 3, 2022 by SoCal Deek

[aristocrat]

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

Ms Tran seemed reluctant to discuss the bill she wrote.  

[Big Blitz]

9 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

 

 

 

Yep.  

 

But there is no slippery slope folks.  

 

None.  

[Process]

12 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

Disgusting

[wnyguy]

15 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

This bill literally sanctions the murder of a human being.

[Big Blitz]

They haven't moved left tho.......

 

 

 

 

 

[KDIGGZ]

I'm not down with killing babies but if you try and outlaw abortions people will just go to other states, countries, use coat hangers, etc. It's not something you can affectively mandate. Do we really want sh*tty people who are poor and on drugs and can't even take care of themselves to be forced to carry a child and then care for them? It's a terrible situation either way.

 

As a compromise how about everyone who gets an abortion, their name is made public and people can do with that what they will. A little shaming may go a long way. If you go for a job or meet a love interest etc they can look and see you have had multiple abortions and they might change their opinion of you. Even people that are for the right to choose aren't going to be cool with that kind of info

[benderbender]

Will this the affect the $70,000 average cost of adoption?

[Rockpile233]

Very saddened by a lot of this.
 

First and foremost disgusted that this was leaked. Further disgusted that the supreme court is full of shills that will say one thing during confirmation hearings and completely depart from that. I would expect that sort of behavior from your typical elected official not the highest court. It should freak out any thinking individual that SCOTUS has become as politicized as it has. 
 

Even taking this issue back up….why?
 

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by Rockpile233

[SoCal Deek]

15 minutes ago, Rockpile233 said:

Very saddened by a lot of this.
 

First and foremost disgusted that this was leaked. Further disgusted that the supreme court is full of shills that will say one thing during confirmation hearings and completely depart from that. I would expect that sort of behavior from your typical elected official not the highest court. It should freak out any thinking individual that SCOTUS has become as politicized as it has. 
 

 

I think your concern is misplaced. The Justices should really not be asked about how they might rule on FUTURE cases during their confirmation. I’m always happy when they tell congress that they’re not going to go down that path… whether Left or Right leaning. 

[Rockpile233]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

I think your concern is misplaced. The Justices should really not be asked about how they might rule on FUTURE cases during their confirmation. I’m always happy when they tell congress that they’re not going to go down that path… whether Left or Right leaning. 

But they didn’t answer that way…

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, Rockpile233 said:

But they didn’t answer that way…

They should. That’s the entire point of being a judge. They really aren’t supposed to look at things in the hypothetical. It’s a nuance that’s been created by the bad behavior of Congress, not by the judges. 

[Rockpile233]

21 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

They should. That’s the entire point of being a judge. They really aren’t supposed to look at things in the hypothetical. It’s a nuance that’s been created by the bad behavior of Congress, not by the judges. 

Once again…they did not answer this way. Why not?

 

Why pick this old issue up again anyway with less than 30% support nationally? Nothing more important?