SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[postman1782]

Five takeaways from the Supreme Court’s leak investigation

• Justices may not have been part of investigation
• Nearly 100 people had access to draft opinion
• Roberts taps former DHS secretary (under W) for review
• Court confirms it searched employee phones, laptops
• Sensitive documents not always tracked by high court

So, does this basically confirm that Alito was the leak?

[Nymrohd]

So, does this basically confirm that Alito was the leak?

If you look everywhere except one place to find something and you don't find it . . .

[Edge-]

So, does this basically confirm that Alito was the leak?

Odds are probably 70:30 Alito:Thomas at this point.

And odds that Roberts knows this are probably 95:5.

[postman1782]

Odds are probably 70:30 Alito:Thomas at this point.

And odds that Roberts knows this are probably 95:5.

Well, he was the leak of a previous court case before it was decided, a leopard doesn't change its spots. @Nymrohd

[fwc577]

While not directly Roe v Wade, this does involve sex (against consent) and a current sitting Supreme Court Justice who helped dismantle Roe v Wade.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-br...ce-doc-justice

A last-minute new Documentary called Justice which focuses on new allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court Justice (and Sexual Predator) Brett Kavanaugh.

Here is the most interesting tidbit from this article:

The biggest eye-opener in Justice comes more than midway through its compact and efficient 85-minute runtime, when Liman receives a tip that leads him to an anonymous individual who provides a tape made by Stier shortly after the FBI—compelled by Ford’s courageous and heartrending testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee—briefly reopened its investigation into embattled then-nominee Kavanaugh.

In it, Stier relays that he lived in the same Yale dorm as Kavanaugh and, one evening, wound up in a room where he saw a severely inebriated Kavanaugh with his pants down, at which point a group of rowdy soccer players forced a drunk female freshman to hold Kavanaugh’s penis. Stier states that he knows this tale “first-hand,” and that the young woman in question did not subsequently remember the incident, nor did she want to come forward after she’d seen the vile treatment that Ford and Ramirez were subjected to by the public, the media, and the government. The Daily Beast has reached out to Justice Kavanaugh for comment about the fresh allegations.

Stier goes on to explain that, though he didn’t know Ramirez, he had heard from classmates about her separate, eerily similar encounter with Kavanaugh, which she personally describes in Justice. According to Ramirez, an intoxicated Kavanaugh exposed himself right in front of her face in college, and that she suppressed memories of certain aspects of this trauma until she was contacted by The New Yorker’s Ronan Farrow.

So, not only is he a whiny baby, as we've seen during his testimony during confirmation, but we also have first-hand confirmation that he's a limp-dicked piece of shit too.

[Edge-]

While not directly Roe v Wade, this does involve sex (against consent) and a current sitting Supreme Court Justice who helped dismantle Roe v Wade.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-br...ce-doc-justice

A last-minute new Documentary called Justice which focuses on new allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court Justice (and Sexual Predator) Brett Kavanaugh.

Here is the most interesting tidbit from this article:



So, not only is he a whiny baby, as we've seen during his testimony during confirmation, but we also have first-hand confirmation that he's a limp-dicked piece of shit too.

Oh boy, can he blame Hillary Clinton like he did last time?

Roberts court is so thoroughly and completely ethically fucked, and yet the same conservative justices responsible can't stop complaining about the consequences of their own behavior.

[Captain N]

It gets more and more irritating each time you hear Conservatives scream about "grooming" when it comes to the LGBTQ Community but have no issues with someone on their team being a sexual predator in a position of power.

[Edge-]

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/idaho-...ry?id=96363578

An Idaho woman who documented her 19-day miscarriage on social media said it was days before she could receive care due to the state's strict abortion laws.

Carmen Broesder, 35, from Nampa -- 20 miles west of Boise -- a mother-of-one was just six weeks pregnant when she began miscarrying on Dec. 8. However, she said it took eight days before she was given any medicine to manage her pain and to expel embryonic tissue, and several more days for the miscarriage to end.

This is exactly what we keep talking about when we talk about how Republicans want to control women's bodies and are perfectly fine letting them suffer, and possibly die.

There was no need for this woman to suffer like she did except for her states draconian laws that resulted in care providers being unwilling to provide her the medical care she needed as a result of their potential liability.

Republicans could fix these problems with all their laws on the books now, but they seem to have absolutely zero interest in that, and instead are continuing to seek to exert more and more control over women's bodies and having the state involved in their medical decisions.

[Xyonai]

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/idaho-...ry?id=96363578



This is exactly what we keep talking about when we talk about how Republicans want to control women's bodies and are perfectly fine letting them suffer, and possibly die.

There was no need for this woman to suffer like she did except for her states draconian laws that resulted in care providers being unwilling to provide her the medical care she needed as a result of their potential liability.

Republicans could fix these problems with all their laws on the books now, but they seem to have absolutely zero interest in that, and instead are continuing to seek to exert more and more control over women's bodies and having the state involved in their medical decisions.

yeah but that one guy on the forums says he isn't cool with this so we should keep abortion banned at all times forever and not look into how actual republican legislators enforce and define their anti-abortion laws or something.

[Edge-]

yeah but that one guy on the forums says he isn't cool with this so we should keep abortion banned at all times forever and not look into how actual republican legislators enforce and define their anti-abortion laws or something.

They're not all inhuman, amoral monsters who are fine letting women suffer when they could easily amend the laws to prevent needless suffering while still accomplishing their otherwise amoral goals! They're not!

[Rasulis]

GOP rep calls for 'stronger laws at state level' to stop women from leaving Indiana to access abortion care

Is this the "freedom" that GOP kept ranting about?

[masterhorus8]

GOP rep calls for 'stronger laws at state level' to stop women from leaving Indiana to access abortion care

Is this the "freedom" that GOP kept ranting about?

Pretty sure that they aren't constitutionally allowed to do that as a part of being part of the United States

[Edge-]

GOP rep calls for 'stronger laws at state level' to stop women from leaving Indiana to access abortion care

Is this the "freedom" that GOP kept ranting about?

...I'm sure we're going to be told that this is just some fringe whacko who managed to get elected to statewide office any second now.

[Flarelaine]

GOP rep calls for 'stronger laws at state level' to stop women from leaving Indiana to access abortion care

Is this the "freedom" that GOP kept ranting about?

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

[Nymrohd]

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

Orwell was inevitable.

Thought I think "Fear is Freedom. Subjugation is Liberation. Contradiction is Truth." is much more fitting to conservatives.

[Elder Millennial]

Pretty sure that they aren't constitutionally allowed to do that as a part of being part of the United States

When was the last time a Republican ever gave a damn about what the constitution says or doesn't say?

[Varx]

Boy oh boy....

You guys need to consume and be exposed to more conservative content.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MaYEeXpKotQ

That's Kristan Hawkins, a pro life advocate who goes to different campuses across the country. She goes by scientific fact instead of religion, like my self.

If anyone is on the fence on this topic I'd suggest looking at her.

Also anyone see that feminist panel Vice did. They had an abortion segment too where Pearl from just pearly things, another conservative woman with content on YouTube, had many good points too.

Save your kids guys, you won't regret a life time of love.

- - - Updated - - -

When was the last time a Republican ever gave a damn about what the constitution says or doesn't say?

How about freedom of speech. Many libs would prefer stronger laws against certain kinds of speech, as unpleasant as they might be. Conservatives want to preserve that very important part of the constitution, lest we end up like Canada and their speech laws.

[Edge-]

Conservatives want to preserve that very important part of the constitution, lest we end up like Canada and their speech laws.

Fuckin rofl, tell us you haven't paid any attention to the Republican party over the past 15-20 years in more detail, my guy.

Ya boi Ron DeSantis being a prime example, including that time literally last week a federal judge ruled that he violated the First Amendment - https://www.axios.com/2023/01/21/ron...-warren-ruling

It's adorable you think conservative hypocrisy is appealing or convincing to anyone other than hypocritical conservatives.

[Endus]

Boy oh boy....

You guys need to consume and be exposed to more conservative content.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MaYEeXpKotQ

That's Krista Hawkins, a pro life advocate who goes to different campuses across the country. She goes by scientific fact instead of religion, like my self.

Not possible, as there is no scientific basis nor justification for pro-life views.

I'm not going to watch an entire hour-plus video of garbage, but I gave the intro a quick look, and she's already talking about "children" being given "death dates", so yeah, she's out to absolute fuckin' lunch.

"Really? It's okay to end the life of a child? Solely because of their location or convenience?"

This is a fully emotional argument which requires premises that presume that a fetus is a "child" from conception onwards, which is not an idea that has any basis in science; it is fully religious, since it presumes a magical nature to the creation of a human life, whether she wants to call it a "soul" or use different terminology it's the same non-scientific concept.

Try giving a text breakdown of the arguments rather than trying to force people to wade through oceans of emotion-driven extremist rhetoric to try and glean what few pearls you claim might be found within.

How about freedom of speech. Many libs would prefer stronger laws against certain kinds of speech, as unpleasant as they might be. Conservatives want to preserve that very important of the constitution.

Unchecked freedom of speech does not exist anywhere, and nobody actually supports it. You can't threaten people with violence/death. You can't commit frauds. You can't incite people to riot. You can't publish child pornography. Those are all restrictions on freedom of speech, which all exist because that speech causes harm against some individual or another. That harm principle can readily be applied to other forms of speech, like hate speech, for the very same reasons.

Your positions aren't pro-free-speech. They're pro-harmful-speech. It's no different, conceptually, than being pro-child-porn.

Edit: I see the dig at Canada, and I'll point out it's utterly fucking baseless bullshit. Canada's free speech protections are as strong or stronger than the USA's. We generally rank noticeably higher on press freedom indices, for instance; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

[Varx]

Fuckin rofl, tell us you haven't paid any attention to the Republican party over the past 15-20 years in more detail, my guy.

Ya boi Ron DeSantis being a prime example, including that time literally last week a federal judge ruled that he violated the First Amendment - https://www.axios.com/2023/01/21/ron...-warren-ruling

It's adorable you think conservative hypocrisy is appealing or convincing to anyone other than hypocritical conservatives.

I don't know all the details of that, but whether he acted wrongfully or not, are you gonna paint all conservatives the same?

- - - Updated - - -

Not possible, as there is no scientific basis nor justification for pro-life views.

I'm not going to watch an entire hour-plus video of garbage, but I gave the intro a quick look, and she's already talking about "children" being given "death dates", so yeah, she's out to absolute fuckin' lunch.

"Really? It's okay to end the life of a child? Solely because of their location or convenience?"

This is a fully emotional argument which requires premises that presume that a fetus is a "child" from conception onwards, which is not an idea that has any basis in science; it is fully religious, since it presumes a magical nature to the creation of a human life, whether she wants to call it a "soul" or use different terminology it's the same non-scientific concept.

Try giving a text breakdown of the arguments rather than trying to force people to wade through oceans of emotion-driven extremist rhetoric to try and glean what few pearls you claim might be found within.



Unchecked freedom of speech does not exist anywhere, and nobody actually supports it. You can't threaten people with violence/death. You can't commit frauds. You can't incite people to riot. You can't publish child pornography. Those are all restrictions on freedom of speech, which all exist because that speech causes harm against some individual or another. That harm principle can readily be applied to other forms of speech, like hate speech, for the very same reasons.

Your positions aren't pro-free-speech. They're pro-harmful-speech. It's no different, conceptually, than being pro-child-porn.

I suggest you watch her content more and open yourself up since she does not base her arguments on emotion, unlike those she debates


And I'm aware of exceptions to free speech, like telling "fire" in a crowded space. I'm talking more about speech that hurts people's feelings.