I don't know where to begin.
An unfathomable assault on our nation.
An unfathomable assault on our nation.
Supreme Court Leak
- Thread starter Pirata
- Start date
What are you referring to? Overturning roe v Wade? Or the way politico leaked this info?
A couple points here.
1) The leak is a heinous breach of confidence and an attack on one of our sacred institutions. Stuff like this is a true threat to our Republic - not the nonsense you hear on cable TV every night.
2) The Republic will, however, be stronger if the justices do in fact vote this way - it allows each state to decide the issue in question, instead of a one size fits all Federal overreach allowed by the 1973 decision.
1) The leak is a heinous breach of confidence and an attack on one of our sacred institutions. Stuff like this is a true threat to our Republic - not the nonsense you hear on cable TV every night.
2) The Republic will, however, be stronger if the justices do in fact vote this way - it allows each state to decide the issue in question, instead of a one size fits all Federal overreach allowed by the 1973 decision.
It’s actually an attack on stare decisis. I have not read the opinion but Roe V Wade has been the law of the land for 50 years and confirmed most recently by three Republican justices. Is the decision based upon there is no right to privacy in the Constitution? If so, that impacts far more than just abortion.
Moreover, will we now have police and prosecutors wasting their time investigating abortion cases? Are we really going to send doctors and women to jail for abortion in some states?
Im the end, we will have a split country. The south where abortion will be outlawed and the north where it will be legal. I am sure that will be good for the country.
Btw, I just don’t understand why leak this and who did it. What if a Justice changed their mind? Does that make it look bad?
Last edited:
I can certainly understand and be sympathetic to the arguments of both sides although I tend to lean on and support the rights of an unborn child.
I support it being overturned because ultimately it returns the decision to the states to decide. Who am I to judge the will of the people of Mississippi or New York for that matter? I don’t live in either location. Not the most elegant comparison, but why would I want to live with the bail reform laws, for instance that NYC has passed in my city or state?
Yes, we are a split country, but the split has existed well before this discussion, and it's split in more ways then two.
two additional points:
- The leak is unconscionable. Whoever did that should be identified and punished.
- The shift in the Supreme Court will be the greatest accomplishment/legacy of the Trump presidency.
I support it being overturned because ultimately it returns the decision to the states to decide. Who am I to judge the will of the people of Mississippi or New York for that matter? I don’t live in either location. Not the most elegant comparison, but why would I want to live with the bail reform laws, for instance that NYC has passed in my city or state?
Yes, we are a split country, but the split has existed well before this discussion, and it's split in more ways then two.
two additional points:
- The leak is unconscionable. Whoever did that should be identified and punished.
- The shift in the Supreme Court will be the greatest accomplishment/legacy of the Trump presidency.
Last edited:
I've never understood why people get so up in arms to be pro-abortion. Why are you getting pregnant if you don't want to have a child? The only valid arguments I've ever heard for abortion that make sense to me are in the cases of a rape or incest. I support it in those rare instances but I don't see a valid case for it in normal every day life.
But in the end from a government perspective, this should be an issue to be decided by the people of each state, not by the federal government.
But in the end from a government perspective, this should be an issue to be decided by the people of each state, not by the federal government.
doesnt matter. let people do what they want. Liberty, after all.
do you think this will stop abortions? or just stop access to safer abortions?
It absolutely matters. One could argue that abortion is murder.
you can also argue it isnt. its their bodies, its in their bodies. no name, not a registered person anywhere, can only exist inside that person only with the help of that person.
one situation you missed is children with severe disabilites or defects that discovered in the womb. add that.
this isnt the same situation as a person with a name; existing on their own, etc. let the person have the right to their own body. remember the whole vaccine arguments that pro lifers convieniently take an opposite stance on?
That this leaked reeks of BS political nonsense, midterms, etc.
So according to your definition, if a baby is born and doesn't have a name yet or is not "registered", it would be okay to kill them outside the womb?
No, you're criteria is all over the place and is anything but clear. Try harder.
cut and paste
its in their (mothers) bodies. no name, not a registered person anywhere, can only exist inside that person only with the help of that person. heres more. breathing oxygen. disconnected from an umbilicle cord, etc
the law always had a cutoff date on when a woman could do it too. which is important.
but thats not the point. remember the freedom of your body that was incessently pushed with covid vaccines and mandates? those same people are pushing for the opposite here. think harder .
Wouldn't this opinion come out well before the midterms anyway?
Thought it would be released in June?
Still stinks though. Small circle here too. Would have had to be from one of the justices or their clerks?
I don't necessarily have a problem with the opinion based on what I've read so far but this wouldn't change demand for abortion at all. It will just change how difficult it is to get one for people who live in states that ban it.
Abortion is killing. Babies are born earlier and earlier and survive. They should have rights. No different than poor people that cannot fend for themselves. Babies in utero are the same and can't stick up for themselves. IMO abortion should be legal in certain instances (rape, incest and when the life of the mother is in danger). The legality of the practice should constitutionally be a state by state decision. There are over 600,000 abortions a year still. over 1,000,000 per year in the 80s and 90s. That is awful. The Mom will also risk having issues after having an abortion as well. I choose life.
If the Supreme Court has legal justification for letting it be determined by the states I fully support that as for years the original Roe v Wade has been seen by some legal scholars as an overreach. Leak or not this issue will always have strong opinions. If we actually value life, the decision is easy.
If the Supreme Court has legal justification for letting it be determined by the states I fully support that as for years the original Roe v Wade has been seen by some legal scholars as an overreach. Leak or not this issue will always have strong opinions. If we actually value life, the decision is easy.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
A fetus has a beating heart. While its true a fetus cannot care for itself, neither can babies outside the womb.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
It is legalized murder. Its sickening how many people rationalize it. As for the leak, its an attack on an institution of this country
I thought the same on the timing, although not 100% sure. Regardless, I think the idea is let's get this out there as soon as possible to distract from the other issues plaguing the Biden administration and D's generally right now when it comes to their approval ratings and what everyone is projecting for the midterms. The more time to try and change the narrative and public opinion, the better, when all polling from professionals involved in this stuff is horrific. And this is one of the "lightning, lightning" rod issues.
can u murder what isnt alive? thats the question. what does alive mean. it will never be an objective answer.
Also, maybe I'm naive, but I can't wrap my mind around the notion that one of the justices would release this. When you read about the inner-workings of the court, these folks do not have contempt for each other when they disagree on an issue. They are friends to varying degrees and do not allow vigorous disagreements about the law impact that. Not at the level the outside world and media does for specific justices.
RBG and Scalia were the shining examples of this, and frankly a model folks everywhere should follow.
Now whether a clerk might do this -- I think that's believable.
RBG and Scalia were the shining examples of this, and frankly a model folks everywhere should follow.
Now whether a clerk might do this -- I think that's believable.
It is a clerk or someone in copy room who felt justified to revealing this assault on women in the 13 states potentially affected.
A patriot at work in the noble effort to protect unprotected sex resulting in pregancy by aborting the baby.A loyal pro choice advocate who Joe would be proud of.Might get medal of freedom award from Joe.Hope it doesn’t cause Joe to give up his rosary beads.
A patriot at work in the noble effort to protect unprotected sex resulting in pregancy by aborting the baby.A loyal pro choice advocate who Joe would be proud of.Might get medal of freedom award from Joe.Hope it doesn’t cause Joe to give up his rosary beads.
Conversely though, conservatives now get to focus on the leak being the issue and not the change in a 50 year established precedent. The leak is a much better narrative to run with.
Leak could have come from either side.
No justice would leak it.
We will know soon who did and everyone's money is on a clerk. Likely some radical liberal Eli.
This thread was intended to be about the assault on the constitution.
Mr. "stare decisis" (why he can't just say legal precedent is beyond me) doesn't seem to care about the precedent of 200 years of confidentiality. I guess it is OK as long as the breach was in support of your agenda.
It should always be your choice to decide whether or not to inject yourself with something. I can't believe that's even debatable, but the last two years really reduced my faith in humanity.
Abortion is murdering a living organism. Choosing whether or not to inject yourself with something is a matter of personal freedom and bodily autonomy.
It was likely one of the clerks, but I wouldn't put it past Sotomayor. She is a partisan politician who just so happens to wear a robe.
If you believe it is murder, then I expect all of you to act as though it was murder because anything less would show utter hypocrisy. Since it is murder, then women and doctors who have an abortion in a state it is illegal shall be treated as a murderer. The case shall be investigated by the police and prosecuted in court where a jury shall find these people guilty and sentenced to 30 to life. I am sure the legal system will welcome this new crime.
Pirata is offended that I used the term stare decicis. Well, it is a legal term and we are talking about a Supreme. Court decision. And btw, i don’t like the leak, perhaps you should read my entire post. In the process of deciding a case, justice may switch sides or arguments. Releasing this just makes everything look bad.
I guess, but I don't see the narrative about the leak having that much of an influence on a particular voter. Whereas the lightning-rod issue that is abortion definitely impacts voters to varying extents. If you are a D and want to rile up your base, and possibly even independents or swing voters, to avoid an absolute shellacking in the midterms, and move the focus off things like inflation, immigration, COVID response, etc, this is an issue that can do that.
Your posts get more incoherent as the thread goes on. Try to focus on making a point, whatever that is.
Indeed but all of that still happens if this is just released in June instead of leaked in May. I don't think this coming out a month early helps dems at all.
I do think a narrative that this was leaked from extremists liberals will be effective though. Just look at the start of this thread as well as comments from every conservative politician today. All of it is about the leak.
The leak is important, but not nearly as significant as the court overruling a 50 year precedent.
Exactly. This unprecedented breach of the court is another political weapon in this radical age. Now the Democrats have a shiny new object to distract people with and raise money.
I would love to hear a pro-abortion person make a rational argument to me as to why it should be allowed. My opinion is it should not, except in special circumstances. But I also respect the right of each state to make their own decisions.
Hopefully we will find out soon. You don't think someone would leak it to possibly put public pressure on a judge to change their vote?
Who knows. Just saying there are lots of reasons why someone would leak it. Both sides here could have an incentive. I don't think a justice will change their opinion, and I don't think it helps dems that it is out early.
I think that's likely part of the motivation too, although pressure has already been exerted publicly and no doubt through numerous back-channels as well. Politicians have been all over this since the case was accepted, and after oral argument. And they've done this before in recent years with other decisions. Sheldon Whitehouse is one of the more significant public voices preemptively addressing issues before the court in the public domain, but I recall Shumer even having a high-profile press conference over the past 6 months involving a particular hot-button issue and using certain justices by name.
With the constituency on the majority side, I don't see the leak causing anyone to backtrack for various reasons. If it was 5-4 one way and Roberts had the opportunity to flip to get it the other way, maybe the pressure would work. I don't think it does here. And so I think this is more about the political issue.
Similar threads
