“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I miss the part in the Constitution. That's his life begins a conception and someone point me to the passage.
Because for all the rights it gives people and never once talks about the unborn.

The Constitution grants no rights. It restricts the government from impinging on them

Basic stuff that people do not get. And yet, the unborn apparently have rights the state must protect, that trump the rights of living women. Surreal.

But that's it exactly. People are saying that they will make no exceptions even to save the life of the mother. How the f--- is that "pro" life?

It’s not. Abortion bans kill.

+1

Abortion is four times more common where abortions are banned. They’re also dozens of times more deadly.

It’s difficult to pretend that that isn’t the goal for forced birthers; none of the above facts are secret or new. We know the six extremist justices on the religious tribunal that was formerly the highest court in the land hates women. They are actively working to get more women killed in a variety of ways just with this one idiotic decision.

But let’s pretend along with the forced birther slow pants for a second that they care about “life.” Does none of them remember what happened in Romania? Not a one? Not even the handmaiden? It was a pretty big deal at the time when the news got out about all the orphans just abandoned. This is what will happen here, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow it's almost like letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Who could have foreseen such a obvious turn of events aside from anyone with any hint of pattern recognition whatsoever.

If decide to let judges legislate from the bench, they will inevitably do so in a way that you don't agree with.

Roe didn’t legislate any rights away. Nice try.

Did you even read what you quoted? Here, let me bold the relevant section for you.

letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Yes I did. And I don’t believe Roe created any law. It preserved the rights of women to access healthcare with limitations pursuant to the interest of the state. In my opinion, the state interest cited in Roe was BS. But they didn’t legislate from the bench.

There was no 'right' to abortion before the justices created it. Yes, they were legislating from the bench. Yes, they're doing it again right now.

You're upset because they're legislating from the bench in a way you don't agree with, but you shouldn't hide behind that emotion with lies.

There was no right for black kids to go to public schools with white kids before the justices created it.
There was no right for black people to marry white people before the justices created it.
There was no right for people to use birth control before the justices created it.
There was no right for parents to send their kids to private schools before the justices created it.

Those things were always rights and government was violating them when they previously prevented them.

None of them were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who leaked it? A clerk? From which Justice?

Does it even matter?!!! No. The leak isn’t the story. But if I head to bet, it wouldn’t be a liberal clerk.

I’d love to know . Never happened before
Political times indeed

“Never happened before” except for these two other times just involving Roe:
“The Washington Post published a story about the court's internal deliberations, including a June 1972 memo from Justice William O. Douglas to his colleagues that was mysteriously leaked.

Seven months later, Time magazine published the final decision and vote details just hours before the court was due to announce it — the result of an early scoop and a delayed ruling.”
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096097236/roe-wade-original-ruling-leak

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow it's almost like letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Who could have foreseen such a obvious turn of events aside from anyone with any hint of pattern recognition whatsoever.

If decide to let judges legislate from the bench, they will inevitably do so in a way that you don't agree with.

Roe didn’t legislate any rights away. Nice try.

Did you even read what you quoted? Here, let me bold the relevant section for you.

letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Yes I did. And I don’t believe Roe created any law. It preserved the rights of women to access healthcare with limitations pursuant to the interest of the state. In my opinion, the state interest cited in Roe was BS. But they didn’t legislate from the bench.

There was no 'right' to abortion before the justices created it. Yes, they were legislating from the bench. Yes, they're doing it again right now.

You're upset because they're legislating from the bench in a way you don't agree with, but you shouldn't hide behind that emotion with lies.

There was no right for black kids to go to public schools with white kids before the justices created it.
There was no right for black people to marry white people before the justices created it.
There was no right for people to use birth control before the justices created it.
There was no right for parents to send their kids to private schools before the justices created it.

Those things were always rights and government was violating them when they previously prevented them.

Because you said so?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a feeling republicans are just going to f@#$ around and find out on this one.

Just wait till all those unwanted babies and rape babies and incest babies and disabled babies and babies with almost no prenatal care turn 18. Either massive crime wave, political revolution or both.

Do you think they care? (Hint: they do not).

They will just build more prisons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow it's almost like letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Who could have foreseen such a obvious turn of events aside from anyone with any hint of pattern recognition whatsoever.

If decide to let judges legislate from the bench, they will inevitably do so in a way that you don't agree with.

Roe didn’t legislate any rights away. Nice try.

Did you even read what you quoted? Here, let me bold the relevant section for you.

letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Yes I did. And I don’t believe Roe created any law. It preserved the rights of women to access healthcare with limitations pursuant to the interest of the state. In my opinion, the state interest cited in Roe was BS. But they didn’t legislate from the bench.

There was no 'right' to abortion before the justices created it. Yes, they were legislating from the bench. Yes, they're doing it again right now.

You're upset because they're legislating from the bench in a way you don't agree with, but you shouldn't hide behind that emotion with lies.

There was no right for black kids to go to public schools with white kids before the justices created it.
There was no right for black people to marry white people before the justices created it.
There was no right for people to use birth control before the justices created it.
There was no right for parents to send their kids to private schools before the justices created it.

Those things were always rights and government was violating them when they previously prevented them.

Because you said so?

Because all people are entitled to life liberty and property (covers the last two). Additionally we have this thing called the 14th amendment which affords equal protection under the law—meaning laws inferring privileges (like public school and civil marriage) must be applied equally.

[Anonymous]

I’d like the legal community to wake up. This opinion might be the worst I’ve seen in my lifetime. Did a 1l write it as a joke?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow it's almost like letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Who could have foreseen such a obvious turn of events aside from anyone with any hint of pattern recognition whatsoever.

If decide to let judges legislate from the bench, they will inevitably do so in a way that you don't agree with.

Roe didn’t legislate any rights away. Nice try.

Did you even read what you quoted? Here, let me bold the relevant section for you.

letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Yes I did. And I don’t believe Roe created any law. It preserved the rights of women to access healthcare with limitations pursuant to the interest of the state. In my opinion, the state interest cited in Roe was BS. But they didn’t legislate from the bench.

There was no 'right' to abortion before the justices created it. Yes, they were legislating from the bench. Yes, they're doing it again right now.

You're upset because they're legislating from the bench in a way you don't agree with, but you shouldn't hide behind that emotion with lies.

There was no right for black kids to go to public schools with white kids before the justices created it.
There was no right for black people to marry white people before the justices created it.
There was no right for people to use birth control before the justices created it.
There was no right for parents to send their kids to private schools before the justices created it.

Those things were always rights and government was violating them when they previously prevented them.

Because you said so?

No, because the Constitution and the Bill of Rights says so. They weren't new rights that were granted. The Courts affirmed their existence after government inappropriately denied them. Yes, this should have been realized earlier and yes in practical terms they weren't for too long but the implication of the rulings was that the rights were extant and were being violated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow it's almost like letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Who could have foreseen such a obvious turn of events aside from anyone with any hint of pattern recognition whatsoever.

If decide to let judges legislate from the bench, they will inevitably do so in a way that you don't agree with.

Roe didn’t legislate any rights away. Nice try.

Did you even read what you quoted? Here, let me bold the relevant section for you.

letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Yes I did. And I don’t believe Roe created any law. It preserved the rights of women to access healthcare with limitations pursuant to the interest of the state. In my opinion, the state interest cited in Roe was BS. But they didn’t legislate from the bench.

There was no 'right' to abortion before the justices created it. Yes, they were legislating from the bench. Yes, they're doing it again right now.

You're upset because they're legislating from the bench in a way you don't agree with, but you shouldn't hide behind that emotion with lies.

There was no right for black kids to go to public schools with white kids before the justices created it.
There was no right for black people to marry white people before the justices created it.
There was no right for people to use birth control before the justices created it.
There was no right for parents to send their kids to private schools before the justices created it.

Those things were always rights and government was violating them when they previously prevented them.

Because you said so?

Because all people are entitled to life liberty and property (covers the last two). Additionally we have this thing called the 14th amendment which affords equal protection under the law—meaning laws inferring privileges (like public school and civil marriage) must be applied equally.

The right to abortion was also covered under liberty, until it wasn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow it's almost like letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Who could have foreseen such a obvious turn of events aside from anyone with any hint of pattern recognition whatsoever.

If decide to let judges legislate from the bench, they will inevitably do so in a way that you don't agree with.

Roe didn’t legislate any rights away. Nice try.

Did you even read what you quoted? Here, let me bold the relevant section for you.

letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Yes I did. And I don’t believe Roe created any law. It preserved the rights of women to access healthcare with limitations pursuant to the interest of the state. In my opinion, the state interest cited in Roe was BS. But they didn’t legislate from the bench.

There was no 'right' to abortion before the justices created it. Yes, they were legislating from the bench. Yes, they're doing it again right now.

You're upset because they're legislating from the bench in a way you don't agree with, but you shouldn't hide behind that emotion with lies.

There was no right for black kids to go to public schools with white kids before the justices created it.
There was no right for black people to marry white people before the justices created it.
There was no right for people to use birth control before the justices created it.
There was no right for parents to send their kids to private schools before the justices created it.

Those things were always rights and government was violating them when they previously prevented them.

Because you said so?

Because all people are entitled to life liberty and property (covers the last two). Additionally we have this thing called the 14th amendment which affords equal protection under the law—meaning laws inferring privileges (like public school and civil marriage) must be applied equally.

The right to abortion was also covered under liberty, until it wasn't.

It still stands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow it's almost like letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Who could have foreseen such a obvious turn of events aside from anyone with any hint of pattern recognition whatsoever.

If decide to let judges legislate from the bench, they will inevitably do so in a way that you don't agree with.

Roe didn’t legislate any rights away. Nice try.

Did you even read what you quoted? Here, let me bold the relevant section for you.

letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Yes I did. And I don’t believe Roe created any law. It preserved the rights of women to access healthcare with limitations pursuant to the interest of the state. In my opinion, the state interest cited in Roe was BS. But they didn’t legislate from the bench.

There was no 'right' to abortion before the justices created it. Yes, they were legislating from the bench. Yes, they're doing it again right now.

You're upset because they're legislating from the bench in a way you don't agree with, but you shouldn't hide behind that emotion with lies.

There was no right for black kids to go to public schools with white kids before the justices created it.
There was no right for black people to marry white people before the justices created it.
There was no right for people to use birth control before the justices created it.
There was no right for parents to send their kids to private schools before the justices created it.

Those things were always rights and government was violating them when they previously prevented them.

Because you said so?

Because all people are entitled to life liberty and property (covers the last two). Additionally we have this thing called the 14th amendment which affords equal protection under the law—meaning laws inferring privileges (like public school and civil marriage) must be applied equally.

The right to abortion was also covered under liberty, until it wasn't.

It still stands.

For a month or two.

[Anonymous]

To Alito's argument that, " since there is no written right to Abortion in the Constitution then ....there is no right " IGNORES what a true Originalist should admit:

The 10 Article of the constitution reads, "

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

No state law in America states, " the state of ( insert name of XXX state : Alabama, Mississippi... ) shall exercise state control over the uterus of all women who reside in the state of XX, shall through this control regulate through law and penalty of law, including imprisonment, when they shall give birth and even if they will or choose not to" " that the choice to give carry a pregnancy or NOT is fully in the power of the State and not the women of that state"

There is no State Law constitution that was ratified that states this - verbatim- therefore, according to Article 10 " the powers not delegated to the State ARE RESERVED TO THE PEOPLE "

In other words, the power to choose to give birth OR not is delegated to Women- who are " the people"

And, if this is NOT the case, then WHY when a child is critically injured do Doctors ask the parent whether they wish to continue life support OR withdraw it and let the severely brain damaged kid with no future quality of life die ? The MD's Ask the parent because " this is the right of the people" MD's in a PICU do not ask the State whether they should continue life support or not- they ask the child's Mother

[Anonymous]

So what's going to be the first case that makes it to the supreme Court under this new Draconian rule that will actually challenge it and get our rights back?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow it's almost like letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Who could have foreseen such a obvious turn of events aside from anyone with any hint of pattern recognition whatsoever.

If decide to let judges legislate from the bench, they will inevitably do so in a way that you don't agree with.

Roe didn’t legislate any rights away. Nice try.

Did you even read what you quoted? Here, let me bold the relevant section for you.

letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Yes I did. And I don’t believe Roe created any law. It preserved the rights of women to access healthcare with limitations pursuant to the interest of the state. In my opinion, the state interest cited in Roe was BS. But they didn’t legislate from the bench.

There was no 'right' to abortion before the justices created it. Yes, they were legislating from the bench. Yes, they're doing it again right now.

You're upset because they're legislating from the bench in a way you don't agree with, but you shouldn't hide behind that emotion with lies.

There was no right for black kids to go to public schools with white kids before the justices created it.
There was no right for black people to marry white people before the justices created it.
There was no right for people to use birth control before the justices created it.
There was no right for parents to send their kids to private schools before the justices created it.

Those things were always rights and government was violating them when they previously prevented them.

Because you said so?

Because all people are entitled to life liberty and property (covers the last two). Additionally we have this thing called the 14th amendment which affords equal protection under the law—meaning laws inferring privileges (like public school and civil marriage) must be applied equally.

The right to abortion was also covered under liberty, until it wasn't.

It still stands.

For a month or two.

I guess we will see.

[Anonymous]

There needs to be a large financial reward for people to start coming out with proof of abortions of Republican lawmaker and judges as the fathers if the fetuses