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

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since it got buried 100 plus pages ago, I’ll ask again. So what happens when there is no ruling, will people here feel foolish for the hysterics?

As I said earlier, stupid question.

[Anonymous]

And Merrick Garland twiddles his thumbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And Merrick Garland twiddles his thums.

It's a state's rights issue. I thought y'all were big on that.

[Anonymous]

Cognitive dissonance. We're supposed to be concerned about the safety of SCOTUS when SCOTUS has members whose wives actively colluded with the violent extremists who attacked the Capitol on 1/6. Who has members who put millions of women at risk. Who has members who increased the likelihood of wild west gun free-for-all violence on American streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And Merrick Garland twiddles his thums.

It's a state's rights issue. I thought y'all were big on that.

Not when there is an F'ing federal law prohibiting it.
You didn't bother to read the responses from Hogan and Youngkin..... it shows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cognitive dissonance. We're supposed to be concerned about the safety of SCOTUS when SCOTUS has members whose wives actively colluded with the violent extremists who attacked the Capitol on 1/6. Who has members who put millions of women at risk. Who has members who increased the likelihood of wild west gun free-for-all violence on American streets.

Clearly YOU are not concerned. In fact, I am betting you would like nothing better than for harm to come to one of them or their families.

I, and millions of other Americans ARE concerned for their safety. They should not be threatened for simply doing their jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And Merrick Garland twiddles his thums.

It's a state's rights issue. I thought y'all were big on that.

Not when there is an F'ing federal law prohibiting it.
You didn't bother to read the responses from Hogan and Youngkin..... it shows.

Nope, that's an overreach by the executive branch. Best to let the states deal with it, as the founders intended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cognitive dissonance. We're supposed to be concerned about the safety of SCOTUS when SCOTUS has members whose wives actively colluded with the violent extremists who attacked the Capitol on 1/6. Who has members who put millions of women at risk. Who has members who increased the likelihood of wild west gun free-for-all violence on American streets.

Clearly YOU are not concerned. In fact, I am betting you would like nothing better than for harm to come to one of them or their families.

I, and millions of other Americans ARE concerned for their safety. They should not be threatened for simply doing their jobs.

Actually, they ruled that other people CAN be threatened for doing their jobs, in the name of free speech. So they certainly should abide these same principles and expect no special treatment.

[Anonymous]

I don’t remember reading anything in the constitution about the judicial branch being rigged to subvert the will of the people and impose minority rule upon the masses, and then taxpayers being forced to protect those individuals and avoid accountability. Seems to me that the bill to protect them was egregiously decided from the start.

[Anonymous]

I don’t get it - why isn’t the MD and VA state governments not enforcing the law about picketing at a private home? No need to write a letter to Garland, go enforce your local laws and hand out warnings & tickets for first offenses. Easy peasy.

No need to the letters, drama llamas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cognitive dissonance. We're supposed to be concerned about the safety of SCOTUS when SCOTUS has members whose wives actively colluded with the violent extremists who attacked the Capitol on 1/6. Who has members who put millions of women at risk. Who has members who increased the likelihood of wild west gun free-for-all violence on American streets.

Clearly YOU are not concerned. In fact, I am betting you would like nothing better than for harm to come to one of them or their families.

I, and millions of other Americans ARE concerned for their safety. They should not be threatened for simply doing their jobs.

I’m pretty sure one of you christofascists will kill at least one regressive judge to create the appearance of aNtIfA or whatever bogeyman you want to blame this time around, just like a regressive judge leaked this and then tried to blame a Democratic-appointed judge.

You don’t care about raped 10 year olds. You don’t care about women whose OBs are having to wait for them to go septic before treating them. You don’t care about anything, so don’t be surprised that no one cares about these judicial coup actors. No one cares. No one cares but you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cognitive dissonance. We're supposed to be concerned about the safety of SCOTUS when SCOTUS has members whose wives actively colluded with the violent extremists who attacked the Capitol on 1/6. Who has members who put millions of women at risk. Who has members who increased the likelihood of wild west gun free-for-all violence on American streets.

Clearly YOU are not concerned. In fact, I am betting you would like nothing better than for harm to come to one of them or their families.

I, and millions of other Americans ARE concerned for their safety. They should not be threatened for simply doing their jobs.

Actually, they ruled that other people CAN be threatened for doing their jobs, in the name of free speech. So they certainly should abide these same principles and expect no special treatment.

+1
Not sure why these six christofascists deserve special treatment.

[Anonymous]

Well it looks like Youngkin is looking at a 15 week ban. Before it gets anywhere you know it will dwindle even further to appeal to his voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cognitive dissonance. We're supposed to be concerned about the safety of SCOTUS when SCOTUS has members whose wives actively colluded with the violent extremists who attacked the Capitol on 1/6. Who has members who put millions of women at risk. Who has members who increased the likelihood of wild west gun free-for-all violence on American streets.

Clearly YOU are not concerned. In fact, I am betting you would like nothing better than for harm to come to one of them or their families.

I, and millions of other Americans ARE concerned for their safety. They should not be threatened for simply doing their jobs.

Actually, they ruled that other people CAN be threatened for doing their jobs, in the name of free speech. So they certainly should abide these same principles and expect no special treatment.

+1
Not sure why these six christofascists deserve special treatment.

+1

They should be charged with perjury and locked up.