Leak of Roe Wade Ruling

[stollcpa]

Whichever Justice’s office the leak came from should resign.

Republicans rage about breach of draft Roe opinion

Rather than reveling in a document that supports their anti-abortion views, most of the GOP trained its fire on the source of the breach.

www.politico.com

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Whichever Justice’s office the leak came from should resign.

Republicans rage about breach of draft Roe opinion

Rather than reveling in a document that supports their anti-abortion views, most of the GOP trained its fire on the source of the breach.

www.politico.com

I don't really disagree. And that goes for if it were a conservative justice.

 

[stollcpa]

I don't really disagree. And that goes for if it were a conservative justice.

Agree. The one institution in this land I thought we could depend on not to play politics was SCOTUS. Sotomayor is the suspect in this.

When the riots start will the rioters get put in solitary confinement for insurrection?

 

[The Vid]

Agree. The one institution in this land I thought we could depend on not to play politics was SCOTUS. Sotomayor is the suspect in this.

When the riots start will the rioters get put in solitary confinement for insurrection?

Our government has become a disgrace and it only gets worse from here. I’m glad I’ll be dead before the shit really hits the fan.

 

[stollcpa]

Our government has become a disgrace and it only gets worse from here. I’m glad I’ll be dead before the shit really hits the fan.

I assume I too will be dead before the final shit hits the fan.

China will eventually be our rulers. They will do it without firing a shot.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

Our government has become a disgrace and it only gets worse from here. I’m glad I’ll be dead before the shit really hits the fan.

I wonder a lot what my kids and grandkids will live through.

 

[The Vid]

I wonder a lot what my kids and grandkids will live through.

No kids for me… ever. Insert thanks for not reproducing joke

 

[twenty02]

Sounds like a senior citizen center in here....


Get off my lawn!

 

[Indianaftw]

Many are finding this odd, like this was planned. Hours before the "Leak" this story broke.

Abortion rights groups plan to spend $150M in 2022 midterms

"It's never been more crucial to secure pro-choice majorities at all levels of government."

www.axios.com

 

[outside shooter]

The leak might well have come from a conservative, putting pressure on all of the five to not change their stances in the upcoming 2-3 months. More likely a rogue staffer on the left, admittedly, but I can see many possible motives.

 

[UncleMark]

The leak might well have come from a conservative, putting pressure on all of the five to not change their stances in the upcoming 2-3 months. More likely a rogue staffer on the left, admittedly, but I can see many possible motives.

I could see it coming from the Alito camp. If it holds up, this opinion will be his legacy.

 

[Ohio Guy]

Whichever Justice’s office the leak came from should resign.

Republicans rage about breach of draft Roe opinion

Rather than reveling in a document that supports their anti-abortion views, most of the GOP trained its fire on the source of the breach.

www.politico.com

While I don't disagree with the idea that this shouldn't have been leaked and there should be repercussions for it, I feel like there should also be some accountability for justices who essentially lied and said whatever they needed to say to get through their appointment hearings. Yes, it's less of an offense, but it probably needs addressed.

I'm not sure how you do that exactly, beyond taking the appointment out of the hands of the POTUS. Maybe the Justices themselves could have a stable of potential replacements and do the hearings themselves. I don't know if that's a reasonable suggestion or not - just spitballing here.

As an aside, I think there should be an age and/or term limit for serving on the Supreme Court. The idea that our two main political parties operate on the hope that a Justice lives/dies is crazy.

 

[Zeester]

I could see it coming from the Alito camp. If it holds up, this opinion will be his legacy.

Not a chance.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

Agree. The one institution in this land I thought we could depend on not to play politics was SCOTUS. Sotomayor is the suspect in this.

When the riots start will the rioters get put in solitary confinement for insurrection?

When you play politics to fill the seats, it kind of ruins that notion that it's not political.

 

[SqueakyClean]

While I don't disagree with the idea that this shouldn't have been leaked and there should be repercussions for it, I feel like there should also be some accountability for justices who essentially lied and said whatever they needed to say to get through their appointment hearings. Yes, it's less of an offense, but it probably needs addressed.

I'm not sure how you do that exactly, beyond taking the appointment out of the hands of the POTUS. Maybe the Justices themselves could have a stable of potential replacements and do the hearings themselves. I don't know if that's a reasonable suggestion or not - just spitballing here.

As an aside, I think there should be an age and/or term limit for serving on the Supreme Court. The idea that our two main political parties operate on the hope that a Justice lives/dies is crazy.

As was mentioned in the other thread. All they have to do is say that they changed their mind and there is nothing you can do about it.
If a supreme court justice says "It is established precedent, I see no reason to overturn it", and then they overturn it, they can simply say, "True, I said that, but since that time I became aware of (XYZ bullcrap justification) and that forced me to amend my opinion. XYZ is a unique argument against this established precedent that I had not considered at the time of my confirmation."
Yeah, it's probably lying, but there is absolutely no way that you are going to be able to prove it, at least to the judicial level required to have consequences at the federal level.

 

[iuwclurker]

Beneath the dispassionate veneer of any Supreme Court justice lies the passionate views of that human individual. The Supreme Court rarely expands the scope of a ruling to break a long-held precedent. In doing so with Roe v. Wade the five or more justices would be exposing their passionate hatred of abortion.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Beneath the dispassionate veneer of any Supreme Court justice lies the passionate views of that human individual. The Supreme Court rarely expands the scope of a ruling to break a long-held precedent. In doing so with Roe v. Wade the five or more justices would be exposing their passionate hatred of abortion.

Did you cut and paste this or make it up? Roe should be overturned as a matter of law. Then the states can start over and do anything they want. As it should be.

 

[UncleMark]

While I don't disagree with the idea that this shouldn't have been leaked and there should be repercussions for it, I feel like there should also be some accountability for justices who essentially lied and said whatever they needed to say to get through their appointment hearings. Yes, it's less of an offense, but it probably needs addressed.

I'm not sure how you do that exactly, beyond taking the appointment out of the hands of the POTUS. Maybe the Justices themselves could have a stable of potential replacements and do the hearings themselves. I don't know if that's a reasonable suggestion or not - just spitballing here.

As an aside, I think there should be an age and/or term limit for serving on the Supreme Court. The idea that our two main political parties operate on the hope that a Justice lives/dies is crazy.

None of this passes Constitutional muster.

 

[iuwclurker]

Pro-life advocates are abortion haters. Thus pro-choice advocates are inevitably seen as abortion lovers. It’s a natural dichotomy.

Zeke asserts no one is an abortion lover. True enough. I doubt any woman intentionally gets pregnant because she loves having abortions.

So the hate-love dichotomy not only creates a profound division in our society but it’s also based on a lie. How to resolve this division? What is the truth?

I’ll leave that to Zeke but the truth would have to be along the lines of “unplanned pregnancy is an extremely complicated problem for each individual, oftentimes with only unfavorable solutions. Throughout history abortion has been one of the unfavorable solutions chosen by an individual.”

Speaking the truth not only is important in lessening political division in our society but also helps prepare young people for important choices and experiences in their adulthood.

It may be difficult for pro-choice advocates to overcome their habitual reaction to pro-life demonization and vitriol but this may be the perfect time to shift from engaging in the lie to speaking the truth about their actual position on this important life matter.

 

[iuwclurker]

Did you cut and paste this or make it up? Roe should be overturned as a matter of law. Then the states can start over and do anything they want. As it should be.

All me all the time, maestro. I happen to be pro-life but I stand by my post and I disagree with your take.

 

[Ohio Guy]

None of this passes Constitutional muster.

You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We'd all love to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free your mind instead

 

[MrBing]

The leak might well have come from a conservative, putting pressure on all of the five to not change their stances in the upcoming 2-3 months. More likely a rogue staffer on the left, admittedly, but I can see many possible motives.

I don't think so. I don't believe that really makes sense. They're not going to change their stances because we're mad about it. I would bet that it came from someone on the progressive side and the purpose was to fire up Democrats and others that believe Roe should stand. That's like 70 per cent of Americans and I think it's going to end in a lot more votes for the Democrats in November. Even more so if the ruling in June is really to overturn Roe. This is going to get out votes on our side. I hope so.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I don't think so. I don't believe that really makes sense. They're not going to change their stances because we're mad about it. I would bet that it came from someone on the progressive side and the purpose was to fire up Democrats and others that believe Roe should stand. That's like 70 per cent of Americans and I think it's going to end in a lot more votes for the Democrats in November. Even more so if the ruling in June is really to overturn Roe. This is going to get out votes on our side. I hope so.

I could see it galvanizing young voters who would have stayed home

 

[outside shooter]

Roe should be overturned as a matter of law. Then the states can start over and do anything they want. As it should be.

In general I strongly favor state's rights. After all, we are a Union.

But I think states right's are inherently limited, whenever a statue relies on basic human rights. Here, we have rights of the mother to make health care decisions and also a right (admittedly much less well-defined) of an embryo/fetus/potential person. All sides of the polical spectrum can quibble about the relative merits of the two sets of rights, but cannot claim that neither of them exists.

For each state to decide on their own how to balance those rights is pretty silly.

This is a constitutional question that ought not be passed on to local juridictions, any more than same sex marriage or interracial marriage should be banned or condoned, to different extents, by different states.

 

[outside shooter]

They're not going to change their stances because we're mad about it.

Agree 100%. They also are not going to change their stances because such a change would make their supporters absolutely furious.

The leak, then, hardens their stances. So it is an indeed a reason to leak it, if you want Roe overturned and were squeamish about one of the justices wavering on their opinion.

 

[MrBing]

Agree 100%. They also are not going to change their stances because such a change would make their supporters absolutely furious.

The leak, then, hardens their stances. So it is an indeed a reason to leak it, if you want Roe overturned and were squeamish about one of the justices wavering on their opinion.

Leak or not they aren't going to change their stances that's why my money is on a leak from our side. Now I wish they hadn't done it because it's unethical at least and not supposed to happen but that's what I think happened. Its firing up Democrats and we needed to get fired up.

 

[Spartans9312]

In general I strongly favor state's rights. After all, we are a Union.

But I think states right's are inherently limited, whenever a statue relies on basic human rights. Here, we have rights of the mother to make health care decisions and also a right (admittedly much less well-defined) of an embryo/fetus/potential person. All sides of the polical spectrum can quibble about the relative merits of the two sets of rights, but cannot claim that neither of them exists.

For each state to decide on their own how to balance those rights is pretty silly.

This is a constitutional question that ought not be passed on to local juridictions, any more than same sex marriage or interracial marriage should be banned or condoned, to different extents, by different states.

Personal freedoms and limited government?

 

[outside shooter]

Personal freedoms and limited government?

If you want to limit government, you wouldn't want state governments stepping in, particularly those states most inclined to take charge over this issue (as many as 26 states).

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Did you cut and paste this or make it up? Roe should be overturned as a matter of law. Then the states can start over and do anything they want. As it should be.

LOL. The old "unless we got it wrong" exception to stare decisis.

 

[larsIU]

I could see it galvanizing young voters who would have stayed home

Yep gave Dems something to vote FOR instead of AGAINST. That always brings out more voters**






**Except in the case of Trump which is the one time AGAINST won.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

Agree 100%. They also are not going to change their stances because such a change would make their supporters absolutely furious.

The leak, then, hardens their stances. So it is an indeed a reason to leak it, if you want Roe overturned and were squeamish about one of the justices wavering on their opinion.

I just don’t buy the idea that one of the justices leaked it. I don’t think any of the current justices are flippant enough about the court and it’s role to do something like this.

 

[TommyCracker]

I could see it galvanizing young voters who would have stayed home

Spot on.

This now likely resuscitates that anti-Trump energy that has faded since he was beaten.

Simple message now, as much as some dems hated HRC, we don't gift the court over to what is now a very adversarial bench, and we're seeing that impact in real time.

Currently the tsk within the party, which has been fractured post Obama, is 'this is what happens when you simply don't vote. Meaning Hillary probably sucked to a lot of dem voters, but this whole SCOTUS deal is avoided if we would have simply come together and done our duty as dem voters.

Short story long, this could easily be our culture war that finally galvanizes the party for much longer than Trump did (as it takes the task of 'this guy has got to go' to now 'the republican party has to go. They are the enemy and must be destroyed!' etc which is the same shit that has galvanized the right'.

Lastly, and you're going to love this, I think this puts Pete back in play in 24 as he was the strongest candidate among suburban women in the primaries and it wasn't really close. Add to it his entire family is due to one vote in 2015 so, it's a very personal fight etc....basically he can easily keep this SCOTUS front and center which plays into his strengths and away from his weaknesses and....I think I'm going to have to adjust the odds of the primary pool now. Lol

 

[larsIU]

I think I'm going to have to adjust the odds of the primary pool now

Link to said pool? What's the buy in?

 

[outside shooter]

I just don’t buy the idea that one of the justices leaked it. I don’t think any of the current justices are flippant enough about the court and it’s role to do something like this.

I doubt it was one of the justices themselves, or even that it was ordered by one of them. It was likely a staffer. There are differing motives though, for a staffer on either side.

 

[mcmurtry66]

LOL. The old "unless we got it wrong" exception to stare decisis.

Yeah right. I'm not sure that's a bad thing tho. There's obviously a history of it and re con issues it is impt to get it right. More so than other areas

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Yeah right. I'm not sure that's a bad thing tho. There's obviously a history of it and re con issues it is impt to get it right. More so than other areas

I don't disagree, but it reminds me just how much BS stare decisis really is.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Spot on.

This now likely resuscitates that anti-Trump energy that has faded since he was beaten.

Simple message now, as much as some dems hated HRC, we don't gift the court over to what is now a very adversarial bench, and we're seeing that impact in real time.

Currently the tsk within the party, which has been fractured post Obama, is 'this is what happens when you simply don't vote. Meaning Hillary probably sucked to a lot of dem voters, but this whole SCOTUS deal is avoided if we would have simply come together and done our duty as dem voters.

Short story long, this could easily be our culture war that finally galvanizes the party for much longer than Trump did (as it takes the task of 'this guy has got to go' to now 'the republican party has to go. They are the enemy and must be destroyed!' etc which is the same shit that has galvanized the right'.

Lastly, and you're going to love this, I think this puts Pete back in play in 24 as he was the strongest candidate among suburban women in the primaries and it wasn't really close. Add to it his entire family is due to one vote in 2015 so, it's a very personal fight etc....basically he can easily keep this SCOTUS front and center which plays into his strengths and away from his weaknesses and....I think I'm going to have to adjust the odds of the primary pool now. Lol

Pete will never have a chance. You want to talk about galvanizing people. Guy is the epitome of gov garbage. Oh and he's gay. I would stump for Cori Bush as vp and AOC as pres over pete. Other than this board I don't know anyone who can tolerate Pete.

 

[Spartans9312]

If you want to limit government, you wouldn't want state governments stepping in, particularly those states most inclined to take charge over this issue (as many as 26 states).

Where did I state that as my preference?

 

[TommyCracker]

Link to said pool? What's the buy in?

Ha ha I don't know how we would set it up.

Do we freeze all bets and odds before the midterms or after a couple of primary debates? I would say after two initial debates.

It gives you a chance to see all the candidates including the dark horses but it's before the craziest part of the primary campaign.

It's pre-smear season so to speak.

As far as Pete, and he's my guy, I would have bet strongly that he doesn't even consider running until 28 and that would be only if it was an open primary. First off I gotta think he wants to see this infrastructure transformation through as obviously there's an incredible amount positive of political capital with this. Also he's got a lot of work to do for black trust. A lot, and stepping over someone like Harris isn't going to play well (especially for king maker Clyburn).

The SCOTUS fight could change all of that. One it could galvanize the party. Two it plays into his political strengths and support.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

Pete will never have a chance. You want to talk about galvanizing people. Guy is the epitome of gov garbage. Oh and he's gay. I would stump for Cori Bush as vp and AOC as pres over pete. Other than this board I don't know anyone who can tolerate Pete.

Why? Because he took paternity leave?

LMAO. If only you had the same ridiculous standards for GOP politicians.