There are only a small number of clerks who would have access and who could leak the document.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
aka "Rally the troops".
Worked for FDR.
(no message)
(no message)
choice for the SC hostage saying never in an election year, then with a few weeks remaining in R leadership he forced through another...
completely opposite to his hostage taking of Obama's pick.
Odd how you don't see that as packing the court.
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/us/mcconnell-barrett-confirmation.html
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
This is very productive, don't you think Jim?
that he didn't. He did this for the one wrongheaded issue that morons like you get wrong.
You see, I've said it many times - Abortion isn't birth control. It is something I do not agree with. But the forest here is
Women's rights. They have a right to their bodies and the decisions they make with them.
Get it, Forrest?
What McConnell did has been done in the past. You need the Senate and the Presidency to have total freedom to appoint SCOTUS justices--it's a Constitution thing. That wasn't the case this last go round.
I support all humans' rights to life, those of women, those of men, and those of the innocent children.
Of course women have a right to their bodies. What you don't recognize is that children have a right to their bodies as well.
My question for you: Why do you think abortion is wrong? Open ended question, and I dare you to answer it.
As for your question
That's my business and very personal. We'll leave it at what I have all ready posted.
And no, you cannot have both. A woman's rights are hers not yours to decide her fate.
Also, a baby's rights are his/hers, not yours to decide his or her fate.
And, the right to be free from life threatening aggression trumps all other rights.
(no message)
(no message)
If five justices are aboard, no one can stop a decision.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Send it back to the voters and states.
(no message)
If the Democrats lose the House & the Senate in 2022, and lose the presidency in 2024, the FIRST bill that passes the House & the Senate will be a NATIONWIDE BAN on abortion, and will be signed into law by whomever the Republicans nominate.
The states’ rights people like you will have no problem with it.
Because nobody actually cares about states rights, unless those states are protecting proper rights.
This should never have risen to the national level. That was the court's mistake in the past, and the Left for pushing it that far in the first place.
(no message)
You support the national ban. You always want to nationalize everything. Now you want it to be a states rights issue? Seems a little convenient for you. Will you support a national ban by a democratically elected leaders? I don't see it happening, but if it does happen, will you support it? Or, will you support tearing the country apart...eliminate the filibuster...pack the court...eliminate the electoral collage.
I've always said this was properly a state issue. I can't deny that a national ban would be a good thing from a moral perspective. I just don't see it happening. This is not the end of abortion. Blue states can still abort as many as they want. And, if Democrats really want to abort babies in other states, they can set up charities to help kill babies. Jim will donate.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
They are not a puppet of the governor.
Before you scoff, note that the draft opinion explicitly criticizes Lawrence v. Texas (legalizing sodomy) and Obergefell (legalizing same-sex marriage).
He says that, like abortion, these decisions protect phony rights that are not "deeply rooted in history."
This court is looking to tear the country apart. Swell.
EDIT: plus Griswold (birth control)! Jesus.
At least he’s not litigating from the bench, amirite?
Look at who it is benefitting.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
while you're at it.
Don't forget about QAnon.
(no message)
more books banned while you're at it.
Our understanding of fetal life is far more profound today than in the Roe era. We also know that the human infant brain and mind develop for years after birth, so there is no big difference between a child inside and outside the womb. Finally, the Constitution left these issues to the states.
Now abortion will be a political issue. You zealots can devote even more time to it.
Great.
Wow.
With the logic that it gives states some time to get ready to ban abortion immediately when it is released.
It’s not like this is a policy or a bill that can be killed - it’s not like any public reaction would influence the Court. So it doesn’t really have to be a lib who did this.
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t.
(no message)
"WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court privately voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that has guaranteed the right to abortion for nearly a half-century, according to a leaked draft opinion from February published online Monday night by Politico.
In the draft opinion, written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., a majority of the court voted to overturn Roe, according to Politico. Justice Alito called it wrongly decided and said the contentious issue, which has animated political debates in the United States for more than a generation, should be decided by politicians, not the courts.
“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in the document, labeled the “Opinion of the Court,” referring to a second decision that reaffirmed Roe. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
The draft posted by Politico is consistent with the Supreme Court’s published opinions in ways large and small, including structure, length, typography and how legal citations are rendered. Its assertive and sometimes slashing tone reads very much like other major opinions from Justice Alito.
The release of the 98-page document is unprecedented in the court’s modern history: Early drafts of opinions have virtually never leaked before the final decision is announced, and never in such a consequential case. And early drafts of opinions often change by the time the decision from the court is announced.
Shortly after the article was published Monday night, Politico’s editor in chief, Matthew Kaminski, and its executive editor, Dafna Linzer, sent an email to newsroom employees emphasizing its authenticity. In the memo, Mr. Kaminski and Ms. Linzer said that the article underwent “an extensive review process,” describing it as “plainly news of great public interest.”
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/02/us/politics/roe-v-wade-abortion-supreme-court.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20220502&instance_id=0&nl=breaking-news&ref=headline®i_id=143141481&segment_id=91080&user_id=70f6c8b0da95062bca6e274e90362576
(no message)
a pro-choice women's rights poll, she said that Kavanaugh would never sign on to overturning Roe.
Um, as per her usual she got it wrong, again.
(no message)
The real women haters are the ones who get women pregnant, and then abandon them, or try to get them to kill their children. It is always a double betrayal of the woman.
Don't worry, though, I'm sure you will still be able to kill babies in your blue controlled states. Human life is not yet a universal right.
right's you should be welcoming in the illegals from south of the border - they're generally against abortions too.
You can get them to vote on this too for your political wins.
of touch hiding in his NY bubble.
(no message)
You don't even recognize when you use words to mean the opposite of what they should mean.
I do indeed hope that the Democrat human trafficking happening on our border now backfires. Democrats think they can control darker skinned people, but hispanics are more conservative than you may expect.
We aren’t dumb freshmen, prof. Absolutely asinine
(no message)
Except yours is totally moronic. Well done.
I said it’s possible it was not a lib. That’s all.
Also, you guys are royally fucked without Embiid.
Apologies for lashing out.
I do think it is highly, highly likely the leak was from a liberal clerk.
It should be relatively easy to figure out who it was. Whoever it was, that person should be drummed out in disgrace, imo.
You think after waiting decades, the Right can't wait a few months? The leak will only hurt the Right, and help the Left. The fact that you can't see that is, well, surprising. It means you are viewing this through your partisan glasses, not your academic glasses.
This will motivate the left, and open up court packing discussions to try to sway the justices, as they've done before. The Dems will do anything to protect their most sacred issue.
(no message)
(no message)
I don't see Roberts doing it.