Roe V Wade overturned!!! Leaked, SCOTUS SHOULD BE IMPEACHED

[IGotWorms 4,058]

59 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

Just checked and yup, abortion is still legal.

Is this some new right wing talking point? You didn’t just do what you’ve spent decades planning to do and finally accomplished?

I mean, y’all have been gaslighting us for years now, but this is a bridge too far

[Voltaire 5,317]

12 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

It certainly is, you’re right about that.

I think it’s funny you guys all assume it was a liberal justice or someone associated with them. I think that’s probably the most likely scenario but not necessarily a given. Conservatives could have a reason to leak it too—let it play out over months so it isn’t such a huge focking shock when the hammer gets dropped. That would actually be pretty smart.

But either way, it’s definitely not appropriate and I hope Roberts gets to the bottom of this. You gotta figure this stuff is pretty heavily guarded so it really shouldn’t be that hard

I see next to zero reason it'd be a conservative. I'd be shocked. They want to pressure a justice to change their mind or put justices in danger. Intimidation is the reason.

A 60% chance it came from some cr@ptivist clerk in the potato-shaped justice's office, 20% chance it came from an activist connected to Breyer, 20% and activist connected to Kagan, and 0% it came from Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorisich, Kavanaugh or MILF.

[Mike Honcho 5,287]

8 hours ago, KSB2424 said:

Dude, it’s the Supreme Court, not some start up company.  

So it's a crime---what law was broken?  Or are you saying that the Supreme Court has a "Right to Privacy", cause that would be ironic.

[MDC 7,469]

The real story here is the leak.  

[Voltaire 5,317]

8 minutes ago, MDC said:

The real story here is the leak.  

There's two but that's the one that concerns me more. The other not so much. I do think it should be a state issue though. Many of these left wing social issues should be returned to the states to decide.

[Fireballer 2,642]

10 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

There have been leaked court cases before. The original Roe vs Wade ruling was leaked to a newspaper beforehand.

What a clown.  

[Voltaire 5,317]

1 hour ago, Mike Honcho said:

So it's a crime---what law was broken?  Or are you saying that the Supreme Court has a "Right to Privacy", cause that would be ironic.

Bill Barr suggested to Megyn Kelly that Obsturction of Justice is what he would go after.

Bill Barr Names The Specific Crime That May Have Been Committed In Leak Of Supreme Court Draft | The Daily Wire

[Masshole 642]

8 hours ago, KSB2424 said:

The morality of abortion could be one thread.

The constitutional law of a court making decisions on abortion could be a whole other thread. 

Legislation by Federal or State governments on abortion is its own thread.

A mole leaking Supreme Court Drafts is its own thread.  

Watching people go bananas / postal on social media over leaked drafts of something they have little knowledge over is definitely its own thread. 

This is a good take.   So many want to boil it down to just "it's a life" vs "my body, my choice", but abortion is multi-faceted.   The role of gov't in this, the constitution, and the SC is almost a separate debate from the "it's a life" vs "my body, my choice" debate.

To me the tell on the abortion debate is that if you are pro-choice but are unwilling to acknowledge the moral and ethical quandaries of the subject - you are not a serious person and your opinion is meaningless.    The flip side is true as well, if you are pro-life but are unwilling to acknowledge the challenges, trauma, and personal liberty/agency aspects of the debate, then you are not. . . 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

8 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Is this some new right wing talking point? You didn’t just do what you’ve spent decades planning to do and finally accomplished?

I mean, y’all have been gaslighting us for years now, but this is a bridge too far

Still legal.  The only gaslighting is the media spreading nonsense that abortion is or will be illegal.   What Roe v Wade decided was that states could not ban abortion. IF it is stricken down, and I don't think it will be, then they are putting it back in states hands, meaning the federal government has no opinion on it (meaning abortion is legal in the eyes of the federal government).  So ultimately Roe v. Wade actually helped the abortion fight even if it is struck down. 

[Fireballer 2,642]

Blah blah blah

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,482]

People here think the government doesn’t have catch all laws to convict someone. Lol. So wet behind the ears. 

[Shooter McGavin 618]

35 minutes ago, Masshole said:

This is a good take.   So many want to boil it down to just "it's a life" vs "my body, my choice", but abortion is multi-faceted.   The role of gov't in this, the constitution, and the SC is almost a separate debate from the "it's a life" vs "my body, my choice" debate.

To me the tell on the abortion debate is that if you are pro-choice but are unwilling to acknowledge the moral and ethical quandaries of the subject - you are not a serious person and your opinion is meaningless.    The flip side is true as well, if you are pro-life but are unwilling to acknowledge the challenges, trauma, and personal liberty/agency aspects of the debate, then you are not. . . 

well said.  Pleasantly surprised to see some good takes in an otherwise sea of bullsh!t.  Nice job.

[Sean Mooney 1,984]

10 hours ago, 5-Points said:

This is a draft from February. Link to a draft being leaked before?

All I said is court cases have been leaked before...What do you disagree with there? Did you also miss the part where I said earlier in the thread this isn't okay that the draft leaked?

10 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Crickets. Book it. 

The crickets are up your ass 

1 hour ago, Fireballer said:

What a clown.  

Yeah, how dare I read and know things. 

[paulinstl 296]

In his original statement in Roe v Wade, Justice Blackmun said this:

 

Quote

“This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the 14th Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy,” Blackmun wrote. “The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent.”

It's a very complicated ruling and goes to individual rights way more than being about State's rights. The original case was about Texas' abortion laws infringing on an Indvidual's rights.

 

I will never debate the meaning of "life" with anybody, it's seems like such a subjective issue, or my opinion on abortion, but at its basic level Roe v Wade is and has always been about personal rights not being restricted by government. Seems like a concept that everybody feels strongly about.

[Fireballer 2,642]

2 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

All I said is court cases have been leaked before...What do you disagree with there? Did you also miss the part where I said earlier in the thread this isn't okay that the draft leaked?

The crickets are up your ass 

Yeah, how dare I read and know things. 

Your attempt to even equate the leak of 73 and now is perposterpus.  "Cases have been leaked before" inserted into this thread is dumb and has no application.  Why even mention it?  All posters that have stated that this hasn't happened before are correct. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,482]

4 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

All I said is court cases have been leaked before...What do you disagree with there? Did you also miss the part where I said earlier in the thread this isn't okay that the draft leaked?

The crickets are up your ass 

Yeah, how dare I read and know things. 

Drafts can be changed. Get it? Should have stuck with crickets. 

[NorthernVike 2,087]

The horror of millions of babies being born.  God forbid.  

[TimmySmith 2,782]

6 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

All I said is court cases have been leaked before...What do you disagree with there? Did you also miss the part where I said earlier in the thread this isn't okay that the draft leaked?

The crickets are up your ass 

Yeah, how dare I read and know things. 

You mentioned a Court decision leaked.  Not an opinion on a potential court decision.  

[Sean Mooney 1,984]

10 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

Your attempt to even equate the leak of 73 and now is perposterpus.  "Cases have been leaked before" inserted into this thread is dumb and has no application.  Why even mention it?  All posters that have stated that this hasn't happened before are correct. 

It's relevant in that the Supreme Court is not a solid force when it comes to this stuff always. Decisions have been leaked and internal discussions have been leaked. Now a draft has been. I never debated a draft has ever happened before.

It's not my fault your brain is damaged and you can't understand things. 

10 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Drafts can be changed. Get it? Should have stuck with crickets. 

If a judge changes their belief because a draft was released than they are not really strong in their convictions. 

[Sean Mooney 1,984]

2 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

You mentioned a Court decision leaked.  Not an opinion on a potential court decision.  

Right...it is a fact that court decisions have been leaked before. I never said a draft has happened before.

Are you guys unable to read or draw the simplest of conclusions?

[TimmySmith 2,782]

6 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Right...it is a fact that court decisions have been leaked before. I never said a draft has happened before.

Are you guys unable to read or draw the simplest of conclusions?

You're moving into botliar territory after you were pwned by passing off apples as oranges.  Take the L and move on. 

[Sean Mooney 1,984]

1 minute ago, TimmySmith said:

You're moving into botliar territory after you were pwned by passing off apples as oranges.  Take the L and move on. 

Again- please find where I argued that a draft has been released before.

I'll hang up and wait- and HT can pull those crickets out of his ass to play for you. 

[DonS 3,292]

I just noticed that @NorthernVike has the perfect avatar for this discussion.

 

[Drizzay 723]

38 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

Blah blah blah

 

James Woods had the best response to this:

"It looks like she is on a warpath" 

[Masshole 642]

5 minutes ago, paulinstl said:

In his original statement in Roe v Wade, Justice Blackmun said this:

 

It's a very complicated ruling and goes to individual rights way more than being about State's rights. The original case was about Texas' abortion laws infringing on an Indvidual's rights.

 

I will never debate the meaning of "life" with anybody, it's seems like such a subjective issue, or my opinion on abortion, but at its basic level Roe v Wade is and has always been about personal rights not being restricted by government. Seems like a concept that everybody feels strongly about.

I hear what you are saying but you are dodging the central issue of the subject.    You have to answer the question of when does life begin?    And once you answer that question, then that "life" has personal rights from that moment on and the gov't and law is obligated to defend those rights.    I think we'd all agree that a pretty important personal right is the right to not be murdered by someone else.    So if you are someone who takes the stance that life begins at some point in the womb - then at what point is the gov't obligated to protect that individuals personal rights over the personal rights of the mother?   Such a thorny, difficult moral question.  

Personally I am pro-choice (but not 3rd tri) but not because I don't believe life begins until the baby exits the womb.    I am pro-choice because my Libertarian side just screams "gov't should not be involved in deciding this moral question for people and gov't generally sucks at making these kinds of decisions anyway and usually gets it wrong."    I acknowledge and accept that I have not answered the moral question in that stance.   And every time I see an image of a baby in the womb at just 12 weeks, I feel a sense of moral panic over my position.   I just can't bring myself to a place where I can think that it's a good idea for gov't to be making this decision for people and I believe that every individual will have to make this decision for themselves.   

[Fireballer 2,642]

8 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Right...it is a fact that court decisions have been leaked before. I never said a draft has happened before.

Are you guys unable to read or draw the simplest of conclusions?

Way to bring the heat, mensa.  5 Points was correct that this hasn't happened before.  You attempting to counter him with referencing an event that has infanticimally scant similarities just supports that you have and insatiable urge to try to outsmart people. Ironically, you're wrong most of the time.

[Sean Mooney 1,984]

4 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

Way to bring the heat, mensa.  5 Points was correct that this hasn't happened before.  You attempting to counter him with referencing an event that has infanticimally scant similarities just supports that you have and insatiable urge to try to outsmart people. Ironically, you're wrong most of the time.

I never tried to counter him. Just pointed out that court cases have been leaked. I've added now that internal discussions have been leaked- most notably in the 1850's. That is fact. If you disagree with those facts please provide evidence that shows I'm wrong.

Not sure what you disagree with. I never said "A draft has been released before." You all in your rush to try to argue are missing that fundamental point making yourselves look foolish. Perhaps you've got too much smoke on the brain. Hook yourself up to some of those oxygen tanks at the hose house and get some quality stuff rushing to that brain of yours. 

[Voltaire 5,317]

15 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

It's relevant in that the Supreme Court is not a solid force when it comes to this stuff always. Decisions have been leaked and internal discussions have been leaked. Now a draft has been. I never debated a draft has ever happened before.

It's not my fault your brain is damaged and you can't understand things. 

If a judge changes their belief because a draft was released than they are not really strong in their convictions. 

I suppose my brain must be damaged too seeing as I am 50 years old and do not remember even one SCOTUS leak. Perhaps you can remind me what leak(s) I'm forgetting.

[paulinstl 296]

1 minute ago, Masshole said:

I hear what you are saying but you are dodging the central issue of the subject.    You have to answer the question of when does life begin?    And once you answer that question, then that "life" has personal rights from that moment on and the gov't and law is obligated to defend those rights.    I think we'd all agree that a pretty important personal right is the right to not be murdered by someone else.    So if you are someone who takes the stance that life begins at some point in the womb - then at what point is the gov't obligated to protect that individuals personal rights over the personal rights of the mother?   Such a thorny, difficult moral question.  

Personally I am pro-choice (but not 3rd tri) but not because I don't believe life begins until the baby exits the womb.    I am pro-choice because my Libertarian side just screams "gov't should not be involved in deciding this moral question for people and gov't generally sucks at making these kinds of decisions anyway and usually gets it wrong."    I acknowledge and accept that I have not answered the moral question in that stance.   And every time I see an image of a baby in the womb at just 12 weeks, I feel a sense of moral panic over my position.   I just can't bring myself to a place where I can think that it's a good idea for gov't to be making this decision for people and I believe that every individual will have to make this decision for themselves.   

Good post. The determination of when life actually begins drives most everybody's opinion on abortion. The issue is so fraught with strong emotion that I have always believed it's in my best interest to not engage in a discussion about it.

 

Again, good post.

[Gladiators 1,992]

6 minutes ago, Masshole said:

I hear what you are saying but you are dodging the central issue of the subject.    You have to answer the question of when does life begin?    And once you answer that question, then that "life" has personal rights from that moment on and the gov't and law is obligated to defend those rights.    I think we'd all agree that a pretty important personal right is the right to not be murdered by someone else.    So if you are someone who takes the stance that life begins at some point in the womb - then at what point is the gov't obligated to protect that individuals personal rights over the personal rights of the mother?   Such a thorny, difficult moral question.  

Personally I am pro-choice (but not 3rd tri) but not because I don't believe life begins until the baby exits the womb.    I am pro-choice because my Libertarian side just screams "gov't should not be involved in deciding this moral question for people and gov't generally sucks at making these kinds of decisions anyway and usually gets it wrong."    I acknowledge and accept that I have not answered the moral question in that stance.   And every time I see an image of a baby in the womb at just 12 weeks, I feel a sense of moral panic over my position.   I just can't bring myself to a place where I can think that it's a good idea for gov't to be making this decision for people and I believe that every individual will have to make this decision for themselves.   

Great post and pretty much spot on with my stance.

[Voltaire 5,317]

1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

I never tried to counter him. Just pointed out that court cases have been leaked. I've added now that internal discussions have been leaked- most notably in the 1850's. That is fact. Not sure what you disagree with. I never said "A draft has been released before." You all in your rush to try to argue are missing that fundamental point making yourselves look foolish. Perhaps you've got too much smoke on the brain. Hook yourself up to some of those oxygen tanks at the hose house and get some quality stuff rushing to that brain of yours. 

To find leaks, you have to go back to SCOTUS trivia from 170 years ago?

I believe the exception proves the rule.

[Sean Mooney 1,984]

Just now, Voltaire said:

I suppose my brain must be damaged too seeing as I am 50 years old and do not remember even one SCOTUS leak. Perhaps you can remind me what leak(s) I'm forgetting.

The Washington Post in 1972 had an unbylined story describing the internal debates on the Roe vs Wade issue.

The decision was then leaked to a Time magazine reporter in 1973.

An ABC journalist in the 70's had tons of scoops on rulings of the court which pissed off judges. They were going after people in the print shop thinking that was where it was coming from.

1852- the New York Tribune reported on the outcome of PA vs Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company 10 days before it was released.

1857- the Tribune gave a running account of the deliberations on the Dred Scott case.

 

The closest you could say to a draft being released is probably either issue where the deliberations were publicized but nothing ever approaching a full length draft. Which again- I never said has happened. 

[MDC 7,469]

1 hour ago, Voltaire said:

There's two but that's the one that concerns me more. The other not so much. I do think it should be a state issue though. Many of these left wing social issues should be returned to the states to decide.

The only people concerned about the leak angle at all are partisan Republicans who are afraid this story will hurt their electoral chances.

Nobody else cares.

[Sean Mooney 1,984]

2 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

To find leaks, you have to go back to SCOTUS trivia from 170 years ago?

I believe the exception proves the rule.

Or you could say "It has happened but is extremely rare."

[Sean Mooney 1,984]

11 minutes ago, Masshole said:

I hear what you are saying but you are dodging the central issue of the subject.    You have to answer the question of when does life begin?    And once you answer that question, then that "life" has personal rights from that moment on and the gov't and law is obligated to defend those rights.    I think we'd all agree that a pretty important personal right is the right to not be murdered by someone else.    So if you are someone who takes the stance that life begins at some point in the womb - then at what point is the gov't obligated to protect that individuals personal rights over the personal rights of the mother?   Such a thorny, difficult moral question.  

Personally I am pro-choice (but not 3rd tri) but not because I don't believe life begins until the baby exits the womb.    I am pro-choice because my Libertarian side just screams "gov't should not be involved in deciding this moral question for people and gov't generally sucks at making these kinds of decisions anyway and usually gets it wrong."    I acknowledge and accept that I have not answered the moral question in that stance.   And every time I see an image of a baby in the womb at just 12 weeks, I feel a sense of moral panic over my position.   I just can't bring myself to a place where I can think that it's a good idea for gov't to be making this decision for people and I believe that every individual will have to make this decision for themselves.   

Credit where credit is due. I agree with pretty much this post and your previous one.

Well said. 

[paulinstl 296]

Wasn't there a story about Roberts flipflopping on the ACA before they actually voted on it? Is that a leak?

[Hardcore troubadour 15,482]

28 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

It's relevant in that the Supreme Court is not a solid force when it comes to this stuff always. Decisions have been leaked and internal discussions have been leaked. Now a draft has been. I never debated a draft has ever happened before.

It's not my fault your brain is damaged and you can't understand things. 

If a judge changes their belief because a draft was released than they are not really strong in their convictions. 

So? They are the ones making those decisions, strong or not. It’s a lifetime appointment.  Your thoughts on the convictions of a jurist mean squat. It’s the outcome of the action that matters, or should I say could matter. 

[Voltaire 5,317]

3 minutes ago, MDC said:

The only people concerned about the leak angle at all are partisan Republicans who are afraid this story will hurt their electoral chances.

Nobody else cares.

That's personally my take. I'm not sure how widespread it is. Abortion isn't my issue and I'm more upset about what this means for Dem motivation in November than for the dead babies.   Oh well, watching screaming, crying leftoids have their favorite toy broken is always fun I suppose. If this is the first step on the road back to federalism, I'll be thrilled and I do feel relief seeing the new and improved SCOTUS take action that pisses off the left. I'll feel better if/when Affirmative Action gets sh*tcanned.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,482]

Democrats better get together and figure out when life begins if they plan on running on this. Republicans have it easy. It’s either No or only in case of rape and health of the mother. Easy enough. The democrats on the other hand will be forced to defend late term or even after birth abortions if they want  to keep their extreme happy.  They best settle on something and tell Alyssa Milano and crew to pipe down. 

[Voltaire 5,317]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

Democrats better get together and figure out when life begins if they plan on running on this. Republicans have it easy. It’s either No or only in case of rape and health of the mother. Easy enough. The democrats on the other hand will be forced to defend late term or even after birth abortions if they email to keep their extreme happy.  They best settle on something and tell Alyssa Milano and crew to pipe down. 

I dunno. I think this plays well for them. They were drowning without an issue and SCOTUS threw them a life preserver. The life preserver comes because their favorite turd obsession got flushed down the toilet in front of them, but it did come.