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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who do we think leaked it?

Ginni Thomas

How does this benefit the Repugs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing how many people are ok with the leak because they think it will help the left in the mid terms. If this happened 3 years ago, there would be calls for treason charges.

Sure treason like on Jan 6th? That is treason. This decision will be released before the midterms so the leak is no big deal. It’s just the new way the court will work. Conservatives do not like status quo.

What happened on January 6 is not treason. Treason has a very limited meaning under the Constitution. There's a reason no one has been convicted of treason since 1952.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where can a layperson get a balanced view of this entire issue?

seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing how many people are ok with the leak because they think it will help the left in the mid terms. If this happened 3 years ago, there would be calls for treason charges.

Sure treason like on Jan 6th? That is treason. This decision will be released before the midterms so the leak is no big deal. It’s just the new way the court will work. Conservatives do not like status quo.

What happened on January 6 is not treason. Treason has a very limited meaning under the Constitution. There's a reason no one has been convicted of treason since 1952.

PP means sedition

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who do we think leaked it?

Ginni Thomas

How does this benefit the Repugs?

Forces all the FedSoc justices into supporting the draft and not wavering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing how many people are ok with the leak because they think it will help the left in the mid terms. If this happened 3 years ago, there would be calls for treason charges.

Sure treason like on Jan 6th? That is treason. This decision will be released before the midterms so the leak is no big deal. It’s just the new way the court will work. Conservatives do not like status quo.

What happened on January 6 is not treason. Treason has a very limited meaning under the Constitution. There's a reason no one has been convicted of treason since 1952.

But it is sedition, which is a fraction of the meaning of treason, so ya, go ahead with that argument.

[Anonymous]

this is oh so perfect

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who do we think leaked it?

Ginni Thomas

+1

YEP. My thoughts EXACTLY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing how many people are ok with the leak because they think it will help the left in the mid terms. If this happened 3 years ago, there would be calls for treason charges.

Sure treason like on Jan 6th? That is treason. This decision will be released before the midterms so the leak is no big deal. It’s just the new way the court will work. Conservatives do not like status quo.

What happened on January 6 is not treason. Treason has a very limited meaning under the Constitution. There's a reason no one has been convicted of treason since 1952.

OK, but it was a crime. And Trump Republicans engaged in criminal conspiracy by helping promote, pay for, and pardon the deadly attack on our country on January 6th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who do we think leaked it?

Ginni Thomas

How does this benefit the Repugs?

Forces all the FedSoc justices into supporting the draft and not wavering.

I saw a thread on Twitter that said it was likely a conservative leak because someone within the five was wavering—perhaps Roberts convinced one of them to take a more moderate or smaller cut to Roe rather than just a full-blown overturning. I can’t imagine any of these religious zealots agreeing to that, but who knows.

[Anonymous]

Re Ginni Thomas,

Check out all the comments on this OANN article. Basically, Rs saying that the (they assume) Dem who leaked this should be strung up. Won't they be in for a surprise!

https://www.oann.com/leaked-draft-opinion-suggests-supreme-court-voted-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/?fbclid=IwAR0Zp1eY6_S-J-9Y0Wm6gkj9mqccgixBCj_qxr-lKLpYO6O1v2-Z58EDa4E

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who do we think leaked it?

Ginni Thomas

How does this benefit the Repugs?

1. Roberts was pushing a compromise ruling that did not overturn Roe.
2. The leak blunts the political impact of the upcoming ruling (which everyone knew was happening) itself.

This leak does not benefit the three dissenters in any possible way. The only groups it potentially benefits are the center right trying to temper it or the far right trying to get it over the finish line. She also has a very recent history of going far beyond the lines of propriety and is the only one with access that would be practically immune from negative consequences for the act. She's literally a professional political activist on this exact issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing how many people are ok with the leak because they think it will help the left in the mid terms. If this happened 3 years ago, there would be calls for treason charges.

Sure treason like on Jan 6th? That is treason. This decision will be released before the midterms so the leak is no big deal. It’s just the new way the court will work. Conservatives do not like status quo.

What happened on January 6 is not treason. Treason has a very limited meaning under the Constitution. There's a reason no one has been convicted of treason since 1952.

But it is sedition, which is a fraction of the meaning of treason, so ya, go ahead with that argument.

No, sedition is a separate offense. Words have meaning.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing how many people are ok with the leak because they think it will help the left in the mid terms. If this happened 3 years ago, there would be calls for treason charges.

Sure treason like on Jan 6th? That is treason. This decision will be released before the midterms so the leak is no big deal. It’s just the new way the court will work. Conservatives do not like status quo.

What happened on January 6 is not treason. Treason has a very limited meaning under the Constitution. There's a reason no one has been convicted of treason since 1952.

But it is sedition, which is a fraction of the meaning of treason, so ya, go ahead with that argument.

No, sedition is a separate offense. Words have meaning.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Words do have meaning, and in common parlance - not the legal definition, but regular use - what the GOP did on January 6 is treason. Even if it’s “only” legally sedition.

Leave it to a forced birther to try and split hairs about how awful the GOP is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who do we think leaked it?

Ginni Thomas

+1

Wouldn’t it be someone on Alito’s staff?

It was Alito. He found courage after watching McCarthy lie his a$$ off with consequences.