MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: pacearrow02 on May 02, 2022, 09:20:55 PM
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1521295411545260035
Barricades up around the Supreme Court building right now because of this leak. We are falling apart at the seams as a country right now.
https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyDBoreing/status/1521304307538309120
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1521295411545260035
Barricades up around the Supreme Court building right now because of this leak. We are falling apart at the seams as a country right now.
Yeah, the leak is the problem here. 🙄
You're nothing if not consistent. Consistently wrong, but consistent nonetheless.
-
Yeah, the leak is the problem here. 🙄
You're nothing if not consistent. Consistently wrong, but consistent nonetheless.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RichLowry/status/1521305214552350726
The leak is exactly the problem. I understand you don’t agree with what appears to be the majority opinion but this sets a crazy precedent. They’re openly calling for “burning the place down” knowing fill well the severity of this leak snd you come out with this predictable hot take.
-
Yeah, the leak is the problem here. 🙄
You're nothing if not consistent. Consistently wrong, but consistent nonetheless.
https://mobile.twitter.com/matthewschmitz/status/1521299231641948162
Dangerous game this clerk started.
-
Seems like the precedent was actually set almost 16 months ago…
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/RichLowry/status/1521305214552350726
The leak is exactly the problem. I understand you don’t agree with what appears to be the majority opinion but this sets a crazy precedent. They’re openly calling for “burning the place down” knowing fill well the severity of this leak snd you come out with this predictable hot take.
The fact you claim to be worried about "precedent" here is unintentionally hilarious.
And you remain pathetically wrong.
-
Seems like the precedent was actually set almost 16 months ago…
How so?
-
The fact you claim to be worried about "precedent" here is unintentionally hilarious.
And you remain pathetically wrong.
Has this ever happened before? I’m not aware of a SCOTUS opinion being leaked much less one of this magnitude. What do you think was the goal to leak it?
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/matthewschmitz/status/1521299231641948162
Dangerous game this clerk started.
1. You have no idea who leaked this.
2. The danger here is five justices who lie about stare decisis and show no respect for long settled law.
-
Has this ever happened before? I’m not aware of a SCOTUS opinion being leaked much less one of this magnitude. What do you think was the goal to leak it?
(http://esciencenews.com/files/images/2015121411935002.jpg)
-
How so?
Maybe it’s the weed…
If the concern is that people will come to the Supreme Court and riot because of political disagreement, then it happening now is not the precedent. It’s the new norm. Only this time, the steal is real (read: stolen Supreme Court seat that should be our current AG) and the hurt party is women across the country, not the fragile former president.
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/RichLowry/status/1521305214552350726
The leak is exactly the problem. I understand you don’t agree with what appears to be the majority opinion but this sets a crazy precedent. They’re openly calling for “burning the place down” knowing fill well the severity of this leak snd you come out with this predictable hot take.
Do it
-
1. You have no idea who leaked this.
2. The danger here is five justices who lie about stare decisis and show no respect for long settled law.
Regardless of which side of the decision one is on. This one is a big problem.
These justices, especially the ones recently seated, deliberately lied under oath to congress to get confirmed (neither would have been confirmed if they had answered the way they are voting now).
It confirms what a lot of people already feared, that the justices are just political operatives and do not care about the rule of law.
-
Also, in before the lock. No way this stays above board.
-
Do it
Yeah, you can tell by the live shots that the protesters are extremely close to burning it down with their candles.
-
It confirms what a lot of people already feared, that the justices are just political operatives and do not care about the rule of law.
^This.
-
ah yes, the studied concern for the rule of law, the conventions of the Supreme Court, and a critical understanding of both from noted serious person PaceArrow. I'll calibrate my reaction to the reality of the thing based entirely on how tightly you are clutching your pearls.
-
This is a total s-show regardless of what political party you generally support.
-
ah yes, the studied concern for the rule of law, the conventions of the Supreme Court, and a critical understanding of both from noted serious person PaceArrow. I'll calibrate my reaction to the reality of the thing based entirely on how tightly you are clutching your pearls.
Never claimed to be an expert. You obviously know waaaaayyyyy more in this space. Are you aware of anything like this happening before?
-
Maybe it’s the weed…
If the concern is that people will come to the Supreme Court and riot because of political disagreement, then it happening now is not the precedent. It’s the new norm. Only this time, the steal is real (read: stolen Supreme Court seat that should be our current AG) and the hurt party is women across the country, not the fragile former president.
Christ, not everything is about Trump.
-
This is a total s-show regardless of what political party you generally support.
Really? Because this is what one party has been warning about and what the other party has been literally saying it was going to ensure happened. The exception being when the now justices decreed that they would leave this ruling alone. Weird huh?
All the “regardless of party” stuff is ridiculous. Watch democracy die and throw your hands saying, “it’s both sides”. Also, don’t talk about it here. This is a basketball place. Pretend your country isn’t dying in front of you. Also, how about that new recruit? Cool huh?
-
The Handmaid's Tale: SCOTUS Leaks on Women's Rights
-
Really? Because this is what one party has been warning about and what the other party has been literally saying it was going to ensure happened. The exception being when the now justices decreed that they would leave this ruling alone. Weird huh?
All the “regardless of party” stuff is ridiculous. Watch democracy die and throw your hands saying, “it’s both sides”. Also, don’t talk about it here. This is a basketball place. Pretend your country isn’t dying in front of you. Also, how about that new recruit? Cool huh?
You probably shouldn't post when you've had weed.
-
You probably shouldn't post when you've had weed.
Haha 💯
-
Christ, not everything is about Trump.
You are correct here. It’s also about Rupert Murdoch.
-
Never claimed to be an expert. You obviously know waaaaayyyyy more in this space. Are you aware of anything like this happening before?
Look bud, I know you're up from the seaworld to thump your chest and look for fish and all, but really you're comically off base here.
"Nurse, has the patient eaten anything today?"
"No, doctor... he has a massive malignant tumor in his stomach."
"It's important that he eats to keep up his strength. The fact that he isn't eating is very concerning."
You're gleeful because the result you want is happening and are trolling by tenting your fingers in Very Serious Concern over the decorum of the Court, but really the fact that decorum of the Court was violated is the thing that is telling the world something... it's just something entirely different from the conclusion you want to pretend to draw from it.
But whatever man, enjoy your evening and the plaudits of the five people on this message board who reflexively agree with you, I guess?
-
Never claimed to be an expert. You obviously know waaaaayyyyy more in this space. Are you aware of anything like this happening before?
Five justices capriciously overturning a right that's been reaffirmed by the court multiple times over 50 years, after every single one of them pledged under oath to respect precedent?
First I'm aware of.
-
Look bud, I know you're up from the seaworld to thump your chest and look for fish and all, but really you're comically off base here.
"Nurse, has the patient eaten anything today?"
"No, doctor... he has a massive malignant tumor in his stomach."
"It's important that he eats to keep up his strength. The fact that he isn't eating is very concerning."
You're gleeful because the result you want is happening and are trolling by tenting your fingers in Very Serious Concern over the decorum of the Court, but really the fact that decorum of the Court was violated is the thing that is telling the world something... it's just something entirely different from the conclusion you want to pretend to draw from it.
But whatever man, enjoy your evening and the plaudits of the five people on this message board who reflexively agree with you, I guess?
So is that a no?
-
You probably shouldn't post when you've had weed.
I don't know. This place might be a little better if only people posted after they had weed.
-
Five justices capriciously overturning a right that's been reaffirmed by the court multiple times over 50 years, after every single one of them pledged under oath to respect precedent?
First I'm aware of.
https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/
You've heard of at least some of these I'd wager.
-
https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/
You've heard of at least some of these I'd wager.
I’ll never forget when someone on The Scoop started a thread after Ward v. Race Horse was overturned. I still remember where I was that day. Thanks for reminding me. Really good comparisons to this moment right there.
-
https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/
You've heard of at least some of these I'd wager.
Which of these fit the fact pattern I laid out? Which resulted in the deprivation of what had been deemed a constitutional right by multiple courts?
-
I’ll never forget when someone on The Scoop started a thread after Ward v. Race Horse was overturned. I still remember where I was that day. Thanks for reminding me. Really good comparisons to this moment right there.
Yeah well obviously they all aren't cases in the public conscious, but you probably heard of a couple of them, like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Hawaii
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
-
Which of these fit the fact pattern I laid out? Which resulted in the deprivation of what had been deemed a constitutional right by multiple courts?
Yeah I don't remember the confirmation process of all the justices, so I don't know. But to pretend that the Supreme Court overturning a Supreme Court decision is some sort of sacrilege is crazy.
-
Which of these fit the fact pattern I laid out? Which resulted in the deprivation of what had been deemed a constitutional right by multiple courts?
And this is clearly the best case name
A Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” v. Attorney General,
-
Yeah I don't remember the confirmation process of all the justices, so I don't know. But to pretend that the Supreme Court overturning a Supreme Court decision is rare is pretty ignorant.
Cool. I never said - or pretended - that no Supreme Court decision had ever been overturned.
Could you give me an example, however, of when the court specifically eliminated something that previous courts had deemed a constitutional right? Or are we just using Google to find a link of overturned cases unrelated to the topic at hand?
-
A long Twitter thread for pace:
https://twitter.com/jonathanwpeters/status/1521309806430236672?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
@jonathanwpeters
It's remarkable, the leak of what appears to be an initial draft majority opinion. SCOTUS generally has kept its secrets and has kept confidential its internal processes and deliberations. But the Court does occasionally leak, and it has leaked before about Roe v. Wade. 1/x
Its recorded history of leaks dates back to mid-19th century. Some leaks have commented on a decision after its release. Others have provided accounts of personal relationships/conflicts among the justices. And, yes, some opinions have leaked before release.
Consider the 1852 case Pennsylvania v. Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company. Ten days before the Court handed down its decision, the New York Tribune reported the outcome.
Two years later, the bridge case returned to the Court, and again the Tribune scooped the justices before they made their decision public. Later that year, the Tribune published a running account of the deliberations in Dred Scott.
Historians have speculated that these leaks came from Justice John McLean, who authored the first bridge opinion before dissenting in the second one, as well as Dred Scott.
The 1970s brought a wave of leaks. First, Justice Douglas in June 1972 wrote a memo to his colleagues about Roe v. Wade. Somehow, it reached the Washington Post, which published a story about the memo and the Court’s inner deliberations.
Then, Time magazine published a story about Roe v. Wade before the court announced it, reporting the outcome and the vote. Infuriated, Burger demanded a meeting with Time’s editors, chastising them for scooping the court.
The chief justice believed a law clerk was to blame, so he ordered all clerks not to speak to reporters. This resulted in what became known as the “20-second rule”: Any clerk caught talking to a reporter would be fired within 20 seconds.
In 1977, NPR penetrated the justices’ conference by reporting that they had voted 5-3 not to review the convictions of three defendants in the Watergate cover-up cases.
The story, obtained by Nina Totenberg and confirmed by the New York Times, also reported that Burger had delayed the announcement of that decision so he could try to recruit the fourth vote necessary to review the convictions.
A couple years later, Burger was still fighting leaks. In 1979, he reassigned a typesetter at the Court’s printing office after concluding that the typesetter had leaked nonpublic information to ABC correspondent Tim O’Brien.
Not long before, O’Brien had reported in advance the outcome of a case involving the right of courts to question reporters about their thoughts during the editorial process. O’Brien then broke another story in 1986, when he scooped the justices on a decision re: budget balancing.
O’Brien reported that on a particular day the Court would strike down a key part of a law. He was right about the outcome but not the day. Years later, a UPI reporter said Burger intentionally delayed the decision: “Burger was ticked off and just wanted to stick it to...O’Brien.”
Even more recently, CBS’s Jan Crawford reported in 2012 that Chief Justice Roberts voted to strike down the heart of the Affordable Care Act before changing his mind and siding with the court’s liberal bloc.
All of which is to say: Supreme Court leaks are rare and remarkable, but they are not unprecedented. I've done some research on this, and I'm just sharing for anyone who might be interested in this wider context. /end
-
Proving once again we need more women posting here at Scoop.
-
Dang Pakuni, doing Pace’s homework… again.
You know maybe this time he’ll assimilate this information in good faith and not simply recalibrate his trolling like he’s done the last several hundred times.
-
Nope
-
A long Twitter thread for pace:
https://twitter.com/jonathanwpeters/status/1521309806430236672?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
@jonathanwpeters
It's remarkable, the leak of what appears to be an initial draft majority opinion. SCOTUS generally has kept its secrets and has kept confidential its internal processes and deliberations. But the Court does occasionally leak, and it has leaked before about Roe v. Wade. 1/x
Its recorded history of leaks dates back to mid-19th century. Some leaks have commented on a decision after its release. Others have provided accounts of personal relationships/conflicts among the justices. And, yes, some opinions have leaked before release.
Consider the 1852 case Pennsylvania v. Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company. Ten days before the Court handed down its decision, the New York Tribune reported the outcome.
Two years later, the bridge case returned to the Court, and again the Tribune scooped the justices before they made their decision public. Later that year, the Tribune published a running account of the deliberations in Dred Scott.
Historians have speculated that these leaks came from Justice John McLean, who authored the first bridge opinion before dissenting in the second one, as well as Dred Scott.
The 1970s brought a wave of leaks. First, Justice Douglas in June 1972 wrote a memo to his colleagues about Roe v. Wade. Somehow, it reached the Washington Post, which published a story about the memo and the Court’s inner deliberations.
Then, Time magazine published a story about Roe v. Wade before the court announced it, reporting the outcome and the vote. Infuriated, Burger demanded a meeting with Time’s editors, chastising them for scooping the court.
The chief justice believed a law clerk was to blame, so he ordered all clerks not to speak to reporters. This resulted in what became known as the “20-second rule”: Any clerk caught talking to a reporter would be fired within 20 seconds.
In 1977, NPR penetrated the justices’ conference by reporting that they had voted 5-3 not to review the convictions of three defendants in the Watergate cover-up cases.
The story, obtained by Nina Totenberg and confirmed by the New York Times, also reported that Burger had delayed the announcement of that decision so he could try to recruit the fourth vote necessary to review the convictions.
A couple years later, Burger was still fighting leaks. In 1979, he reassigned a typesetter at the Court’s printing office after concluding that the typesetter had leaked nonpublic information to ABC correspondent Tim O’Brien.
Not long before, O’Brien had reported in advance the outcome of a case involving the right of courts to question reporters about their thoughts during the editorial process. O’Brien then broke another story in 1986, when he scooped the justices on a decision re: budget balancing.
O’Brien reported that on a particular day the Court would strike down a key part of a law. He was right about the outcome but not the day. Years later, a UPI reporter said Burger intentionally delayed the decision: “Burger was ticked off and just wanted to stick it to...O’Brien.”
Even more recently, CBS’s Jan Crawford reported in 2012 that Chief Justice Roberts voted to strike down the heart of the Affordable Care Act before changing his mind and siding with the court’s liberal bloc.
All of which is to say: Supreme Court leaks are rare and remarkable, but they are not unprecedented. I've done some research on this, and I'm just sharing for anyone who might be interested in this wider context. /end
Thanks Pakuni!!
-
Proving once again we need more women posting here at Scoop.
thanks muta woman
-
Boomers, just the worst.
-
Dang Pakuni, doing Pace’s homework… again.
You know maybe this time he’ll assimilate this information in good faith and not simply recalibrate his trolling like he’s done the last several hundred times.
Come on. Give credit to where credit is due to Mr. Jonathan Peters for doing the homework. Pakuni just saw it on Twitter and copied the thread over to here. It was useful and productive in providing context so appreciate him for passing it along.
Not sure the leaks referenced in Mr Peters thread are exactly comparing apples to apples but interesting read none the less.
-
Come on. Give credit to where credit is due to Mr. Jonathan Peters for doing the homework. Pakuni just saw it on Twitter and copied the thread over to here. It was useful and productive in providing context so appreciate him for passing it along.
Not sure the leaks referenced in Mr Peters thread are exactly comparing apples to apples but interesting read none the less.
👏🏻
-
The good news is Alito explicitly mentions gay marriage and legalized sodomy in his opinion. I'm sure that's irrelevant
-
Given that no one knows “ for sure” who leaked this, but but weird how MOST are surmising which side of the aisle this is coming from. The ones who keep telling us our democracy is in “peril” Being that I believe most would agree that this leak is above reproach, one would think the “journalistic” source could have exercised some self control and NOT reported it. My understanding is this happens quite often, the “journalistic” integrity thing that is but this is another glaring example of why I believe “journalism” is dead. There are no standards or ethics anymore.
If you want a litmus test of this, flip it around and imagine the reaction
If this leak turns out to be true, all it means is subject of abortion goes back to the states where it belonged all along.
-
I remember when separation of church and state was a thing. Fun times.
-
This country is a joke to the rest of the world. Now relegated to third world status. Pity how the mighty have fallen, hey?
-
This country is a joke to the rest of the world. Now relegated to third world status. Pity how the mighty have fallen, hey?
Right on, DDS. Developed countries have done the right thing, not transgressed.
-
Right on, DDS. Developed countries have done the right thing, not transgressed.
Americas roots in Puritanism have always taken us backwards after many steps forward
-
I remember when separation of church and state was a thing. Fun times.
Who are you, Rex Chapman? Thanks for your 8th-grade level take. Well done.
-
Roe v Wade was always vulnerable. Basing on the right to privacy was a stretch. Ruth Badger Ginsberg thoughts:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html
-
This country is a joke to the rest of the world. Now relegated to third world status. Pity how the mighty have fallen, hey?
Good luck to J.P. Mandel in the Ohio primary tonight! I look forward to his posts on Trooth Senshul.
-
In before the lock, but anyone wringing their hands about the leak is just doing so because they feel dirty dancing a jig in the town square about the result.
-
Americas roots in Puritanism have always taken us backwards after many steps forward
I have long had many issues with John Calvin. Given a time machine useable only for sucker punching historical figures in a way that is kinda painful but ultimately can't really do much to them or change the course of history, he's on the list.
-
In before the lock, but anyone wringing their hands about the leak is just doing so because they feel dirty dancing a jig in the town square about the result.
Yup, absolutely this.
-
2. The danger here is five justices who lie about stare decisis and show no respect for long settled law.
Absolutism to Stare Decisis is dangerous on its face. If you accept the Stare Decisis in its absolute form, then Plessy vs. Ferguson would be the law of the land and Separate but Equal provisions that were the foundation of Jim Crow would be in place.
Likewise, if Stare Decisis was an absolute concept, Brown vs. Board of Education would have been ruled for Board, not for Brown. God knows where that would leave us today.
Where I agree with you, Brother Pakuni, is that SCOTUS should step on decisions on past courts very, very carefully. Courts, even the Supreme Courts, make errors that require fixing. But fixing errors should be rare. I'll leave it to others to decide whether Roe vs. Wade is a "rare" error requiring fixing.
That said, the country is about to get tied up in knots over a draft of something. We have no idea whether this opinion will be affirmed by the Supreme Court, whether it will be toned down or even whether concurring or dissenting opinions will be developed. This is why releasing the draft was so stupid. It's a draft!
If the opinion becomes a Court ruling, I would remind everyone that it does not mean the end of Abortion on Demand in the United States. As a teen in Tennessee in 1970 and 1971, abortion was outlawed in our state. At Eighth Avenue and Church Street, one of the busiest intersections in downtown Nashville (pre Interstate 265/40), there was a pregnancy hotline bulletin board that advertised for arranging abortions in New York. The billboard was huge and controversial, but it stayed.
Women will continue to have abortion access. It may be inconvenient and less than universal, but nobody will change Illinois', California's or New York's laws unless a Human Life Amendment is added to the Constitution -- and I don't see that ever happening.
-
Absolutism to Stare Decisis is dangerous on its face. If you accept the Stare Decisis in its absolute form, then Plessy vs. Ferguson would be the law of the land and Separate but Equal provisions that were the foundation of Jim Crow would be in place.
Likewise, if Stare Decisis was an absolute concept, Brown vs. Board of Education would have been ruled for Board, not for Brown. God knows where that would leave us today.
Where I agree with you, Brother Pakuni, is that SCOTUS should step on decisions on past courts very, very carefully. Courts, even the Supreme Courts, make errors that require fixing. But fixing errors should be rare. I'll leave it to others to decide whether Roe vs. Wade is a "rare" error requiring fixing.
Now do originalism.
-
Guess the dems might expand the court now.
-
Given that no one knows “ for sure” who leaked this, but but weird how MOST are surmising which side of the aisle this is coming from. The ones who keep telling us our democracy is in “peril” Being that I believe most would agree that this leak is above reproach, one would think the “journalistic” source could have exercised some self control and NOT reported it. My understanding is this happens quite often, the “journalistic” integrity thing that is but this is another glaring example of why I believe “journalism” is dead. There are no standards or ethics anymore.
If you want a litmus test of this, flip it around and imagine the reaction
If this leak turns out to be true, all it means is subject of abortion goes back to the states where it belonged all along.
So your thesis is that the Politico journalists should have shown "integrity" by refusing to publish the news? For the greater good or something?
And yes, it will be wonderful in all the red states when only rich white men can afford to pay for their mistresses or their daughters (or both) to get abortions, as was the case in the good old days. The poor women can use coat hangers in back alleys, just as they used to for fun. Or they can have babies they can't care for because most of the same rich white men who are against women's reproductive rights also are against providing money to help single mothers.
Your fellow dentist is right: This Supreme Court is undoing 50 years of progress on women's reproductive rights and turning America into a third-world country.
-
Given that no one knows “ for sure” who leaked this, but but weird how MOST are surmising which side of the aisle this is coming from. The ones who keep telling us our democracy is in “peril” Being that I believe most would agree that this leak is above reproach, one would think the “journalistic” source could have exercised some self control and NOT reported it. My understanding is this happens quite often, the “journalistic” integrity thing that is but this is another glaring example of why I believe “journalism” is dead. There are no standards or ethics anymore.
If you want a litmus test of this, flip it around and imagine the reaction
If this leak turns out to be true, all it means is subject of abortion goes back to the states where it belonged all along.
"Health care professional" continues to be against actual health care.
-
I have long had many issues with John Calvin. Given a time machine useable only for sucker punching historical figures in a way that is kinda painful but ultimately can't really do much to them or change the course of history, he's on the list.
America’s War on Drugs, War on Sex, War on Crime and so forth have always failed to address the root causes. We blame our ills, well some do, on a belief we can look to a magic being and book to solve them. It’s always been gobbledygook and if we believe in the words of our founding fathers, we’d know what they knew, religion causes more problems than solve them. It’s a convenient crutch to pass the buck and avoid real governance. Religion is a scourge on real humanity and hinders progress. Always has, always will
-
Guess the dems might expand the court now.
They should expand to 15, but only allow the Senate to vote on three. After the first three get the court balanced with 6 Republican and 6 Democratic nominated justices, all future justices must be approved by unanimous consent of the sitting members of the court. So if you can't get Sam Alito and Sonia Sotomayor to agree, no new justice. This would mean nominating justices that actually cared about the rule of law rather than the most partisan judges the Senate will allow. Going forward, it would force both parties to care about justices that were chosen for credentials and record rather than just enforcing the party-driven flavor of the day issues.
-
Guess the dems might expand the court now.
No they won’t because democrats play scared, moderate, politics and don’t cater to their far left base because they don’t want to upset the apple cart.
I always find it hilarious when people call democrats communists when the US is a center right nation, and even the furthest left politicians here would be considered moderates in most other countries.
So yea, because of democrats refusal to play ball is why there is going to be an abortion ban in half the states.
-
No they won’t because democrats play scared, moderate, politics and don’t cater to their far left base because they don’t want to upset the apple cart.
I always find it hilarious when people call democrats communists when the US is a center right nation, and even the furthest left politicians here would be considered moderates in most other countries.
Wasn't it Lenin who was notorious for upholding decorum rather than taking action to ensure his control of power? Clearly Democrats learned directly at Lenin's knee.
-
Absolutism to Stare Decisis is dangerous on its face. If you accept the Stare Decisis in its absolute form, then Plessy vs. Ferguson would be the law of the land and Separate but Equal provisions that were the foundation of Jim Crow would be in place.
Likewise, if Stare Decisis was an absolute concept, Brown vs. Board of Education would have been ruled for Board, not for Brown. God knows where that would leave us today.
I never suggested absolutism to stare decisis, but before I explain myself there, let me explain that you're wrong re: Plessy.
Plessy v Ferguson was never overturned by the court. Subsequent rulings - including Brown - had the effect of weakening it, but a separate group of justices didn't come along decades later and simply say "they were wrong, we're going to pretend the ruling doesn't exist."
That's what's potentially happening here with Roe. Five justices - three of whom have been on the court for five years or less - have decided that they know the Constitution better than the seven justices who ruled in favor of Roe as well as the justices who decided Casey.
And they're doing so capriciously. Unlike Plessy and Brown, there have been no societal, cultural or legal changes to bring this about. In fact, the opposite is true. The American public is far more accepting and supportive of abortion rights than 50 years ago. Unlike Brown, this court is cutting against the grain.
Now, when I rage about these justices lying about stare decisis, it;s just that. These justices - most notably Kavanaugh - took an oath in their Senate hearings and testified that they respected stare decisis and precedent, and considered Roe settled law. And then at the very first opportunity, they went back on their word to overturn it.
-
Guess the dems might expand the court now.
Don't have the votes for it, and ultimately that will just result in a tit-for-tat constant expansion of the court.
Of course, bald-faced lying during your confirmation hearing is impeachable, but that will never happen either.
-
The Democrats big problem is that they are bound by the policy "wonkism" that succeeded in the Clinton and Obama administrations, but we are living in an era where the messaging is more important. Case in point, while it was hardly perfect, Obamacare is a good (not great) law. Most Republicans would even admit that without a hot mic around.
As for the now, I am trying to figure out the *political* downside for cancelling student loan debt. I fully understand that it would not be great policy because it doesn't actually impact the underlying issue regarding higher education financing, and it would likely disproportionately impact those who are actually able to pay back their debts, but I can't imagine that it wouldn't pay off politically. I can see a bunch of people voting blue in the future who otherwise are going to sit out 2022 or 2024. But I don't see many Dems voting red because of it. Especially if you include parent PLUS loans in the equation.
But they are getting lost in the policy aspects of it. For instance the "means testing," which sounds good and all but is bound to piss off a bunch of voters who didn't hear the phrase "means testing" when Biden made his promise two years ago.
Democrats are trying to play chess while the Republicans proudly flip over the board to play something else entirely.
-
I never suggested absolutism to stare decisis, but before I explain myself there, let me explain that you're wrong re: Plessy.
Plessy v Ferguson was never overturned by the court. Subsequent rulings - including Brown - had the effect of weakening it, but a separate group of justices didn't come along decades later and simply say "they were wrong, we're going to pretend the ruling doesn't exist."
That's what's potentially happening here with Roe. Five justices - three of whom have been on the court for five years or less - have decided that they know the Constitution better than the seven justices who ruled in favor of Roe as well as the justices who decided Casey.
And they're doing so capriciously. Unlike Plessy and Brown, there have been no societal, cultural or legal changes to bring this about. In fact, the opposite is true. The American public is far more accepting and supportive of abortion rights than 50 years ago. Unlike Brown, this court is cutting against the grain.
Now, when I rage about these justices lying about stare decisis, it;s just that. These justices - most notably Kavanaugh - took an oath in their Senate hearings and testified that they respected stare decisis and precedent, and considered Roe settled law. And then at the very first opportunity, they went back on their word to overturn it.
One clarification: they don't give a unnatural carnal knowledge about the Constitution. Since Scalia, the Constitution has been used as a fig leaf to give cover to the Court's right wing to make purely political decisions. Scalia in particular, but also Thomas, always started with the desired outcome first and then retrofit judicial reasoning to support that outcome.
-
I have long had many issues with John Calvin. Given a time machine useable only for sucker punching historical figures in a way that is kinda painful but ultimately can't really do much to them or change the course of history, he's on the list.
Try living in West Michigan with the Calvinists.
-
The Democrats big problem is that they are bound by the policy "wonkism" that succeeded in the Clinton and Obama administrations, but we are living in an era where the messaging is more important.
Compounding this is that they have so many various factions on the left to please, the messaging ends up being totally convoluted and ineffective.
-
In before the lock, but anyone wringing their hands about the leak is just doing so because they feel dirty dancing a jig in the town square about the result.
With all due respect, thats BS. I'm pretty staunchly pro-choice, but don't think the leak is at all kosher, much less the people who are celebrating it as heroic. Many would surely be losing their minds at the fall of democracy or judicial process if it was flipped. This situation is a sh**show from the court to the leak.
What I do find amusing, and is rampant on social media, is the number of politic obsessed people who clearly don't understand government, legislation/legislative process, or federal vs state.
-
Don't have the votes for it, and ultimately that will just result in a tit-for-tat constant expansion of the court.
Of course, bald-faced lying during your confirmation hearing is impeachable, but that will never happen either.
I didn't watch any of the confirmation hearings except a flew blips here and there. My memory of Comey Barrett is that she refused to answer whether she would overturn Roe V Wade. Are you saying these alleged 5 justices under oath specifically said they would not overturn this decision?
-
I didn't watch any of the confirmation hearings except a flew blips here and there. My memory of Comey Barrett is that she refused to answer whether she would overturn Roe V Wade. Are you saying these alleged 5 justices under oath specifically said they would not overturn this decision?
Basically, yes.
-
I didn't watch any of the confirmation hearings except a flew blips here and there. My memory of Comey Barrett is that she refused to answer whether she would overturn Roe V Wade. Are you saying these alleged 5 justices under oath specifically said they would not overturn this decision?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/susan-collins-slams-justices-neil-gorsuch-and-brett-kavanaugh-over-completely-inconsistent-draft-supreme-court-opinion-overturning-roe-v-wade/ar-AAWSErj?ocid=uxbndlbing
"If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office," Collins said in a statement. "
Ahh, Susan Collins. Still pretending she didn't know they were lying.
-
I didn't watch any of the confirmation hearings except a flew blips here and there. My memory of Comey Barrett is that she refused to answer whether she would overturn Roe V Wade. Are you saying these alleged 5 justices under oath specifically said they would not overturn this decision?
WASHINGTON (AP) — During his confirmation to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh convinced Sen. Susan Collins that he thought a woman’s right to an abortion was “settled law,” calling the court cases affirming it “precedent on precedent” that could not be casually overturned.
Amy Coney Barrett told senators during her Senate confirmation hearing that laws could not be undone simply by personal beliefs, including her own. “It’s not the law of Amy,” she quipped.
To Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Kavanaugh stressed “the importance of the precedent” under the previous court rulings and a “woman has a constitutional right to obtain an abortion before viability,” referring to the 24 weeks of pregnancy now in question under the Mississippi law, which would lower the threshold to 15 weeks.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/is-roe-v-wade-settled-law-justices-earlier-assurances-now-in-doubt
-
As the saying goes, everyone in favor of abortion has already been born…
-
With all due respect, thats BS. I'm pretty staunchly pro-choice, but don't think the leak is at all kosher, much less the people who are celebrating it as heroic. Many would surely be losing their minds at the fall of democracy or judicial process if it was flipped. This situation is a sh**show from the court to the leak.
What I do find amusing, and is rampant on social media, is the number of politic obsessed people who clearly don't understand government, legislation/legislative process, or federal vs state.
I completely agree with you and am also pro-choice. I think this discussion is two pronged with the potential decision itself and separately the fact that it was leaked.
My take on the issue itself is that we have generally been 50/50 since the 70's. My thought has always been that if you overturn it however abortions become much less safe for people.
As far as the leak it's extremely concerning imo. Our institutions seem to be at risk. Now maybe some here and across the country want to completely overthrow our system, but that prospect isn't exactly thrilling to me and the vast majority of American citizens.
-
As the saying goes, everyone in favor of abortion has already been born…
Thanks for gracing us with that exceptionally stupid saying.
-
Good luck to J.P. Mandel in the Ohio primary tonight! I look forward to his posts on Trooth Senshul.
Hey, that’s my favorite candidate you are talking about.
-
In before the lock, but anyone wringing their hands about the leak is just doing so because they feel dirty dancing a jig in the town square about the result.
And anyone who has no issue with the leak is because it’s the last remaining chance of getting their preferred outcome of Roe not being overturned.
-
This is going to be an extremely difficult summer.
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/susan-collins-slams-justices-neil-gorsuch-and-brett-kavanaugh-over-completely-inconsistent-draft-supreme-court-opinion-overturning-roe-v-wade/ar-AAWSErj?ocid=uxbndlbing
"If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office," Collins said in a statement. "
Ahh, Susan Collins. Still pretending she didn't know they were lying.
Susan Collins is a liar AND a fool.
-
Basically, yes.
Basically isn't an answer. Did they or didn't they specifically answer that question.
Also, the decision hasn't been published yet, it's a draft.
-
And anyone who has no issue with the leak is because it’s the last remaining chance of getting their preferred outcome of Roe not being overturned.
Focusing on the leak here is like focusing on a gunshot victim's scraped knee in the ER, instead of the gaping hole in his chest.
Yeah, the leak is a problem, but it's not the problem.
-
Let’s try to look at the good news from this ruling.
No more death penalty. The Rs have shown that they respect every human life.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Sorry if I can’t be serious. But since perjury by the highest jurists in the country is a ‘thing’ now, there was never a way this day was not going to come.
-
Impeach the leaky judge!!
-
https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/
You've heard of at least some of these I'd wager.
I know my eyes are not that great but I did not see the Brown vs Board of education decision over turning almost 70 years of precidence where separate but equal education was permissible under the constitution. Is there something wrong with the filter.
-
Good luck to J.P. Mandel in the Ohio primary tonight! I look forward to his posts on Trooth Senshul.
🐷🐷
-
Focusing on the leak here is like focusing on a gunshot victim's scraped knee in the ER, instead of the gaping hole in his chest.
Yeah, the leak is a problem, but it's not the problem.
In some/most instances I would agree with you. But something as contentious and combative as this decision the motivation behind the leak (imo) was to gin up public anger and emotion to try and intimidate justices to change their mind. So assuming that was the intention I think that’s an incredibly dangerous road to go down. I could be overreacting but only time will tell I suppose.
-
Let’s try to look at the good news from this ruling.
No more death penalty. The Rs have shown that they respect every human life.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Sorry if I can’t be serious. But since perjury by the highest jurists in the country is a ‘thing’ now, there was never a way this day was not going to come.
You know abortion doesn’t go away with this ruling right?
-
In some/most instances I would agree with you. But something as contentious and combative as this decision the motivation behind the leak (imo) was to gin up public anger and emotion to try and intimidate justices to change their mind. So assuming that was the intention I think that’s an incredibly dangerous road to go down. I could be overreacting but only time will tell I suppose.
1. The ruling is the source of the anger. It was going to be there whether the ruling was leaked or published as normal. People aren't any more or less angry because this was leaked.
2. I suspect the justices aren't so obtuse as to be unaware that it would stir anger.
3. If they allow public reaction to a ruling change their mind, they're not worthy of serving on the court.
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/susan-collins-slams-justices-neil-gorsuch-and-brett-kavanaugh-over-completely-inconsistent-draft-supreme-court-opinion-overturning-roe-v-wade/ar-AAWSErj?ocid=uxbndlbing
"If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office," Collins said in a statement. "
Ahh, Susan Collins. Still pretending she didn't know they were lying.
Is she concerned yet?
-
You know abortion doesn’t go away with this ruling right?
Tell that to women in Texas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and the 10 other states with trigger laws set to go into effect as soon as Roe is overturned.
-
Tell that to women in Texas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and the 10 other states with trigger laws set to go into effect as soon as Roe is overturned.
If Roe is overturned, does that also ban all means of transportation? Or free will to move?
-
If Roe is overturned, does that also ban all means of transportation? Or free will to move?
Super easy for a poor woman in San Antonio to hop a flight to Los Angeles and rent a hotel for a couple nights on top of paying for a costly medical procedure.
Oh yeah, I forgot. Health care is for the rich.
-
1. The ruling is the source of the anger. It was going to be there whether the ruling was leaked or published as normal. People aren't any more or less angry because this was leaked.
2. I suspect the justices aren't so obtuse as to be unaware that it would stir anger.
3. If they allow public reaction to a ruling change their mind, they're not worthy of serving on the court.
Fair points and I don’t think it will change the majority opinion but doesn’t make the intent of the leak any less dangerous. If this changes nothing aside from the timeline of the public anger/reaction why do it I guess?
-
Not that anyone thought it was fake, but the court has confirmed that the draft ruling is legit.
https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1521509850181742592/photo/1
-
In some/most instances I would agree with you. But something as contentious and combative as this decision the motivation behind the leak (imo) was to gin up public anger and emotion to try and intimidate justices to change their mind. So assuming that was the intention I think that’s an incredibly dangerous road to go down. I could be overreacting but only time will tell I suppose.
Glad that you NOW are against ginning up public anger and emotion leading to dangerous or even deadly outcomes. Can't we just call this leak "tourists taking a stroll through the Capitol" or "antifa being agitators"?
Seriously ...
Though I'm staunchly pro-choice, I actually think the leak wasn't good. IMHO, we simply shouldn't have leaks from SCOTUS.
But that roQQet and maybe a couple of others here are pinning blame for it on Politico -- as if any news organization would have or should have ignored such a leak -- is beyond comical.
-
Tell that to women in Texas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and the 10 other states with trigger laws set to go into effect as soon as Roe is overturned.
There will be very few states where abortions are completely banned. Even in Texas and Oklahoma, two states that received a lot of attention for their extremely restrictive laws, abortion is still legal for the first six weeks. The Mississippi law that is at issue in Dobbs sets it at 15 weeks which would likely allow 90%+ of abortions. I believe that 20+ states already have laws on the books preventing abortion after viability, which Roe allowed
I think what we will ultimately see is quite a few states settling in at allowing abortion up to 12-15 weeks or so. I suspect that this will be a plurality if not a majority. I also suspect that there will be more states allowing abortion throughout pregnancy than totally banning abortion. Honestly, I think that the end results of this decision -- if it in fact tracks this draft opinion -- will be much of country settling in on "Safe, legal, and rare." And, frankly, I think that the percentage of the US population that is OK with this is larger than a lot of people think.
-
I never suggested absolutism to stare decisis, but before I explain myself there, let me explain that you're wrong re: Plessy.
Plessy v Ferguson was never overturned by the court. Subsequent rulings - including Brown - had the effect of weakening it, but a separate group of justices didn't come along decades later and simply say "they were wrong, we're going to pretend the ruling doesn't exist."
That's what's potentially happening here with Roe. Five justices - three of whom have been on the court for five years or less - have decided that they know the Constitution better than the seven justices who ruled in favor of Roe as well as the justices who decided Casey.
And they're doing so capriciously. Unlike Plessy and Brown, there have been no societal, cultural or legal changes to bring this about. In fact, the opposite is true. The American public is far more accepting and supportive of abortion rights than 50 years ago. Unlike Brown, this court is cutting against the grain.
Now, when I rage about these justices lying about stare decisis, it;s just that. These justices - most notably Kavanaugh - took an oath in their Senate hearings and testified that they respected stare decisis and precedent, and considered Roe settled law. And then at the very first opportunity, they went back on their word to overturn it.
Brother Pakuni:
I think we're arguing semantics. Brown versus Board may not have de jure revoked Plessy vs. Ferguson, but de facto, it did. And, you know it.
It is not and should not be the intent of the Senate to lock a Justice in on every possible ruling with political ramifications. That's absurd and things change. Did they lie about Roe vs. Wade? Candidly, I doubt it. Rather, Roe vs. Wade was and will be decided based on conflicting judicial philosophies. To say any court ruling, regardless of subject, is sacrosanct is absurd. Nobody will do that and we've seen a procession of SCOTUS nominees over the years be as evasive as possible.
I've never seen anyone dance as well as a SCOTUS nominee when it comes to questions of how they'd rule on specific cases. The last one that didn't was Robert Bork and you can where that got him!
-
Honestly, I think that the end results of this decision -- if it in fact tracks this draft opinion -- will be much of country settling in on "Safe, legal, and rare." And, frankly, I think that the percentage of the US population that is OK with this is larger than a lot of people think.
I hope so.
That was Hillary Clinton's view back in the 1990s. I had an immense respect for her effort to try to bridge the gap on this issue.
The whole issue with abortion is that we're too busy trying to control supply. Priests, Ministers, Rabbis, Imans and other wise men and women need to focus on the demand for abortion. We can stop abortion by stopping the demand for it. That leads to some discomfort with Catholics and many fundamentalists because it'ss gong to mean dealing with birth control, family planning and people's propensity to be intimate! These are subjects too many people don't want to face up to!
Unfortunately for Ms. Clinton's initiatives, cooler heads on both sides did not prevail.
-
Super easy for a poor woman in San Antonio to hop a flight to Los Angeles and rent a hotel for a couple nights on top of paying for a costly medical procedure.
Oh yeah, I forgot. Health care is for the rich.
just go down to the border, cross it and they will fly you 'bout anywhere ya wanna go and give a phone, a drivers license and a pre-filled in ballot!
-
There will be very few states where abortions are completely banned. Even in Texas and Oklahoma, two states that received a lot of attention for their extremely restrictive laws, abortion is still legal for the first six weeks. The Mississippi law that is at issue in Dobbs sets it at 15 weeks which would likely allow 90%+ of abortions. I believe that 20+ states already have laws on the books preventing abortion after viability, which Roe allowed
I think what we will ultimately see is quite a few states settling in at allowing abortion up to 12-15 weeks or so. I suspect that this will be a plurality if not a majority. I also suspect that there will be more states allowing abortion throughout pregnancy than totally banning pregnancy. Honestly, I think that the end results of this decision -- if it in fact tracks this draft opinion -- will be much of country settling in on "Safe, legal, and rare." And, frankly, I think that the percentage of the US population that is OK with this is larger than a lot of people think.
The GOP in Wisconsin hasn't exactly been defined by their steady moderation recently, and they're virtually guaranteed a veto-proof majority after this upcoming election. If you Wisconsin instituted a total ban by this time next year I can't say I would be able to say "I told you so" but I also wouldn't be completely shocked.
Call me crazy, but being reliant on state legislatures to be the moderating even keel on this issue strikes me as wishful thinking.
-
There will be very few states where abortions are completely banned. Even in Texas and Oklahoma, two states that received a lot of attention for their extremely restrictive laws, abortion is still legal for the first six weeks. The Mississippi law that is at issue in Dobbs sets it at 15 weeks which would likely allow 90%+ of abortions. I believe that 20+ states already have laws on the books preventing abortion after viability, which Roe allowed
I think what we will ultimately see is quite a few states settling in at allowing abortion up to 12-15 weeks or so. I suspect that this will be a plurality if not a majority. I also suspect that there will be more states allowing abortion throughout pregnancy than totally banning pregnancy. Honestly, I think that the end results of this decision -- if it in fact tracks this draft opinion -- will be much of country settling in on "Safe, legal, and rare." And, frankly, I think that the percentage of the US population that is OK with this is larger than a lot of people think.
I like your optimism, SAW, but we'll see. Even before this became public, red states already were falling over each other trying to enact as restrictive laws as possible, with several aiming to mimic Texas' law. And as you almost surely know, many women (probably most women) don't even know they're pregnant at 6 weeks.
There will be numerous states where it will be illegal, for all intents and purposes, and the poorest women in those states will be affected the most.
Sadly, it'll be yet another form of systemic racism.
My biggest hope is that the outrage over this will somehow lead to mifepristone and misoprostol being easily available to all, but I'm not holding my breath for that, either.
-
There will be very few states where abortions are completely banned. Even in Texas and Oklahoma, two states that received a lot of attention for their extremely restrictive laws, abortion is still legal for the first six weeks. The Mississippi law that is at issue in Dobbs sets it at 15 weeks which would likely allow 90%+ of abortions. I believe that 20+ states already have laws on the books preventing abortion after viability, which Roe allowed
I think what we will ultimately see is quite a few states settling in at allowing abortion up to 12-15 weeks or so. I suspect that this will be a plurality if not a majority. I also suspect that there will be more states allowing abortion throughout pregnancy than totally banning pregnancy. Honestly, I think that the end results of this decision -- if it in fact tracks this draft opinion -- will be much of country settling in on "Safe, legal, and rare." And, frankly, I think that the percentage of the US population that is OK with this is larger than a lot of people think.
Thirteen states currently have laws that will trigger a complete ban the moment Roe is overturned.
Nine more states never eliminated their pre-Roe laws banning abortion - including Wisconsin - so those would automatically go back into effect, barring further legislative action.
So, the moment this ruling comes down, abortion would be banned in as many as 22 states.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/03/us/state-abortion-trigger-laws-roe-v-wade-overturned/index.html
-
Good luck to J.P. Mandel in the Ohio primary tonight! I look forward to his posts on Trooth Senshul.
We'll see. Figurin' J.D. Vance, with Trump's endorsement kicks Mandel's ass, aina?
-
With all due respect, thats BS. I'm pretty staunchly pro-choice, but don't think the leak is at all kosher, much less the people who are celebrating it as heroic. Many would surely be losing their minds at the fall of democracy or judicial process if it was flipped. This situation is a sh**show from the court to the leak.
I completely agree with you and am also pro-choice. I think this discussion is two pronged with the potential decision itself and separately the fact that it was leaked.
As far as the leak it's extremely concerning imo. Our institutions seem to be at risk. Now maybe some here and across the country want to completely overthrow our system, but that prospect isn't exactly thrilling to me and the vast majority of American citizens.
Okay, maybe two people - but then I think your concerns about the leak are overblown. This isn't leaked troop movements or leaked details about criminal procedure. Not all leaks are created equal nor are they all equally dangerous or equally symptomatic of our #failinginstitutions. This is a leak about a decision that would immediately affect the legality of a medical procedure that has been legal for 50 years. I think folks should have some forewarning of that and that we shouldn't have to wait for SCOTUS theater on the courthouse steps to see what medical procedures will be legal tomorrow.
I am trying to give credence to your argument that folks on the left would be equally pissed if it were a leak about a decision in the other direction, and I'm having real trouble finding a reasonable good faith example. Maybe if a decision were leaked that SCOTUS were going to outlaw assault rifles I would be upset because I think it would cause a run on those rifles before they are illegal? But even so, it would be hard to argue that people shouldn't have advance notice of a change in the law that affects something they care about. And that's also a poor example because the policy reasons for outlawing weapons vs returning abortion to the states are totally different. I am not saying I couldn't be persuaded by a good example, but its tough for me to imagine getting too upset about a leak like this.
-
If Roe is overturned, does that also ban all means of transportation? Or free will to move?
If you don't have the money to travel to a different state or be forced to MOVE to a different state? Yes. Please stop with the ridiculous privilege arguments.
-
Thirteen states currently have laws that will trigger a complete ban the moment Roe is overturned.
Nine more states never eliminated their pre-Roe laws banning abortion - including Wisconsin - so those would automatically go back into effect, barring further legislative action.
So, the moment this ruling comes down, abortion would be banned in as many as 22 states.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/03/us/state-abortion-trigger-laws-roe-v-wade-overturned/index.html
I don't have time to read that entire article...already spent more time on this today that I probably should have. But, my point was that I think actual "bans" will be rare. I conceded that restrictions -- including some severe -- will likely be the result. A quick look at that seemed to be "almost complete bans" but that address health of mother.
I continue to think that eventually when this all shakes out, most states will settle into limits on abortion that will allow abortions early in pregnancy. Time will tell.
-
We'll see. Figurin' J.D. Vance, with Trump's endorsement kicks Mandel's ass, aina?
When Biden mispronounces kleptocracy, it's because he's senile. When Trump forgets the name of the person he is endorsing and mangles the name of his own social network it's because he is a stable genius. No one can argue with that.
-
If you don't have the money to travel to a different state or be forced to MOVE to a different state? Yes. Please stop with the ridiculous privilege arguments.
I bet that’s how all the people who got fired the past two years feel. What goes around comes around I guess.
-
I bet that’s how all the people who got fired the past two years feel. What goes around comes around I guess.
WTF does this even mean?
-
I completely agree with you and am also pro-choice. I think this discussion is two pronged with the potential decision itself and separately the fact that it was leaked.
My take on the issue itself is that we have generally been 50/50 since the 70's. My thought has always been that if you overturn it however abortions become much less safe for people.
As far as the leak it's extremely concerning imo. Our institutions seem to be at risk. Now maybe some here and across the country want to completely overthrow our system, but that prospect isn't exactly thrilling to me and the vast majority of American citizens.
Nope. We've entered minority rule thanks to the Electoral College and gerrymandering.
https://www.masslive.com/politics/2022/05/although-poll-suggests-most-americans-agree-with-1973-roe-v-wade-decision-moral-acceptability-is-less-clear.html
"Overturning the ruling isn’t what a majority Americans agree with, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released in November.
More than 6 in 10 Americans, or 63%, say they agree with the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that established a woman’s right to an abortion and only 28% disagree with it, the poll suggests.
The poll also stated that 45% of Americans think the Supreme Court should make it easier to get an abortion in the United States, while 33% think the Supreme Court should make it harder.
In January, a Marquette Law School poll suggested that 72% are opposed to overturning it.
“As the abortion issues before the Court have received more attention since summer, the percentage of respondents with an opinion about Roe has increased,” the report states. “In September, 71% said they had an opinion on reversing Roe; the number rose to 77% in January.”
-
If you don't have the money to travel to a different state or be forced to MOVE to a different state? Yes. Please stop with the ridiculous privilege arguments.
His line of thinking also ignored laws in states that seek to fine/punish residents who cross the state border to have the procedure performed.
-
The beginning of the end boys. Hopefully this entire government gets burned down and we can start anew with term limits and age limits.
-
I bet that’s how all the people who got fired the past two years feel. What goes around comes around I guess.
What are you even talking about? That's totally nonsensical and unrelated.
My wife and I recently moved across town. It cost us a few thousand dollars to move roughly 90 blocks. Many people who need this medical care don't have hundreds of dollars, much less thousands to handle emergencies that come up, and certainly not to move to another state, which will be more expensive than our 90 block move. Just a ridiculous train of thought.
-
His line of thinking also ignored laws in states that seek to fine/punish residents who cross the state border to have the procedure performed.
Yup, that’s what I’m most worried about. It wouldn’t surprise me if the deep, religious, south puts something like that into place.
-
Yup, that’s what I’m most worried about. It wouldn’t surprise me if the deep, religious, south puts something like that into place.
Texas already floated the idea
-
Glad that you NOW are against ginning up public anger and emotion leading to dangerous or even deadly outcomes. Can't we just call this leak "tourists taking a stroll through the Capitol" or "antifa being agitators"?
Seriously ...
Though I'm staunchly pro-choice, I actually think the leak wasn't good. IMHO, we simply shouldn't have leaks from SCOTUS.
But that roQQet and maybe a couple of others here are pinning blame for it on Politico -- as if any news organization would have or should have ignored such a leak -- is beyond comical.
beyond commical? in other words, our "journalists" have no self control? professionalism? yup, that what i thought
on the other hand, if it was a leak about crack head and/or the "big guy" we all know which file that goes into
-
"Healthcare" "professional"
-
beyond commical? in other words, our "journalists" have no self control? professionalism? yup, that what i thought
on the other hand, if it was a leak about crack head and/or the "big guy" we all know which file that goes into
So... uh... what exactly do you perceive the role of journalists to be?
"hmm, this is newsworthy and relevant to the governance of the country, but I suppose I'd rather not make waves so I'll just not report it?"
which is, I suppose, more charitable than
"I will diligently discharge my duty to uphold the status quo, serve those in power, and only publish that which those in power approve."
And I... kinda think you're aiming at the latter? Say, what are your feelings about Pravda?
-
just go down to the border, cross it and they will fly you 'bout anywhere ya wanna go and give a phone, a drivers license and a pre-filled in ballot!
FFS man. Get a grip.
Okay, maybe two people - but then I think your concerns about the leak are overblown. This isn't leaked troop movements or leaked details about criminal procedure. Not all leaks are created equal nor are they all equally dangerous or equally symptomatic of our #failinginstitutions. This is a leak about a decision that would immediately affect the legality of a medical procedure that has been legal for 50 years. I think folks should have some forewarning of that and that we shouldn't have to wait for SCOTUS theater on the courthouse steps to see what medical procedures will be legal tomorrow.
I am trying to give credence to your argument that folks on the left would be equally pissed if it were a leak about a decision in the other direction, and I'm having real trouble finding a reasonable good faith example. Maybe if a decision were leaked that SCOTUS were going to outlaw assault rifles I would be upset because I think it would cause a run on those rifles before they are illegal? But even so, it would be hard to argue that people shouldn't have advance notice of a change in the law that affects something they care about. And that's also a poor example because the policy reasons for outlawing weapons vs returning abortion to the states are totally different. I am not saying I couldn't be persuaded by a good example, but its tough for me to imagine getting too upset about a leak like this.
2 active people on a board that predominantly leans left. Meaning that the entire right/center right isn't as made up of bible thumping 50's fetishists as people like to believe. I know it wasn't your intent, but its the broad brush stuff that makes real life discourse a mess.
And I hear what you're saying, but it still feels an awful lot like "im fine with the leak cause it benefits the cause of my viewpoint"
-
beyond commical? in other words, our "journalists" have no self control? professionalism? yup, that what i thought
Assuming they did their due diligence to confirm its authenticity, nothing that Politico did was in any way unprofessional.
Aren't you one of those who claims the "liberal media" should report the truth? Today, the SC confirmed this was authentic. I guess you only care about truth when it suits you huh?
-
Assuming they did their due diligence to confirm its authenticity, nothing that Politico did was in any way unprofessional.
Aren't you one of those who claims the "liberal media" should report the truth? Today, the SC confirmed this was authentic. I guess you only care about truth when it suits you huh?
Obviously. They want “the truth” about Hillary’s emails, but give zero fs about classified docs going to MarALago. Need the info on Hunter, ignore anything on shady billion dollar investments into Jared’s company.
It’s pure hypocrisy time and time again. Just like a bunch of men telling women what they can and can’t do with their bodies.
-
beyond commical? in other words, our "journalists" have no self control? professionalism? yup, that what i thought
on the other hand, if it was a leak about crack head and/or the "big guy" we all know which file that goes into
Perfect dodging of the question, roQQet. I'll try again and I'll only use small words for you:
So you think Politico should have ignored the story?
-
Interesting tweet thread from a former Supreme Court clerk and current Yale Law professor who suspects the leak was done by someone who supports Alito's decision.
https://twitter.com/akapczynski/status/1521494553877962754
-
Obviously. They want “the truth” about Hillary’s emails, but give zero fs about classified docs going to MarALago. Need the info on Hunter, ignore anything on shady billion dollar investments into Jared’s company.
It’s pure hypocrisy time and time again. Just like a bunch of men telling women what they can and can’t do with their bodies.
I'd love to know whose burner this is. The posting history is the evil twin of the Chicos burners.
-
IBFLT
-
Interesting tweet thread from a former Supreme Court clerk and current Yale Law professor who suspects the leak was done by someone who supports Alito's decision.
https://twitter.com/akapczynski/status/1521494553877962754
I could see either side of the aisle believing that a leak would benefit them. But in the end, it doesn't really matter, this court is going to overturn Roe, it's just a matter of to what degree.
-
A. I hope the leaker is caught and disbarred, among other punishments. Second, all the leak did was accelerate the issue from being released in the summer to now, if it in fact holds to be the decision that gets published. And C, if the issue goes back to the states, and each state makes its own laws relative to abortion, I fear that left with no restrictions imposed by Roe, a state could go to the extreme in either direction. Yes, there will be some states that enact heart beat laws. But there will also be states that will do away with all restrictions (New York and Illinois come to mind based on each's governors promising to make their respective states the most "progressive" in terms of abortion) and allow abortions up until birth Personally, I don't think the majority of people in the country want either of these solutions.
While I think Roe's analysis was completely wrong since there's zero in the Constitution granting a right to abortion and wholly made up by Blackmun, at least there were some restrictions in Roe preventing abortion in later stages.
Here's a novel idea. How about the federal legislature make a law when it's a matter not specifically enumerated in the Constitution? Regardless of which side one lines up on, this is just one issue of many that should be decided by Congress and not left to SCOTUS to make law.
IBTL.
-
Crean sucks
-
From the NYT's David Leonhardt:
Roe has been law for almost 50 years, and Democrats — who almost universally support it — have won five of the past eight presidential elections. How, then, did an anti-Roe Supreme Court majority happen?
Circumstance plays a role. Donald Trump was able to appoint three justices, because of retirement or death — the most appointments in a single term in decades. But two specific decisions also loom over the potential repeal of Roe:
++ In 2016, after Justice Antonin Scalia died, Mitch McConnell and other Senate Republicans refused to allow Barack Obama to appoint a replace during his final year in office. It was an aggressive power grab with little precedent, and it worked, after Trump won that year’s election.
++ In 2013 and 2014, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg decided not to retire, even though Obama could have appointed her replacement and Democrats controlled the Senate. She was enjoying her job as a justice, and she ignored pleas from other progressives, who specifically warned that she could be threatening abortion access.
Barrett now occupies Ginsburg’s old seat, and Gorsuch occupies Scalia’s. Without both of those votes, Roe would probably not fall. During oral arguments, Roberts appeared to prefer a compromise that would have allowed states to ban abortion at 15 weeks; such a decision would have outlawed only a small percentage of abortions.
-
I'd love to know whose burner this is. The posting history is the evil twin of the Chicos burners.
Not a burner. I’m just me. Apologies if rampant hypocrisy boils my blood.