Who Leaked The Supreme Court Draft?

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by WTF

You have a problem with people leaking things to the public?

no I don't have a problem with it except where it involves the court.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

no I don't have a problem with it except where it involves the court.

What kind of pretzel twisting is that bs reply?

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by WTF

What kind of pretzel twisting is that bs reply?

there shouldn't be any leaks from the courts. those deliberations are private internal use; not for public consumption.


only one doing the pretzel twisting is you.

[eyecu2]

If ever there was a reason to add additional justices to the bench, the Roe v Wade leak just made a grand case for it. Most people think that choice should be legal, and that's never been the unclear point of it. What is unclear is how the right has gathered up steam from the different states who want to ban it due to bible belt thumpers who just can't mind their own business. The gaslighting of the morale minority and those who are members of the evangelical crowd needed a reason to get out and vote; funny the timing on it now isnt' it?

Whatever your morale compass shows up as north, doesn't mean it's the same for every person, and there are many reasons that termination of pregnancy is well-founded for those who don't just ready the King James version. Lastly- it's funny how many men would just stop any legislation that would involve their reproductive rights vs. trying to govern the same for women. Fucking Hypocrisy at the highest; and even Clarence Thomas likely has asked one or more of his side-pieces to do the same. These people also are the same ones who lied directly to testimony when asked if they would accept the decision of Roe to be the law of the land; and now looks like that was just a ruse to wear a black robe. I trust none of them, nor this leak. Just more gaslighting

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by eyecu2

Most people think that choice should be legal, and that's never been the unclear point of it.

If that's true (hint: it's not) then what better way to allow the voters in the various states to vote on it. If it's NOT what the people want, then you will see a wave of Democrats taking over State governments in order to legalize baby killing.

We both know that won't happen because News flash, the majority of Americans think abortion is murder.

Originally Posted by eyecu2

What is unclear is how the right has gathered up steam from the different states who want to ban it due to bible belt thumpers who just can't mind their own business.

is that a sentence? Steam from bible thumpers?

Originally Posted by eyecu2

The gaslighting of the morale minority and those who are members of the evangelical crowd needed a reason to get out and vote; funny the timing on it now isnt' it?

God, you're just not that bright. The timing? of the leak? LOL... well since it was likely done by a Democrat... they controlled the timing... otherwise the decision was due out by the end of June anyway. You do know that the SCOTUS has a sort of standard schedule, right?

Originally Posted by eyecu2

Whatever your morale compass shows up as north, doesn't mean it's the same for every person, and there are many reasons that termination of pregnancy is well-founded for those who don't just ready the King James version.

No there aren't. There's only one. Self interest. It might be self interest in terms of the life of the mother, it might be impacting their lifestyle, they don't feel ready blah, blah, blah, but at the end of the day it's because the "self" is more important than the Child.

Originally Posted by eyecu2

Lastly- it's funny how many men would just stop any legislation that would involve their reproductive rights vs. trying to govern the same for women.

Okay... have you been day drinking? Are you a transphobe? Have you not heard that pregnant-people can be men now? LOL... when Libtards decided they couldn't define what a woman is they sort of lost their moral high ground for saying men cannot make decisions about womens health care...

Originally Posted by eyecu2

Fucking Hypocrisy at the highest; and even Clarence Thomas likely has asked one or more of his side-pieces to do the same.

Evidence?

Originally Posted by eyecu2

These people also are the same ones who lied directly to testimony when asked if they would accept the decision of Roe to be the law of the land; and now looks like that was just a ruse to wear a black robe.

It is the law of the land... but just like the Dread Scott decision, bad law can be undone. so too with Roe V Wade. it's a shitty legal decision and overturning it just allows states to decide if abortion is legal... pretty much like cannabis. you don't like it? Move where it's legal and kill babies to your abandon.

Originally Posted by eyecu2

I trust none of them, nor this leak. Just more gaslighting

LOL.. thanks for your input... I'm sure we will all keep it in mind at the polls this fall.

[The_Waco_Kid]

the leak has to be from the minority liberal camp. for several reasons. first the democrats are floundering politically and this is a blatant attempt to create a backlash against conservative republicans heading into midterms where the party who holds the White House typically loses seats in Congress.


there is no reason politically or otherwise for the conservative camp to leak the info. they would want to wait till the actual ruling is finalized and ruled upon.


the liberal camp on the court are hoping Roe can be kept in place by putting political pressure on the majority conservative side. the left wants riots over this. they have released the home addresses of the conservative justices and they want radical leftists to protest at their homes in an effort to intimidate them.


someone from the leftist camp leaked this.

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Usually we support "leakers" when there is WRONGDOING been exposed. There is no wrongdoing here except for the leaker. What was the motive? Obviously to gin up leftist anger and to create pressure on the justices to throw away their pride and honor. If this is found to be a clerk for Sotomayor, she should be sanctioned as her clerks represent her. She chose them.
I see some of the comments by our resident inmates thinks that the SCOTUS committed a crime by overturning a legal precedent that people like Jonathon Turley, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Joe Biden (2000), Alan Dershowitz have all said was bad law.

[dilbert firestorm]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...rbage-n2606836

Even the Late Ruth Bader Ginsburg Knew Roe v. Wade Was Hot Garbage

Matt Vespa
Matt Vespa | @mvespa1 | Posted: May 05, 2022 5:45 PM

Even the Late Ruth Bader Ginsburg Knew Roe v. Wade Was Hot Garbage

No, this doesn’t mean the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who her die-hard supporters affectionately call “Notorious RBG,” is anti-abortion. She wasn’t pro-life at all. Yet, she was someone who you could probably get along with despite having differing views, a rarity nowadays. You saw that with her friendship with the Scalia family. She recognized that court packing was a terrible idea. And now that Roe v. Wade is about to be overturned in the Dobbs abortion case, we’re rehashing her criticism of the decision. She seems to have known that the ruling wouldn’t last forever. It’s a pile of hot garbage. She didn’t use those words but noted that the ruling was too much and too fast regarding abortion restrictions.

“Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped may prove unstable,” she said during a 1992 lecture at New York University. Again, she’s no Susan B. Anthony follower here (via NYT):

The ruling [Roe v. Wade], she noted in a lecture at New York University in 1992, tried to do too much, too fast — it essentially made every abortion restriction in the country at the time illegal in one fell swoop — leaving it open to fierce attacks.

“Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped,” she said, “may prove unstable.”

It was because of her early criticism of one of the most consequential rulings for American women that some feminist activists were initially suspicious of her when President Bill Clinton nominated her for the Supreme Court in 1993, worried that she wouldn’t protect the decision.

Of course, they eventually realized that Justice Ginsburg’s skepticism of Roe v. Wade wasn’t driven by a disapproval of abortion access at all, but by her wholehearted commitment to it.

The way Justice Ginsburg saw it, Roe v. Wade was focused on the wrong argument — that restricting access to abortion violated a woman’s privacy. What she hoped for instead was a protection of the right to abortion on the basis that restricting it impeded gender equality, said Mary Hartnett, a law professor at Georgetown University who will be a co-writer on the only authorized biography of Justice Ginsburg.

Okay, well, if we’re going down this road, we should be clearer here about RBG’s argument—what she would argue here (via Newsweek):

Ginsburg believed "it would have been better to approach it under the equal protection clause" so Roe v. Wade would be less vulnerable to attempts to have it disbarred.

"Roe isn't really about the woman's choice, is it?" Ginsburg told the University of Chicago Law School in May 2013. "It's about the doctor's freedom to practice...it wasn't woman-centered, it was physician-centered."

Ginsburg also expressed concerns in the 1992 NYU lecture that the sweeping nature of Roe v. Wade should have originally focused on striking down a Texas law that "intolerably shackled a woman's autonomy" by only allowing abortion to be performed if the mother's life is in danger.

"Suppose the Court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the Court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force," Ginsburg said.

"Would there have been the twenty-year controversy we have witnessed, reflected most recently in the Supreme Court's splintered decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey? A less encompassing Roe, one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day, I believe and will summarize why [it] might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy."

Hey, look, you may disagree—and you have a right to—but this is a bit more level-headed than the insanity we’re seeing now from pro-aborts about this upcoming ruling. The irony about all of this is that for one to make Ginsburg’s new argument by like-minded folks—you’d have to start new. You’d have to scratch out Roe v. Wade. The late Justice Antonin Scalia was a stare decisis follower, except in this case because he felt Roe was decided so wrongly.

There has been a slew of articles that noted we were already heading for a democratic consensus on abortion before Roe nuked it. A ballot box and a legislature are how you keep society up to date. Right now, the Senate is going to push that we codify legal abortion. That’s what should have been the liberal go-to from the start. There is nothing in the Constitution about abortion. It doesn’t prohibit it. Pass a law if you want the right, but you see that takes time and effort. That also requires some serious linguistic gymnastics since killing babies might not poll well. And like with all rights here, there will be restrictions—and restrictions are popular on abortion. Sixty percent of women support a ban on abortion after 20 weeks. It goes higher after that; late-term abortion is super unpopular. This is a debate that is emotional, intense, and loaded with grey areas. There’s nuance here, but the Left would rather be lazy and say that RBG just should have retired to save Roe.

[dilbert firestorm]

ginsberg's thesis on roe is interesting. she says the roe argument would have better served on the basis of the 14th amendment rather 4th amendment.


is she right? I don't know, but I do think she might be right on having a decision based on it would have lowered temperature on this topic.

[Tsmokies]

Hunter Hunter Hunter leaked it you fukn gop idiots. If you don't believe me ask red cock sukn Cruz

Dah... fkn clueless morans

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

is that the same proof that the Republicans paid for the Steele dossier?


thank you valued poster


bahahahahaahhaaaa

I so love all the tread that old chestnut has gotten.
Though, you forgot the context.
Just to remind you, I stated the acorn that started all the kneejerk reactions from the repubs was started by one of y'all lot that hated the donny. Those that say all money is good money ain't gonna look a gift horse in the mouth. So, if you can find a source that your lady love hilly initiated funds to ol' Fusion early 2015, not a po'd conservative, i'll assent.

Until than: Steele Dossier

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by eyecu2

... These people also are the same ones who lied directly to testimony when asked if they would accept the decision of Roe to be the law of the land; and now looks like that was just a ruse to wear a black robe. ...

So I wasn't the only one who saw them perjure themselves in front of Congress. IDK why got his nose bent out of joint.

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by bambino

Weren’t you Firefighter in a previous life? Or was that another Libtard with multiple handles?

Speaking of , why don't you post my supposed handles here? Want them to be RTM so I can be banned when they are linked to my IP address.
I won't touch your religious believes about reincarnation. But you can elaborate on it with so facts. (None of those T sites.)

[Salty Again]

Originally Posted by Precious_b

I so love all the tread that old chestnut has gotten.
Though, you forgot the context.
Just to remind you, I stated the acorn that started all the kneejerk reactions from the repubs was started by one of y'all lot that hated the donny. Those that say all money is good money ain't gonna look a gift horse in the mouth. So, if you can find a source that your lady love hilly initiated funds to ol' Fusion early 2015, not a po'd conservative, i'll assent.

Until than: Steele Dossier

... See? .... Posts like this one is where YOU
surely lose your credibility, Preece.

... It's gone.

... YOU can't even admit all the lies by Hillary, Biden,
the corrupt news media, and the government.

... What's it like - for YOU and some o' the other
liberal losses here TO BE WRONG so many times??

Really --- I'd like to know.

#### Salty

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... See? .... Posts like this one is where YOU
surely lose your credibility, Preece.

... It's gone.

... YOU can't even admit all the lies by Hillary, Biden,
the corrupt news media, and the government.

... What's it like - for YOU and some o' the other
liberal losses here TO BE WRONG so many times??

Really --- I'd like to know.

#### Salty

Where's that link that shows all the good time libbys paid Fusion in 2015? I can only find it was one of your pals. That was the tap root. Like Deep Throat said: "Follow the money." The money started with a person of the ilk of donny.

If you can truly read Saltlick, I said i'd state otherwise with proof that no one has posted yet.

Step up to the plate and prove me wrong. Doesn't hurt to be the first.