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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Susan Collins, just now: Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied to me!

Nooooo, Susan, really?

Told you so. What are you going to do about it, sister?

She needs to resign. Everyone in the world knew these two were lying except her. Dangerous to have someone that naive in the Senate.

No, she needs to fix it by voting for a federal act to protect women.

[Anonymous]

Now what BS Frederick will Republicans use to get their base out?. I'm trying to get people fired up when you have everything you want.

[Anonymous]

Judicial activism, identity politics, misogyny and white supremacy, all represented in Alito’s shoddy opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time for a federal law protecting women's rights, not a Supreme Court decision. Roe was poorly written and poorly reasoned.

I don't mind constitutional Supreme Court justices. I'm pro-choice. I'm pro a real change that really protects women and a court decision isn't it. We need a federal law.

I say, yes, get rid of Roe v Wade and Gert something real on the books.

Getting rid of Roe before you have a congress that will vote something like that into law is going to harm women.

And if it's just a federal law then it will change the next time a GOP congress comes in. They will repeal it. So we'll have back and forth, back and forth, just like with the money that is given and then taken away to foreign aid organizations that hand out info about or help poor women get abortions.

While I am pro-choice, I don't believe that abortion was contemplated in the Constitution. The Roe decision does not flesh that out or make any kind of realistic argument in support. This women's right does not rest with the Supreme Court, unfortunately. We've just had justices willing to buffalo it along. I've been okay with that because I agree with the end result, I suppose. However, the Justices are not wrong with their reasoning here in this draft.

As a nation, we are stuck. I don't want a patchwork of laws throughout the country. I want women's rights to be protected and for women to have the choice uniformly. But, it does appear that the power does not rest at the federal level. It does rest at the state level.

It could rest at the state level, if Republicans were decent people. But they’re not and it shouldn’t. Forcing birth is in a sense compelled labor, slavery if you will. You sure you want to say that’s just “states rights”?

I don't want it to be states rights. I want a federal law. But, as mentioned by a PP, any federal law will just get overturned. So, we're stuck because the power does not rest with the Supreme Court. So, we can not want to be a state issue but it is actually a state issue. Unless we add it as an amendment to the Constitution, which I'd be in favor of but that's unlikely to happen.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't be overturned. But it might buy time to get more Dems elected and new judges appointed. Get people really angry when they see what this has revealed about our politics. Everyone who always said this would never happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time for a federal law protecting women's rights, not a Supreme Court decision. Roe was poorly written and poorly reasoned.

I don't mind constitutional Supreme Court justices. I'm pro-choice. I'm pro a real change that really protects women and a court decision isn't it. We need a federal law.

I say, yes, get rid of Roe v Wade and Gert something real on the books.

Getting rid of Roe before you have a congress that will vote something like that into law is going to harm women.

And if it's just a federal law then it will change the next time a GOP congress comes in. They will repeal it. So we'll have back and forth, back and forth, just like with the money that is given and then taken away to foreign aid organizations that hand out info about or help poor women get abortions.

While I am pro-choice, I don't believe that abortion was contemplated in the Constitution. The Roe decision does not flesh that out or make any kind of realistic argument in support. This women's right does not rest with the Supreme Court, unfortunately. We've just had justices willing to buffalo it along. I've been okay with that because I agree with the end result, I suppose. However, the Justices are not wrong with their reasoning here in this draft.

As a nation, we are stuck. I don't want a patchwork of laws throughout the country. I want women's rights to be protected and for women to have the choice uniformly. But, it does appear that the power does not rest at the federal level. It does rest at the state level.

It could rest at the state level, if Republicans were decent people. But they’re not and it shouldn’t. Forcing birth is in a sense compelled labor, slavery if you will. You sure you want to say that’s just “states rights”?

I don't want it to be states rights. I want a federal law. But, as mentioned by a PP, any federal law will just get overturned. So, we're stuck because the power does not rest with the Supreme Court. So, we can not want to be a state issue but it is actually a state issue. Unless we add it as an amendment to the Constitution, which I'd be in favor of but that's unlikely to happen.

Which is more unlikely? That the Supreme Court will abandon stare decisis and delegitimize abortion, interracial marriage, gay sex, etc. or a constitutional amendment?

I think that interracial marriage and LGBTQI+ rights are defensible under the Supreme Court's framework in a way that Roe is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Judicial activism, identity politics, misogyny and white supremacy, all represented in Alito’s shoddy opinion.

Yay for blacks and women and native American s

[Anonymous]

I love it when a bunch of cells have more rights than I do even though I've been paying taxes for 40 years. And have helped public office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

..we don't care about the leak. We care about the opinion.

You mean a draft opinion that is part of a lengthy deliberatively process within the Court before a final opinion is ultimately voted on and released? You mean that draft opinion?

Yes, that draft. The whole point of which was to get us talking about who leaked it, instead of what it actually says.

I wonder if Roberts is actually being clever. I don't believe he wants RVW overturned. I bet he likes the leak because people will be in an uproar and maybe this will mean the repeal doesn't go through. He has now validated that the leaked document is real, and looks like a good guy for launching his "investigation". If they said nothing the narrative could have been pushed that it's a fake.

Maybe this leak will prompt other actions like a federal women's protection law. This leak will light a fire under many buts.

This court will overturn any federal women’s protection law.

That's just silly. No, they wouldn't.

Have you looked at the draft majority opinion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time for a federal law protecting women's rights, not a Supreme Court decision. Roe was poorly written and poorly reasoned.

I don't mind constitutional Supreme Court justices. I'm pro-choice. I'm pro a real change that really protects women and a court decision isn't it. We need a federal law.

I say, yes, get rid of Roe v Wade and Gert something real on the books.

Getting rid of Roe before you have a congress that will vote something like that into law is going to harm women.

And if it's just a federal law then it will change the next time a GOP congress comes in. They will repeal it. So we'll have back and forth, back and forth, just like with the money that is given and then taken away to foreign aid organizations that hand out info about or help poor women get abortions.

While I am pro-choice, I don't believe that abortion was contemplated in the Constitution. The Roe decision does not flesh that out or make any kind of realistic argument in support. This women's right does not rest with the Supreme Court, unfortunately. We've just had justices willing to buffalo it along. I've been okay with that because I agree with the end result, I suppose. However, the Justices are not wrong with their reasoning here in this draft.

As a nation, we are stuck. I don't want a patchwork of laws throughout the country. I want women's rights to be protected and for women to have the choice uniformly. But, it does appear that the power does not rest at the federal level. It does rest at the state level.

It could rest at the state level, if Republicans were decent people. But they’re not and it shouldn’t. Forcing birth is in a sense compelled labor, slavery if you will. You sure you want to say that’s just “states rights”?

I don't want it to be states rights. I want a federal law. But, as mentioned by a PP, any federal law will just get overturned. So, we're stuck because the power does not rest with the Supreme Court. So, we can not want to be a state issue but it is actually a state issue. Unless we add it as an amendment to the Constitution, which I'd be in favor of but that's unlikely to happen.

Which is more unlikely? That the Supreme Court will abandon stare decisis and delegitimize abortion, interracial marriage, gay sex, etc. or a constitutional amendment?

I think that interracial marriage and LGBTQI+ rights are defensible under the Supreme Court's framework in a way that Roe is not.

You look at the GOP’s recent and long term history in regards to minority rights and you think… they’ll just let minorities have rights? Lucy will for sure hold the football this time, Charlie Brown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Susan Collins, just now: Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied to me!

Nooooo, Susan, really?

Told you so. What are you going to do about it, sister?

She needs to resign. Everyone in the world knew these two were lying except her. Dangerous to have someone that naive in the Senate.

Is it illegal to lie under oath, to Congress?

[Anonymous]

Someone linked to this thread a few pages ago but they didn’t link to the parts that talk about why this was likely leaked by a Republican true believing moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love it when a bunch of cells have more rights than I do even though I've been paying taxes for 40 years. And have helped public office.

Sorry. We can’t trust you to use your vagina properly. So the GOP will manage it for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An alternative view

Are you kidding? This guy doesn’t matter.

I’m the mother of two adopted, not at birth, toddlers. I was hounded recently on Twitter that I bought my children. The woman hounding me runs an anti adoption group on Facebook and Instagram. The point of the Twitter discussion was I said adoptees should have the right to learn who their birth parents are. This woman is adopted and would rather have been aborted. Many of the people on the Facebook page say the same. Adoptive parents can’t win I guess. Clearly many adoptees have life long pain.

Facebook is your first problem….

Seems like it’s the crazy adopted lady’s problem. Or maybe your reading comprehension.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love it when a bunch of cells have more rights than I do even though I've been paying taxes for 40 years. And have helped public office.

Corpses have more rights than women will. You can’t take organs from a deceased person no matter how many people it will keep alive or improve the lives of, but you can force a woman to give up her entire body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time for a federal law protecting women's rights, not a Supreme Court decision. Roe was poorly written and poorly reasoned.

I don't mind constitutional Supreme Court justices. I'm pro-choice. I'm pro a real change that really protects women and a court decision isn't it. We need a federal law.

I say, yes, get rid of Roe v Wade and Gert something real on the books.

Getting rid of Roe before you have a congress that will vote something like that into law is going to harm women.

And if it's just a federal law then it will change the next time a GOP congress comes in. They will repeal it. So we'll have back and forth, back and forth, just like with the money that is given and then taken away to foreign aid organizations that hand out info about or help poor women get abortions.

While I am pro-choice, I don't believe that abortion was contemplated in the Constitution. The Roe decision does not flesh that out or make any kind of realistic argument in support. This women's right does not rest with the Supreme Court, unfortunately. We've just had justices willing to buffalo it along. I've been okay with that because I agree with the end result, I suppose. However, the Justices are not wrong with their reasoning here in this draft.

As a nation, we are stuck. I don't want a patchwork of laws throughout the country. I want women's rights to be protected and for women to have the choice uniformly. But, it does appear that the power does not rest at the federal level. It does rest at the state level.

It could rest at the state level, if Republicans were decent people. But they’re not and it shouldn’t. Forcing birth is in a sense compelled labor, slavery if you will. You sure you want to say that’s just “states rights”?

I don't want it to be states rights. I want a federal law. But, as mentioned by a PP, any federal law will just get overturned. So, we're stuck because the power does not rest with the Supreme Court. So, we can not want to be a state issue but it is actually a state issue. Unless we add it as an amendment to the Constitution, which I'd be in favor of but that's unlikely to happen.

Which is more unlikely? That the Supreme Court will abandon stare decisis and delegitimize abortion, interracial marriage, gay sex, etc. or a constitutional amendment?

I think that interracial marriage and LGBTQI+ rights are defensible under the Supreme Court's framework in a way that Roe is not.[/quote

They were based on the same interpretation of the 14th amendment. If Casey is wrongly decided, so are Griswald and Obergefell