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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ITA. The leaker needs to be identified and disbarred. Not sure any actual laws were broken, but this cannot go unpunished.

Unauthorized disclosures are generally illegal, but even for classified info, the sentences are usually pretty light relative to the damage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ITA. The leaker needs to be identified and disbarred. Not sure any actual laws were broken, but this cannot go unpunished.

Oh, but the right has NO issue with the three judgews who were asked specifically about this who lied and said settled law.

Go screw yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know I'm in the minority on DCUM but I think this is good news and I hope it comes to pass.

You're in the minority full stop.

The vast majority of Americans do not believe the government should be making health care decisions for you.

Like I said, I know I'm in the minority on DCUM. And abortion is not a "health care decision," in the vast majority of cases.

Choosing not to give birth, which is statistically more dangerous than having an abortion, is a “health care decision” in every effing case.

Then don't get yourself pregnant. Problem solved.

Nobody gets themselves pregnant.

Clumsily worded but point remains. If you have such a health care issue with giving birth, then see to it that you don't get pregnant.

My “health care issue” with giving birth occurred when I was diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy. We had been trying for years and desperately wanted that to be a healthy pregnancy. I begged the doctor to find a way to make it work.
An acquaintance’s “health care issue” with giving birth occurred when her (very much wanted, planned for, IVF) baby was diagnosed with a fatal condition that also impacted her health and future ability to carry another pregnancy. She found out during a routine ultrasound at 19 weeks.
A college friend’s health care issue” with giving birth was the additional mental trauma that would result from being forced to carry to term a pregnancy that was caused by rape. A rape she could only remember in flashbacks, because the guy had slipped rohypnol into her drink at a party. She was suicidal already before she even learned about the pregnancy. Thank God for Planned Parenthood.

In all three cases, most states allow abortion. Rare and legal.

Ohio state legislators drafted a bill that would send doctors to jail if they didn’t implant an ectopic pregnancy into the uterus, a feat that is medically impossible.

HB413 in the Ohio Legislature includes a provision that doctors must attempt to "reimplant" ectopic pregnancies in a woman's uterus if applicable.

It’s not ever applicable. That’s the problem. It’s a fantasy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the Democrats are in position to lose heavily in a few months then a "leak" that’s never happened before shows up, hoping it will outrage enough to reverse that trend.

Anyone else think it’s not real?

Verdict is out in June - long before elections. So…

What do you want to bet that as this story unspools we find out that SCOTUS intended to hold this opinion until after the midterms...

And why should the SCOTUS do that, unless they just want to fool American women?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ITA. The leaker needs to be identified and disbarred. Not sure any actual laws were broken, but this cannot go unpunished.

Unauthorized disclosures are generally illegal, but even for classified info, the sentences are usually pretty light relative to the damage.

The court is self governing and doesn't have rules about this. I am sorry, if one justice can participate in a coup against the country and not hasve to recuse themselves from related cases, then I don't GAF about this.

See how shattering norms and rules works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ITA. The leaker needs to be identified and disbarred. Not sure any actual laws were broken, but this cannot go unpunished.

Unauthorized disclosures are generally illegal, but even for classified info, the sentences are usually pretty light relative to the damage.

The court is self governing and doesn't have rules about this. I am sorry, if one justice can participate in a coup against the country and not hasve to recuse themselves from related cases, then I don't GAF about this.

See how shattering norms and rules works?

I find it difficult to believe SCOTUS has no rules to protect its deliberative process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope they do overturn Roe v Wade. I don't think republicans have kept up with advances in genetic testing.

Be prepared to pay for child support for 18 years.

Plus more wives will die, if they have medical problems in childbirth. It's like they don't care or don't think it will happen to them.

This will only affect poor women, especially those of color.

This is what the conservatives want right?

More people on welfare! Hooray!

No, what conservatives want is more dead Black women.

As a black man who is a conservative, when I read white people write stuff like this anonymously it makes me uncomfortable.

Please consider voting pro choice. These reproductive decisions should belong to the woman involved.,

The SCOTUS decision is about right to privacy. Don’t think they’ll stop at abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't this the judicial activism that the cons whine so much about?

No, because there is no right to abortion in the Constitution. It’s a state issue and always has been.

So was it in state constitutions before SCOTUS took it up?

Anything not specifically stated in the Constitution falls to the states. That’s how it’s been since it was written. Amend or shut up.

You didn’t answer the question.

I did. It’s not judicial activism. It’s upholding the Constitution. Amend or shut up.

Dp - just se we are clear - you’re espousing a strict construction view - meaning all implied rights are void. So, no right to vote or travel?

The Constitution specifically states that people cannot be denied the right to vote. Remember, despite what Obama has said about negative liberties, the Constitution is designed to keep government limited and that your rights are granted not by government, but by God. Travel (aside from creation of postal roads) is not mentioned, therefore cannot be restricted by the Feds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ITA. The leaker needs to be identified and disbarred. Not sure any actual laws were broken, but this cannot go unpunished.

We will put them at the back of the queue of actual crimes that continue to go unpunished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ITA. The leaker needs to be identified and disbarred. Not sure any actual laws were broken, but this cannot go unpunished.

Unauthorized disclosures are generally illegal, but even for classified info, the sentences are usually pretty light relative to the damage.

The court is self governing and doesn't have rules about this. I am sorry, if one justice can participate in a coup against the country and not hasve to recuse themselves from related cases, then I don't GAF about this.

See how shattering norms and rules works?

I find it difficult to believe SCOTUS has no rules to protect its deliberative process.

I have heard former SCOTUS clerks say they were warned on the first day of the job that leaking opinions would not be tolerated and would end in dismissal and disbarment. So, I do believe they have rules.
Add to that the fact that no opinion has ever been leaked before.

This person needs to be identified immediately and dealt with. This is unacceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ITA. The leaker needs to be identified and disbarred. Not sure any actual laws were broken, but this cannot go unpunished.

Unauthorized disclosures are generally illegal, but even for classified info, the sentences are usually pretty light relative to the damage.

The court is self governing and doesn't have rules about this. I am sorry, if one justice can participate in a coup against the country and not hasve to recuse themselves from related cases, then I don't GAF about this.

See how shattering norms and rules works?

Exactly. We’ll address the leaker right after we address the nominees lying to Congress and the whole Thomas scandal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ITA. The leaker needs to be identified and disbarred. Not sure any actual laws were broken, but this cannot go unpunished.

Unauthorized disclosures are generally illegal, but even for classified info, the sentences are usually pretty light relative to the damage.

The court is self governing and doesn't have rules about this. I am sorry, if one justice can participate in a coup against the country and not hasve to recuse themselves from related cases, then I don't GAF about this.

See how shattering norms and rules works?

I find it difficult to believe SCOTUS has no rules to protect its deliberative process.

I have heard former SCOTUS clerks say they were warned on the first day of the job that leaking opinions would not be tolerated and would end in dismissal and disbarment. So, I do believe they have rules.
Add to that the fact that no opinion has ever been leaked before.

This person needs to be identified immediately and dealt with. This is unacceptable.

So you’re more concerned with the leak than the fact that SCOTUS doing away with right to privacy? Good stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't Thomas have to recuse? His wife was paid $600k by The Family Foundation. Remember how he "forgot" to report it on his financial disclosures?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/22/magazine/clarence-thomas-ginni-thomas.html

He’s a Republican so of course he won’t recuse himself. Amoral POS.

Hold him accountable, Congress.

[Anonymous]

Hopefully the result in the resignation or firing of a judge, totally unacceptable.

Roe is so old that it was bound to get repealed, the technology to detect life and prevention is much better 40 years later. Time to update the laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ITA. The leaker needs to be identified and disbarred. Not sure any actual laws were broken, but this cannot go unpunished.

Unauthorized disclosures are generally illegal, but even for classified info, the sentences are usually pretty light relative to the damage.

The court is self governing and doesn't have rules about this. I am sorry, if one justice can participate in a coup against the country and not hasve to recuse themselves from related cases, then I don't GAF about this.

See how shattering norms and rules works?

I find it difficult to believe SCOTUS has no rules to protect its deliberative process.

I have heard former SCOTUS clerks say they were warned on the first day of the job that leaking opinions would not be tolerated and would end in dismissal and disbarment. So, I do believe they have rules.
Add to that the fact that no opinion has ever been leaked before.

This person needs to be identified immediately and dealt with. This is unacceptable.

So you’re more concerned with the leak than the fact that SCOTUS doing away with right to privacy? Good stuff.

Just ignore the fake concern about the leak itself. They are trying to deflect and minimize this insanity.