SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[cubby]

However, if the rolls were reversed and the court was going to make a ruling they don't like, they'll call for an investigation of the court and claim that the leaker is a hero.

Exactly. And we'd be pursuing the leaker and touting the procedural violation.

I know, I still want an explanation to it. If they can't give one, that will be telling to some of the less koolaid drenched sheep of theirs.

For what?

[Darththeo]

Exactly. And we'd be pursuing the leaker and touting the procedural violation.




For what?

Well, I wouldn't. My response isn't dependent on whether or not I like the decision made, but rather if I feel rights are being supported.

I would literally not care about the leaker.

As for the second, what I mean if they can't give an explanation on why the violation > contents of leak, that it could open the eyes of some of their followers who haven't bathed in the koolaid they provide.

[Endus]

I would literally not care about the leaker.

Given that the only criticism of the leak is weak-ass whines like "but it's not the process" or "but people might express out loud that they don't like the way the court's leaning! In public!"

I really don't see the issue. This kind of process should be transparent to begin with, and whistleblower protection should be universal and federal, regardless of the context. I not only actively don't care who leaked it, I think the leaker is entitled to protection from censure, official or otherwise.

[Levelfive]

There is no law that was violated, just procedure.

I want an explanation why a procedure violation is more important than what the government is doing.

"Some people are still lingering on how or why the draft was leaked and what it means. Some—including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.)—are even calling for the leaker to be criminally prosecuted.

But this obsession with process and punishment over the substance of the opinion is pretty weird. "The Court's credibility doesn't depend on ceremonies or secrets or mystique. It depends on it getting the answers right," notes Timothy Sandefur, an adjunct at Cato and vice president at Goldwater Institute. "If it gets the answers wrong; no amount of officialdom and ritual will save it. If it gets the answers right, none is necessary.""

https://reason.com/2022/05/04/alitos...gal-reasoning/

[Paranoid Android]

What a weird, weird post. And you have the audacity in the same post to call others out of touch?

Just weird.

Making people travel to choose what they can do with their body is horrible. Most people who choose are again, people considered under or near poverty line. Just being able to travel to get his done when one should have the protection in their own state is horrible.

There might be future laws where people could be punished for traveling out of state. Missouri tried this.

So celebrating and might I say being out of touch that people can just take off to have an abortion is crazy. If you think this is them dunking that we have to go to another country to get proper healthcare is not what you think.

[infinitemeridian]

There is no law that was violated, just procedure.

I want an explanation why a procedure violation is more important than what the government is doing.

Process is what both parties fall back to as excuses for why our country is the shitshow that it is.

[Jastall]

… I just… I know it’s a joke maybe (maybe?) but that’s a bit dark

- - - Updated - - -



Is that kinda like all those male feminists that were, unsurprisingly, raging misogynists?

It’s almost like the phenomenon is completely divorced from ideology.

- - - Updated - - -



Except for the part in the constitution that says explicitly that powers not specifically delegated to the federal government in the document are reserved to the states. Kind of the opposite of farcical there. It’s where the whole idea of states’ right arises from.

Thanks, I know the 10th exists. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm dismissing the notion, held in the leaked memo, that because the word "abortion" literally doesn't show up in the Constitution, that the Court cannot arbitrate on it. Again, that is patently ridiculous. The word "corporation" "rocket launcher" or "internet" also don't appear, does it mean the Constitution therefore cannot apply to those things?

To say nothing of the fact that "well we've had a long history of X so X should remain the status quo" is also a silly argument. America would still have slavery if so.

[Levelfive]

Thanks, I know the 10th exists. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm dismissing the notion, held in the leaked memo, that because the word "abortion" literally doesn't show up in the Constitution, that the Court cannot arbitrate on it. Again, that is patently ridiculous. The word "corporation" "rocket launcher" or "internet" also don't appear, does it mean the Constitution therefore cannot apply to those things?

To say nothing of the fact that "well we've had a long history of X so X should remain the status quo" is also a silly argument. America would still have slavery if so.

"Within a matter of months, women in about half of the United States may be breaking the law if they decide to end a pregnancy. This will be, in large part, because Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is surprised that there is so little written about abortion in a four-thousand-word document crafted by fifty-five men in 1787. As it happens, there is also nothing at all in that document, which sets out fundamental law, about pregnancy, uteruses, vaginas, fetuses, placentas, menstrual blood, breasts, or breast milk. There is nothing in that document about women at all. Most consequentially, there is nothing in that document—or in the circumstances under which it was written—that suggests its authors imagined women as part of the political community embraced by the phrase “We the People.” There were no women among the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. There were no women among the hundreds of people who participated in ratifying conventions in the states. There were no women judges. There were no women legislators. At the time, women could neither hold office nor run for office, and, except in New Jersey, and then only fleetingly, women could not vote. Legally, most women did not exist as persons[...]About as wholly speculative as the question of who leaked this decision is the history offered to support it. Alito’s opinion rests almost exclusively on a bizarre and impoverished historical analysis. “The Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion, and therefore those who claim that it protects such a right must show that the right is somehow implicit in the constitutional text,” he argues, making this observation repeatedly. Roe, he writes, was “remarkably loose in its treatment of the constitutional text” and suffers from one error above all: “it held that the abortion right, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is part of a right to privacy, which is also not mentioned.”

Women are indeed missing from the Constitution. That’s a problem to remedy, not a precedent to honor." https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily...e-constitution

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

There is no law that was violated, just procedure.

I want an explanation why a procedure violation is more important than what the government is doing.

What it comes down to is that they wanted to pick the "right moment" for thiss to be released. I can't say what that "right moment" would have been...but it wasn't now. They're pissed because they've lost control of the narrative.

[Zan15]

https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/s...31947546370048

Y'all, no need for an investigation. The galaxy brains at Newsmax know the source: Recently confirmed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Small problem in that, despite her confirmation recently, she's not yet appointed to the Court as Breyer still exists and remains in that seat. So despite not being a member of the court and not having access to anything as a result, they think she has access to early decisions from months before she was even confirmed.

Fucking mouthbreathers need to close their mouths already, and if they suffocate because they can't figure out how to breathe through their nostrils like everyone else well...natural selection, baybee.

so i guess by the same logic that hunter's laptop dude is Sueing for a few hundy million, i guess Jackson can sue for 500 million now?

[Mihalik]

https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/s...31947546370048

Y'all, no need for an investigation. The galaxy brains at Newsmax know the source: Recently confirmed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Small problem in that, despite her confirmation recently, she's not yet appointed to the Court as Breyer still exists and remains in that seat. So despite not being a member of the court and not having access to anything as a result, they think she has access to early decisions from months before she was even confirmed.

Fucking mouthbreathers need to close their mouths already, and if they suffocate because they can't figure out how to breathe through their nostrils like everyone else well...natural selection, baybee.

So, here's what I propose.

We need a retired Marine corps drill sergeant a la Lee Emery as a fact checker, if you work in the media and you spout some utterly retarded shit like this, you'll have to stand at attention for 20 minutes and have the drill sergeant go full ham on your ass Full Metal Jacket style and then have that streamed on national TV/YT.

[Hammerfest]

Wow, look at what always seems to happen when I'm banned...

[Levelfive]

What it comes down to is that they wanted to pick the "right moment" for thiss to be released. I can't say what that "right moment" would have been...but it wasn't now. They're pissed because they've lost control of the narrative.

The right moment would be further from the midterms, not closer. As far as controlling the narrative, the right coalesced within a couple hours around calling the leak an "insurrection," the meaning of which they can now thoroughly destroy ahead of the soon to be televised 1/6 committee hearings. There's a school of thought--based on a WSJ op-ed a week ago--speculating that Roberts might be trying to pick off a conservative justice, and hoping he wouldn't be successful (they also "guessed" that Alito would be authoring the opinion). The leak actually all but ensures the draft is "locked in" so it's hard to say who really has more motive.

[Adam Jensen]

Wow, look at what always seems to happen when I'm banned...

Well stop getting banned then

[DarkTZeratul]

What it comes down to is that they wanted to pick the "right moment" for thiss to be released. I can't say what that "right moment" would have been...but it wasn't now. They're pissed because they've lost control of the narrative.

The "right moment" would have been in June, when the Supreme Court is already scheduled to issue a ruling.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Wow, look at what always seems to happen when I'm banned...

Dude, you spend half your time banned.

[Rasulis]

"Within a matter of months, women in about half of the United States may be breaking the law if they decide to end a pregnancy. This will be, in large part, because Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is surprised that there is so little written about abortion in a four-thousand-word document crafted by fifty-five men in 1787. As it happens, there is also nothing at all in that document, which sets out fundamental law, about pregnancy, uteruses, vaginas, fetuses, placentas, menstrual blood, breasts, or breast milk. There is nothing in that document about women at all. Most consequentially, there is nothing in that document—or in the circumstances under which it was written—that suggests its authors imagined women as part of the political community embraced by the phrase “We the People.” There were no women among the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. There were no women among the hundreds of people who participated in ratifying conventions in the states. There were no women judges. There were no women legislators. At the time, women could neither hold office nor run for office, and, except in New Jersey, and then only fleetingly, women could not vote. Legally, most women did not exist as persons[...]About as wholly speculative as the question of who leaked this decision is the history offered to support it. Alito’s opinion rests almost exclusively on a bizarre and impoverished historical analysis. “The Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion, and therefore those who claim that it protects such a right must show that the right is somehow implicit in the constitutional text,” he argues, making this observation repeatedly. Roe, he writes, was “remarkably loose in its treatment of the constitutional text” and suffers from one error above all: “it held that the abortion right, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is part of a right to privacy, which is also not mentioned.”

Women are indeed missing from the Constitution. That’s a problem to remedy, not a precedent to honor." https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily...e-constitution

Common law from colonial days allowed abortion prior to “quickening” — an archaic term for fetal movement that usually happens after around four months of pregnancy.

[Hammerfest]

Dude, you spend half your time banned.

That's it, buddy! No more ROE for you!

[Levelfive]

@Rasulis Yes, it did. The Solicitor General talked about it in oral arguments.

[Elegiac]

I don't even know what to say to this...

I do!

"Ok, groomer."