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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for those who know:
would the liberal justices or their staff even have access to a draft being crafted by the majority to which they are not a party?

This doesn't seem likely to me.

Yes, they all do.

Wouldn't the young (and presumably idealistic/activist) clerks be the most likely suspects?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not enough people are grasping this. Overturning Roe (based on the same interpretation, noted above) makes these other cases ripe for over-turning as well. This is serious sh--. And not just because my vagina will now be policed in some states. Though that is reason enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Hilarious to see Clarence and Jenni’s marriage annulled due to this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not looking at the GOP for anything. I'm looked that justices ability to separate their personal beliefs from their job. And, I agree that it's problematic because I think they would favor the free exercise of religion over gay rights (for example) and THAT I do find worrisome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Hilarious to see Clarence and Jenni’s marriage annulled due to this.

No. Revenge is not sweet. That would actually be a tragedy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not looking at the GOP for anything. I'm looked that justices ability to separate their personal beliefs from their job. And, I agree that it's problematic because I think they would favor the free exercise of religion over gay rights (for example) and THAT I do find worrisome.

The fascist fed soc justices do not. And they perjured themselves. They will literally do anything to get the results that they want, even though those “results” basically mean the end of America. I would do more than worry; I would work to end the GOP (and the GOP is synonymous with the right wing justices they paid for).

[Anonymous]

Michael Beschloss is a historian. I’d pay attention to how he frames this absolute fascist travesty of judicial activism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And no way to leave a comment online or on the phone to that scuzz bucket Roberts. No one gives a hoot about the leak, you moron. You’re presiding over an illegitimate joke of a court.

You are so, so wrong.

Oh, I’m sorry. RWNJs who didn’t care about any of the horrific things Trump did - like put on two justices when he lost the vote and convince a third judge to retire so he could fill a third seat - are currently pretending this is bad.

No one decent cares about the leak. There. Fixed for clarity!

You know what I find totally disgusting?
When you are dissatisfied with a decision of the court, you immediately begin to impugn the integrity of any Justice who does not vote the way you want.
Sorry, Skippy. All of the Justices on the court were legitimately nominated and voted into power.

And, if you want to talk about a Justice being "convinced" to retire.... shall we talk about Justice Breyer?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/29/inside-campaign-pressure-justice-stephen-breyer-retire/

You don't find it concerning that 3 justices swore under oath during their confirmation hearings that Roe v Wade was settled precedence and have now flipped?

DP but anyone who fell for that is stupid, come on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such a lengthy opinion when all they have to say is “because the Catholic Church is against abortion.”

[phone]

And more appalling that these were judges appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote.

We are no longer a functional representative democracy.

We were never a functional representative democracy. Since the founding of this country, we've been ruled by a wealthy minority -- a minority that tells us to what to think, what to say, what to do, what to eat, where to work, etc.

That happens by consent. When the consent is no longer there, then things change. This country has changed a lot since its founding. Those of us who didn't sleep through school, or through any stories from family members or friends, know this.

+1
What people understand and were willing to believe has changed a lot.

So far one thing I know to be true, the GOP doesn’t care about America or the women who live here. If they did:

I don’t think they will change the filibuster but maybe Collins, Murkowski, and the Ds can whip up 60 votes to protect women?

Susan "but he promised me he'd uphold Roe" Collins???? LOLOLOL.

Time for her and others to step up to protect women.

The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed early in pregnancy. Why not pass a bill preserving access to abortions before 16 weeks (that is almost all of them).

I will never forget what made Ireland of all places change their stance. A 17 week pregnancy (that was wanted) went wrong, I can't remember why but they couldn't give her an abortion due to Ireland's laws. The woman died and Ireland took a second look and changed their laws. There are many more reasons to keep abortion in place than just choice itself.

[Anonymous]

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.

You know what else wasn't contemplated in the Constitution?
the right to vote
the right to travel
the right to use birth control
the right to marry whoever you like, regardless of their race or gender
the right to have sex any way you want
the right of all children to a public education

Why shouldn't the right to be able to decide whether or not to bear a child also be included?

That's why there's the 9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And no way to leave a comment online or on the phone to that scuzz bucket Roberts. No one gives a hoot about the leak, you moron. You’re presiding over an illegitimate joke of a court.

You are so, so wrong.

Oh, I’m sorry. RWNJs who didn’t care about any of the horrific things Trump did - like put on two justices when he lost the vote and convince a third judge to retire so he could fill a third seat - are currently pretending this is bad.

No one decent cares about the leak. There. Fixed for clarity!

You know what I find totally disgusting?
When you are dissatisfied with a decision of the court, you immediately begin to impugn the integrity of any Justice who does not vote the way you want.
Sorry, Skippy. All of the Justices on the court were legitimately nominated and voted into power.

And, if you want to talk about a Justice being "convinced" to retire.... shall we talk about Justice Breyer?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/29/inside-campaign-pressure-justice-stephen-breyer-retire/

You don't find it concerning that 3 justices swore under oath during their confirmation hearings that Roe v Wade was settled precedence and have now flipped?

DP but anyone who fell for that is stupid, come on.

DP by why put the sins of those three on the people who had literally no control over this? Call for their impeachment. They perjured themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such a lengthy opinion when all they have to say is “because the Catholic Church is against abortion.”

[phone]

And more appalling that these were judges appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote.

We are no longer a functional representative democracy.

We were never a functional representative democracy. Since the founding of this country, we've been ruled by a wealthy minority -- a minority that tells us to what to think, what to say, what to do, what to eat, where to work, etc.

That happens by consent. When the consent is no longer there, then things change. This country has changed a lot since its founding. Those of us who didn't sleep through school, or through any stories from family members or friends, know this.

+1
What people understand and were willing to believe has changed a lot.

So far one thing I know to be true, the GOP doesn’t care about America or the women who live here. If they did:

I don’t think they will change the filibuster but maybe Collins, Murkowski, and the Ds can whip up 60 votes to protect women?

Susan "but he promised me he'd uphold Roe" Collins???? LOLOLOL.

Time for her and others to step up to protect women.

Yeah it’s beyond time for collins to put up or shut up. This has got to be her last term right? What does she want her legacy to be? Was she really a gullible idiot for believing those justices or did she just think her constituents were?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And no way to leave a comment online or on the phone to that scuzz bucket Roberts. No one gives a hoot about the leak, you moron. You’re presiding over an illegitimate joke of a court.

You are so, so wrong.

Oh, I’m sorry. RWNJs who didn’t care about any of the horrific things Trump did - like put on two justices when he lost the vote and convince a third judge to retire so he could fill a third seat - are currently pretending this is bad.

No one decent cares about the leak. There. Fixed for clarity!

You know what I find totally disgusting?
When you are dissatisfied with a decision of the court, you immediately begin to impugn the integrity of any Justice who does not vote the way you want.
Sorry, Skippy. All of the Justices on the court were legitimately nominated and voted into power.

And, if you want to talk about a Justice being "convinced" to retire.... shall we talk about Justice Breyer?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/29/inside-campaign-pressure-justice-stephen-breyer-retire/

You don't find it concerning that 3 justices swore under oath during their confirmation hearings that Roe v Wade was settled precedence and have now flipped?

DP but anyone who fell for that is stupid, come on.

They demonstrated lack of integrity for us all. So why would we care about the leaker?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for those who know:
would the liberal justices or their staff even have access to a draft being crafted by the majority to which they are not a party?

This doesn't seem likely to me.

Yes, they all do.

Wouldn't the young (and presumably idealistic/activist) clerks be the most likely suspects?

Have you ever met a SCOTUS clerk? They are all rule followers. Not a chance one would do this without direction from a justice.

It pretty obviously came from the right. There is no benefit to the left in the leak. The right benefits a lot:
- Get to focus lots of attention and outrage on who the leaker is and blame the left, instead of focusing on the extremely unpopular decision
- Lock in any wavering member of the majority- any changes to the draft will be blamed on being cowed by the "woke mob"
- Get to soften the blow because when the final decision hits in June, it is two-month old news

[Anonymous]

Republicans are so worried about keeping a sack of cells alive inside a woman as she must give up her body to do so. But once a child is born, if it needs any organ whatsoever, the father is not legally required to provide it.
Sorry John, your son needs a heart transplant so we're taking yours. #prolife
Hell you can't even legally force the dad to donate blood after their child is born.