Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I mean, speaking as a lawyer, the district court decision was just bananas. It would be hugely problematic for the Supreme Court to allow any of it to stand.
Thank you, and I say this as a conservative. They kicked the abortion decision back to the states. Each state needs to decide how they will handle things.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I mean, speaking as a lawyer, the district court decision was just bananas. It would be hugely problematic for the Supreme Court to allow any of it to stand.
Thank you, and I say this as a conservative. They kicked the abortion decision back to the states. Each state needs to decide how they will handle things.
re you suggesting that all conservatives are against women's right to choose?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I mean, speaking as a lawyer, the district court decision was just bananas. It would be hugely problematic for the Supreme Court to allow any of it to stand.
Thank you, and I say this as a conservative. They kicked the abortion decision back to the states. Each state needs to decide how they will handle things.
re you suggesting that all conservatives are against women's right to choose?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I mean, speaking as a lawyer, the district court decision was just bananas. It would be hugely problematic for the Supreme Court to allow any of it to stand.
Thank you, and I say this as a conservative. They kicked the abortion decision back to the states. Each state needs to decide how they will handle things.
It’s pretty clear what the goal is - leftists want to overturn the SC balance through smears.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
On the one hand— oh thank goodness.
On the other hand— you know they only did this to save Republicans electoral bloodshed in ‘24
I think women all across the country already know Republicans can't be trusted as far as they can be bowled. Proceed as if they are still going to try and ban it. Because they will, if given any chance at all.
+1
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
On the one hand— oh thank goodness.
On the other hand— you know they only did this to save Republicans electoral bloodshed in ‘24
I think women all across the country already know Republicans can't be trusted as far as they can be bowled. Proceed as if they are still going to try and ban it. Because they will, if given any chance at all.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Thomas has some gall - with the Grand Canyon sized gaps in his ethics - being prepared to wrestle medical and scientific authority and 23 years of safe use of drug on advice of extremist Trump appointed judge from Texas.
He really has no concern that he looks like not only a corrupt old fool but one with no concern for appearances, let alone function.
It’s pretty clear what the goal is - leftists want to overturn the SC balance through smears.
Anonymous wrote:
Thomas has some gall - with the Grand Canyon sized gaps in his ethics - being prepared to wrestle medical and scientific authority and 23 years of safe use of drug on advice of extremist Trump appointed judge from Texas.
He really has no concern that he looks like not only a corrupt old fool but one with no concern for appearances, let alone function.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Clarence and Alito are on the Viagra.
It was god's will for them to be non-functional. Why should they be subverting god's will by having access to Viagra?
Anonymous wrote:
I mean, speaking as a lawyer, the district court decision was just bananas. It would be hugely problematic for the Supreme Court to allow any of it to stand.