Politico: Roe to be overturned per draft opinion
- Thread starter UncleMark
- Start date
Good for you but implying that women who have had a few too many drinks are all raped is just ridiculous so you can stop your labeling too.
And you not understanding science once again, along with many other conservatives tells us everything you need to know about your team.
Could kind of result in more freedom to life of unborn babies.
Holy smokes this thread sucks donkey balls.
Here's the short rundown for people who can't read all the crap:
1. This opinion is almost certainly a genuine draft.
2. The fact that it is labeled as an "opinion of the court" means that the original vote was in favor of Mississippi.
3. Alito thinks - or at least thought when he wrote this - that the nature of their discussions when voting suggested that a majority was in favor of explicitly overturning Roe and Casey.
4. We have no idea who leaked this, although obviously a clerk is most likely.
5. The motivation for leaking this is equally unclear. Since this case will likely be officially decided sometime in June, the idea that this is intended to drum up Democratic support for the midterms is silly.
6. Nothing is set in stone. The initial vote is not binding. No justice is required to sign off on any particular opinion. We won't know what the decision really is, and how the law is really changed, until it is published in a couple of months.
7. Everyone chill out.
Here's the short rundown for people who can't read all the crap:
1. This opinion is almost certainly a genuine draft.
2. The fact that it is labeled as an "opinion of the court" means that the original vote was in favor of Mississippi.
3. Alito thinks - or at least thought when he wrote this - that the nature of their discussions when voting suggested that a majority was in favor of explicitly overturning Roe and Casey.
4. We have no idea who leaked this, although obviously a clerk is most likely.
5. The motivation for leaking this is equally unclear. Since this case will likely be officially decided sometime in June, the idea that this is intended to drum up Democratic support for the midterms is silly.
6. Nothing is set in stone. The initial vote is not binding. No justice is required to sign off on any particular opinion. We won't know what the decision really is, and how the law is really changed, until it is published in a couple of months.
7. Everyone chill out.
The OP said Drunk. That was his exact term. Screwing someone who can't give consent is rape.
Then again, a man shouldn't need a law to tell them right from wrong.
Got it. So the likely scenario here is Thomas assigned it to Alito then?
Most likely, yes. Unless Roberts originally voted with the majority, in which case he would have assigned it.
I don't care which side you're on, nobody can deny how horrible this timing is for the Republicans heading into mid terms.
This just became a culture war and the women voters will come out in droves.
This just became a culture war and the women voters will come out in droves.
Makes you kind of wonder doesn't it? Not that Dems would ever do anything like that on purpose
Gotta believe if Roberts was in the majority he would have taken it himself, just to keep Alito from going scorched earth... like he ended up doing.
Oh they would absolutely leake it on purpose, but even then it's the Republican Supreme Court that is making the ruling. That had nothing to do with the Democrats.
That's another possibility. Roberts might have assigned himself the opinion, but after trading notes and drafts, Alito came to the conclusion that he had five votes to overturn Roe, and so he circulated this one as a potential replacement for whatever the Roberts opinion might have said.
Yep. Psycho woke warriors with a totally inept administration that ruins everything they touch with virtue signaling bs. Right on cue let's swing the pendulum way too far the other direction and torpedo all the nov momentum. Couple this with Trump out there stumpin and who knows what'll happen in Nov now. Ugh
Maybe a Republican clerk leaked it in order to soften the landing a bit and increase the odds that the electorate will start suffering from abortion fatigue before Novemeber rolls around.
Regardless of which loonies you might find least offensive, one thing we can probably agree on is that the loonies on both sides are especially adept at stepping on their own dicks.
I personally don't think it matters who leaked it, the damage has already been done. The reaction would come from the ruling itself not because we found out early.
I think so, too, but who knows what straws one might grasp at if they are looking ahead to the political ramifications of this thing.
Here's another possibility: Maybe someone is worried that too many states aren't prepared for the ruling to come down, and leaked this in the hopes that states might spend the next two months getting their own laws in order so they know exactly what the impact will be.
Yeah, all we can do is speculate on this point, and speculation plus a nickel is worth about five cents.
I’m in DC this week. Plan to go to the Court tomorrow to see the spectacle. Will try to post some pics.
Can’t do that anymore, Zeke.
Remember, according to the new liberal orthodoxy, men can give birth too.
I think it’s highly likely that some clerk who is gung ho about abortion rights leaked this in order to put pressure on the court.
You don’t leak something like this in May to try and influence elections in November.
What do you think the ramifications of the leak are? Something like this has never happened before, has it? You’d think the effects will be huge.
8. This proves that the election was fixed! When the left destroys the integrity of the Supreme Court, they would do anything.
Last edited:
Obviously going through a stack of backdated invoices therefore the confusion
Per Mark in an earlier post, there seems to be more focus on the leak than the fact that the Supreme Court has already written up a decision before a case had even started.
I tend to stay out of the law threads because it's not my sphere of expertise but....is that normal?
Because that seems really f#$ked up.
If you want to talk about delegitimizing (is that even a word) the Supreme Court as just a biased, pre-decided political apparatus....this seems to me like pretty obvious example.
The leak just exposed the current court.
I could be wrong (but I don't think I am as it's illogical).
Roberts has the delegating authority when he’s in the majority so it stands to reason that it’s the delegating authority that moves to the senior justice. Why would the senior justice be obligated to write the majority opinion? That would be unnecessarily arbitrary.
Abortion as a divisive issue is almost singularly responsible for republican successes over the last 40+ years.
I understand your sentiment. Ultimately the survival of the union depends on us facing our divisive acrimony and resolving it adequately rather than running away from it.
