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

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

If Hollywood gave up their goody bags at the Oscar’s and all their other award shows they could fly a lot of women to get abortions. Throw in a pedicure too. 

[Thornton Melon 544]

39 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

The question will be whether the GC righties still think that’d be “government overreach.”  I’d guess no.

I would

10th Amendment

[IGotWorms 3,317]

14 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

To have a federal ban of abortion, over riding the states, that now possess that power? Then how else. Besides passing a law, also in the constitution and the 60 pct of the representatives of the states would still have to go for it. The what ifs are silly. Besides, god willing, McConnell will be long gone before there is enough to make it law. Pay no mind. 

Murder is illegal federally. Drugs. Felons possessing firearms. Kidnapping. Etc. There are all kinds of federal laws so why not one against killing babies?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Murder is illegal federally. Drugs. Felons possessing firearms. Kidnapping. Etc. There are all kinds of federal laws so why not one against killing babies?

If you do it within the parameters of the constitution. Roe didn’t. And it’s not happening. You know this. 

[IGotWorms 3,317]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

If you do it within the parameters of the constitution. Roe didn’t. And it’s not happening. You know this. 

We’re not arguing about Roe now. We’re discussing whether the federal government can criminalize abortion. I’m nearly certain they could.

As I sit here today it doesn’t seem especially likely. But I also thought they’d never actually overturn Roe

[IGotWorms 3,317]

You know, now that I think about it, I suspect a really aggressive conservative AG could take the position it is already federally illegal. It’s murder, right?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111

[Voltaire 4,564]

4 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Murder is illegal federally. Drugs. Felons possessing firearms. Kidnapping. Etc. There are all kinds of federal laws so why not one against killing babies?

Legislation one way or the other is impossible since half  the country sees it as a crime while the other half doesn’t. It’s why the dumb as dirt Dems need to keep the filibuster. This time next year, they’ll be delighted that they didn’t scrap it.. 

[Baker Boy 1,485]

54 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

Legislation one way or the other is impossible since half  the country sees it as a crime while the other half doesn’t. It’s why the dumb as dirt Dems need to keep the filibuster. This time next year, they’ll be delighted that they didn’t scrap it.. 

Democrats used filibuster 327 times, compared to only once by GOP in 2020: Report
 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/democrats-used-filibuster-over-300-times-gop-once

[Voltaire 4,564]

4 hours ago, Baker Boy said:

Democrats used filibuster 327 times, compared to only once by GOP in 2020: Report
 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/democrats-used-filibuster-over-300-times-gop-once

That’s one of the dumbest article ever. In 2020, the GOP didn’t need to filibuster because they controlled the Senate. The Dems did because they were the minority party. Now do 2021 and see the numbers flip in the exact opposite direction.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

Merick Garland is a disgrace not shutting down these protests. It’s unacceptable and there are laws on the books to stop it. And Obama tried to sell him as a  centrist. 

[IGotWorms 3,317]

4 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Merick Garland is a disgrace not shutting down these protests. It’s unacceptable and there are laws on the books to stop it. And Obama tried to sell him as a  centrist. 

Well if they’re trespassing or causing damage or doing real threats, then yeah. But if it’s just people assembled on public property or if neighbors are letting them be there or whatever, there’s really not a ton Garland or anyone else can or should do about it. I do wish they’d just stick to protesting the Supreme Court building though, that’s much more civil

[Reality 2,710]

10 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Merick Garland is a disgrace not shutting down these protests. It’s unacceptable and there are laws on the books to stop it. And Obama tried to sell him as a  centrist. 

Yup, this is an actual threat to democracy. Terrorizing justices at their homes.

Not surprised that the same people who were outraged about people being welcomed into the capitol are ok with this. Let's you know exactly how full of shlt they were. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

10 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Well if they’re trespassing or causing damage or doing real threats, then yeah. But if it’s just people assembled on public property or if neighbors are letting them be there or whatever, there’s really not a ton Garland or anyone else can or should do about it. I do wish they’d just stick to protesting the Supreme Court building though, that’s much more civil

Yes there is. There are laws prohibiting exactly what is happening. Besides, if they are in the street then get them out of the street. It’s called blocking vehicular traffic. Every time I look they are in the street. And making noise. 

[TimHauck 1,802]

3 minutes ago, Reality said:

Yup, this is an actual threat to democracy. Terrorizing justices at their homes.

Not surprised that the same people who were outraged about people being welcomed into the capitol are ok with this. Let's you know exactly how full of shlt they were. 

You sure they’re not just taking selfies?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

Section 1507 of title 18 of the us code.  Now get on it. 

[Gladiators 1,904]

3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

You sure they’re not just taking selfies?

You sure you’re not a liberal?

[Reality 2,710]

Just now, TimHauck said:

Well, actually....

Your schtick is tired. Fock off, nerd.

[Voltaire 4,564]

The entire point of SCOTUS being structured the way it was was to insulate and protect them from public pressure. POS Merrick Garland should know better.  This guy is a disgrace and a hack. At the time he was nominated for SCOTUS, I’d thought he was treated unfairly. My God, he’s the worst, did we dodge a bullet. I expect Jumanji to be a liberal jurist but not a POS liberal jurist. 
 

Jeff Sessions and surprisingly John Ashcroft were solid Attorney Generals, but for most of the 21st century, its been one sh1tbag after the other and Garland is the worst. You’d think Biden* could have found a better token straight white guy.

[Utilit99 4,099]

1 hour ago, Gladiators said:

You sure you’re not a liberal?

He's a liberal. 

[KSB2424 3,083]

Has anything changed yet?

[Strike 3,980]

3 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Well if they’re trespassing or causing damage or doing real threats, then yeah. But if it’s just people assembled on public property or if neighbors are letting them be there or whatever, there’s really not a ton Garland or anyone else can or should do about it. I do wish they’d just stick to protesting the Supreme Court building though, that’s much more civil

Actually no.  There's literally a federal law that makes it illegal to protest judges to try to influence them.  As usual, you're ignorant of the law "counselor."

[IGotWorms 3,317]

3 minutes ago, Strike said:

Actually no.  There's literally a federal law that makes it illegal to protest judges to try to influence them.  As usual, you're ignorant of the law "counselor."

You’re right this time, I stand corrected. Looked up the law HT referenced and it is certainly on point.

[KSB2424 3,083]

I haven't read through all this thread but here goes:

1.  In college I had cops come to my rental house and told me to turn down the music at a party as it was a public nuisance .  I'll just leave that there.  Surly one can equate that with "protesting" in a neighborhood.  

2.  Nothing legal wise has changed from today since two weeks ago.  For the dummies just google what "draft" means. 

3.  90% of the dumbfocks in America actually do not realize even if the Supreme Court overturns Roe vs Wade that it does not mean abortion is just automatically illegal.  

I hate you all. 

[TimHauck 1,802]

1 hour ago, KSB2424 said:

3.  90% of the dumbfocks in America actually do not realize even if the Supreme Court overturns Roe vs Wade that it does not mean abortion is just automatically illegal.  

I hate you all. 

it will in 13 states

[TimmySmith 2,782]

6 hours ago, TimHauck said:

it will in 13 states

What does that have to do with the SC? 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

11 hours ago, Voltaire said:

The entire point of SCOTUS being structured the way it was was to insulate and protect them from public pressure. POS Merrick Garland should know better.  This guy is a disgrace and a hack. At the time he was nominated for SCOTUS, I’d thought he was treated unfairly. My God, he’s the worst, did we dodge a bullet. I expect Jumanji to be a liberal jurist but not a POS liberal jurist. 
 

Jeff Sessions and surprisingly John Ashcroft were solid Attorney Generals, but for most of the 21st century, its been one sh1tbag after the other and Garland is the worst. You’d think Biden* could have found a better token straight white guy.

Worse than Holder and Lynch?  No way. 

[TimHauck 1,802]

9 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

What does that have to do with the SC? 

The SC is the reason it’s currently not legal

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

Yesterday I learned from the treasury Secretary that if there is no abortion it will be bad for the economy.  

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

9 hours ago, Strike said:

Actually no.  There's literally a federal law that makes it illegal to protest judges to try to influence them.  As usual, you're ignorant of the law "counselor."

Cmon man...it's a law nobody heard of until 2 days ago...probably taught in the third year of law school in the chass really obscure laws.

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

9 hours ago, KSB2424 said:

I haven't read through all this thread but here goes:

1.  In college I had cops come to my rental house and told me to turn down the music at a party as it was a public nuisance .  I'll just leave that there.  Surly one can equate that with "protesting" in a neighborhood.  

2.  Nothing legal wise has changed from today since two weeks ago.  For the dummies just google what "draft" means. 

3.  90% of the dumbfocks in America actually do not realize even if the Supreme Court overturns Roe vs Wade that it does not mean abortion is just automatically illegal.  

I hate you all. 

2. You should google how opinions get written in the Supreme Court before calling people dummies. 

3. Yes, you are correct, it doesn't become automatically illegal.  The 22 states with trigger laws make it automatically illegal in 30 days after it be overturned. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,118]

12 hours ago, Gladiators said:

You sure you’re not a liberal?

Oh, he is... and a troll.

[Gladiators 1,904]

Just now, TBayXXXVII said:

Oh, he is... and a troll.

Makes sense.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

16 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Cmon man...it's a law nobody heard of until 2 days ago...probably taught in the third year of law school in the chass really obscure laws.

Yeah, because protesting at judges houses has happened so many times. There’s a law, prohibiting exactly what is happening, and it’s not being enforced. That’s the point, not the level of awareness of the law. 

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yeah, because protesting at judges houses has happened so many times. There’s a law, prohibiting exactly what is happening, and it’s not being enforced. That’s the point, not the level of awareness of the law. 

No, it was the level of awareness of an obscure federal law that Strike decided was worth taking a shot at a former lawyer for not knowing it. I offered no opinion on the law or what is happening now or in the past that caused the establishment of that law. So lighten up Francis.

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

13 hours ago, Voltaire said:

That’s one of the dumbest article ever. In 2020, the GOP didn’t need to filibuster because they controlled the Senate. The Dems did because they were the minority party. Now do 2021 and see the numbers flip in the exact opposite direction.

Only one GOP filibuster in 2000...without looking it up, I'm going to say it was one of the big 'look at me' senators---Cruz or Paul, guessing it's Rand Paul.  Did I win?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

2 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

No, it was the level of awareness of an obscure federal law that Strike decided was worth taking a shot at a former lawyer for not knowing it. I offered no opinion on the law or what is happening now or in the past that caused the establishment of that law. So lighten up Francis.

Fine. Why do you think it’s not being enforced? 

[Ron 'Tator Salad' White 82]

10 hours ago, KSB2424 said:

Has anything changed yet?

got us distracted from

Hunters laptop

Child grooming

Inflation

Ukraine

 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

2 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Only one GOP filibuster in 2000...without looking it up, I'm going to say it was one of the big 'look at me' senators---Cruz or Paul, guessing it's Rand Paul.  Did I win?

Nothing. Neither were Senators in 2000

[Utilit99 4,099]

1 minute ago, Ron 'Tator Salad' White said:

got us distracted from

Hunters laptop

Child grooming

Inflation

Ukraine

 

Southern border.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

1 minute ago, Ron 'Tator Salad' White said:

got us distracted from

Hunters laptop

Child grooming

Inflation

Ukraine

 

Crime 

Bidens dementia 

Baby Formula shortage. 
Stock Market