Anonymous wrote:Have we discussed a right-wing journalist naming a random SCOTUS clerk as the leaker based on nothing but pure speculation (because she has a gender studies degree)? I think the person who leaked should be fired/disbarred but I'm not sure we should be naming random people as the leaker.

I think this is one more sign the leaker is from the Thomas/Alito camp rather than one of the liberal justices. This is the second clerk of a liberal justice he has named as the leaker in just two days, and he is clearly trying to deflect attention from the conservative justices.

If republicans really wanted to save all the children, we would have universal health care, a year long maternity or paternity leave, and affordable quality subsidized day care.

We have absolutely none of the in the US. If we did, it would be an easy way to decrease abortions down to mostly just women who are raped / have medical issues.

Now we get to breed a whole generation of new criminals instead, if the Catholics and republicans get their way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have we discussed a right-wing journalist naming a random SCOTUS clerk as the leaker based on nothing but pure speculation (because she has a gender studies degree)? I think the person who leaked should be fired/disbarred but I'm not sure we should be naming random people as the leaker.

NO WAY the Leaker " should be disbarred"

The Leaker is a HERO

Washington is full to the brim with spineless early to mid-career syncophants who betray their morals- even their countries values - to " go along to get along in Washington"

The leaker made a heroic decision to RISK ALL for what was right: Giving EVERY WOMAN in America the HEADS UP that SCOTUS is about to rule that THE STATE Controls Your Body

If they never practice law again, they have done the country such a SOLID that they deserve the Pulitzer AND the Nobel Prize

I actually disagree. If that was the intent, all it does is blunt the effects of the eventual decision and put more distance between the reveal and the midterms. I agree with the theory that it was a conservative leak trying to keep Kavanaugh in the majority.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have we discussed a right-wing journalist naming a random SCOTUS clerk as the leaker based on nothing but pure speculation (because she has a gender studies degree)? I think the person who leaked should be fired/disbarred but I'm not sure we should be naming random people as the leaker.

NO WAY the Leaker " should be disbarred"

The Leaker is a HERO

Washington is full to the brim with spineless early to mid-career syncophants who betray their morals- even their countries values - to " go along to get along in Washington"

The leaker made a heroic decision to RISK ALL for what was right: Giving EVERY WOMAN in America the HEADS UP that SCOTUS is about to rule that THE STATE Controls Your Body

If they never practice law again, they have done the country such a SOLID that they deserve the Pulitzer AND the Nobel Prize

I thought the leaker was Ginny Thomas?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a feeling republicans are just going to f@#$ around and find out on this one.

Just wait till all those unwanted babies and rape babies and incest babies and disabled babies and babies with almost no prenatal care turn 18. Either massive crime wave, political revolution or both.

They will just blame the democrats for being “soft on crime.”

Disabled babies are future criminals?

Unwanted babies are future criminals. Freakonomics pretty much proved it. It’s much more likely one of them is going to mug you than cure cancer.

This. Disabled babies just don't get much health care, or they can bankrupt the parents, which then can lead to a horrible outcome for the whole family.

I mean, if we all had universal health care it wouldn't. And parental leave, etc... We have none of that, so having a severely disabled child can even throw the middle class with health insurance into poverty.

Anonymous wrote:Have we discussed a right-wing journalist naming a random SCOTUS clerk as the leaker based on nothing but pure speculation (because she has a gender studies degree)? I think the person who leaked should be fired/disbarred but I'm not sure we should be naming random people as the leaker.

NO WAY the Leaker " should be disbarred"

The Leaker is a HERO

Washington is full to the brim with spineless early to mid-career syncophants who betray their morals- even their countries values - to " go along to get along in Washington"

The leaker made a heroic decision to RISK ALL for what was right: Giving EVERY WOMAN in America the HEADS UP that SCOTUS is about to rule that THE STATE Controls Your Body

If they never practice law again, they have done the country such a SOLID that they deserve the Pulitzer AND the Nobel Prize

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:States Rights is part of the Constitution, abortion isnt.

Go read the Ninth Amendment. You know, the one right before the Tenth one with the “States Rights” in it.

Correct. It’s just so obvious here. What power does the state have to criminalize abortion? Where does the constitution give the government that power?

Explain it to me because that is the question. And I don’t think there is a legitimate state interest in denying pregnant women access to medical care that, if denied, would increase their chances of harm.

They're argument is that the State has the inherent power to control everything not specifically excluded. It flips the entire principle of our democracy upside down. Under their interpretation of the Constitution power flows down instead of up. Rights are not inherent to individuals but rather courtesies given to the people by the government.

Did you grow up here?

I did. DC native even. I am quite aware that history has not always reflected

You have very good points. Are you in elected office ?

Have we discussed a right-wing journalist naming a random SCOTUS clerk as the leaker based on nothing but pure speculation (because she has a gender studies degree)? I think the person who leaked should be fired/disbarred but I'm not sure we should be naming random people as the leaker.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a feeling republicans are just going to f@#$ around and find out on this one.

Just wait till all those unwanted babies and rape babies and incest babies and disabled babies and babies with almost no prenatal care turn 18. Either massive crime wave, political revolution or both.

They will just blame the democrats for being “soft on crime.”

Disabled babies are future criminals?

Unwanted babies are future criminals. Freakonomics pretty much proved it. It’s much more likely one of them is going to mug you than cure cancer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a feeling republicans are just going to f@#$ around and find out on this one.

Just wait till all those unwanted babies and rape babies and incest babies and disabled babies and babies with almost no prenatal care turn 18. Either massive crime wave, political revolution or both.

They will just blame the democrats for being “soft on crime.”

Disabled babies are future criminals?

What about HIPPA, if there's no right to privacy?

Two days and still stunned that a century and a half after slavery, women in this country are about to become slaves...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republican president and Congress elected in 2024. What happens when they ban abortion everywhere? Are people just going to put up with it? Is this when the US finally bursts? Trump or DeSantis would love to do this.

They can’t "ban abortion everywhere" because it’s not a Federal issue, it’s a State issue. That’s exactly what this draft is saying. It would be a State by State issue, just like drivers license age, age of consent, etc. it’s not that complicated to understand.

Addressed so, so many times in this thread and if you don’t think the GOP would ram through a nationwide ban, you need to abstain from voting for about ten years. Sit in a corner and think about your mistakes.

They can’t ram through a nationwide ban, because, again, the SC just said it’s not a federal issue (if this actually passes)

No, I don't think so. Reversing Roe doesn't bar Congress from enacting a law banning abortion nationwide or mandating abortion access nationwide. All it does is reverse the finding that women have the right to an abortion based on a Constitutional right to privacy, which the Court now thinks you don't have.

Any federal legislation would of course be challenged immediately in court. A federal ban would likely eventually be struck down based on the principle that states can guarantee rights in excess of federal rights. A federal law guaranteeing abortion access might stand based on some other part of the Constitution - interstate commerce is usually the clause of choice, but there could be a full faith and credit argument in there. Or it could be tied to federal funding, in which case, many conservative states might opt to forego that funding, which would certainly be quite the experiment in states rights.

Anonymous wrote:I have a feeling republicans are just going to f@#$ around and find out on this one.

Just wait till all those unwanted babies and rape babies and incest babies and disabled babies and babies with almost no prenatal care turn 18. Either massive crime wave, political revolution or both.

They will just blame the democrats for being “soft on crime.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republican president and Congress elected in 2024. What happens when they ban abortion everywhere? Are people just going to put up with it? Is this when the US finally bursts? Trump or DeSantis would love to do this.

They can’t "ban abortion everywhere" because it’s not a Federal issue, it’s a State issue. That’s exactly what this draft is saying. It would be a State by State issue, just like drivers license age, age of consent, etc. it’s not that complicated to understand.

Addressed so, so many times in this thread and if you don’t think the GOP would ram through a nationwide ban, you need to abstain from voting for about ten years. Sit in a corner and think about your mistakes.

It has already become a state issue. It's easier to get abortions in some states than others. And it's going to get worse. Some states will outright ban abortion in any circumstance or prosecute people who go out of state to get an abortion in states where it's legal. The effect will be no abortions in many states. So, no, it's not just like getting a driver's license.

+1 IIRC Casey made Roe a state issue.