So the issue here has become the actions of a leaker, not those of a clearly partisan Supreme Court where its members are choosing to throw out a long-established precedent on the basis of their ideological preferences at the cost of millions of American women.
So the issue here has become the actions of a leaker, not those of a clearly partisan Supreme Court where its members are choosing to throw out a long-established precedent on the basis of their ideological preferences at the cost of millions of American women.
Please provide evidence of "a clearly partisan Supreme Court." Id prefer empirical data rather than personal option.
So the issue here has become the actions of a leaker, not those of a clearly partisan Supreme Court where its members are choosing to throw out a long-established precedent on the basis of their ideological preferences at the cost of millions of American women.
Actually John roberts has frustrated conservatives for years by siding with the liberal justices on issues. People just need to realize that roe v Wade was bad case law and it was always going to be at risk of being overturned because of that.
how is overturning roe v wade happening at the “cost of millions of American women”? Are they going to spontaneously combust? Do you really not understand what happens if roe is overturned? Do you even understand any of this or are you just throwing out hyper emotional talking points without even the ground level understanding of how to back them up?
but to answer your initial question: yes the issue is the leaker as that is a possibly illegal action that undermines the Supreme Court. You may approve of the leak this time because it goes in your favor, but what happens next time when it doesn’t? Will you still support the leaker or only when it’s convenient for your cause? Don’t continue to criticize the “insurrectionists” while supporting this leaker. It’s hypocritical and intellectually inconsistent.
So the issue here has become the actions of a leaker, not those of a clearly partisan Supreme Court where its members are choosing to throw out a long-established precedent on the basis of their ideological preferences at the cost of millions of American women.
Even RBG said that Roe v. Wade was a very shaky ruling. It was unconstitutional. 99.999% of republicans support exceptions in cases of rape or where the mother's health is in danger.
What women have been doing is the equivalent of going to the pet store and buying a dog, then they realize they don't want the dog so they kill the dog. It's really easy to not get pregnant.
So the issue here has become the actions of a leaker, not those of a clearly partisan Supreme Court where its members are choosing to throw out a long-established precedent on the basis of their ideological preferences at the cost of millions of American women.
Actually John roberts has frustrated conservatives for years by siding with the liberal justices on issues. People just need to realize that roe v Wade was bad case law and it was always going to be at risk of being overturned because of that.
how is overturning roe v wade happening at the “cost of millions of American women”? Are they going to spontaneously combust? Do you really not understand what happens if roe is overturned? Do you even understand any of this or are you just throwing out hyper emotional talking points without even the ground level understanding of how to back them up?
but to answer your initial question: yes the issue is the leaker as that is a possibly illegal action that undermines the Supreme Court. You may approve of the leak this time because it goes in your favor, but what happens next time when it doesn’t? Will you still support the leaker or only when it’s convenient for your cause? Don’t continue to criticize the “insurrectionists” while supporting this leaker. It’s hypocritical and intellectually inconsistent.
It is not in the least hypocritical or inconsistent to say that the "possibly illegal" leaking of a draft opinion is less serious of an offense than an armed insurrection to overturn the results of an election. The argument that it "undermines" the Supreme Court to release a draft their work product before the official date for its release depends on accepting the questionable idea that the Supreme Court, unlike the other branches of government, needs to conduct its activities in secret. The public gets to see drafts of statutes and the discussions about them on C-Span.
Armed insurrection to deprive the majority of voters of their choice of government is quite a bit more than "possibly illegal." It is the negation of democracy itself, the substitution of rule by bullets instead of by ballots.
It is hard to imagine a stupider argument than saying that these two things are equivalent.
So the issue here has become the actions of a leaker, not those of a clearly partisan Supreme Court where its members are choosing to throw out a long-established precedent on the basis of their ideological preferences at the cost of millions of American women.
Even RBG said that Roe v. Wade was a very shaky ruling. It was unconstitutional. 99.999% of republicans support exceptions in cases of rape or where the mother's health is in danger.
What women have been doing is the equivalent of going to the pet store and buying a dog, then they realize they don't want the dog so they kill the dog. It's really easy to not get pregnant.
What about their psychological health at having to remain pregnant when they don't want to be pregnant?
Also, your health is always at risk when pregnant. It's always less dangerous to have an abortion that it is to stay pregnant. That's why we let women asses the situation themselves and decide what to do.
So the issue here has become the actions of a leaker, not those of a clearly partisan Supreme Court where its members are choosing to throw out a long-established precedent on the basis of their ideological preferences at the cost of millions of American women.
Please provide evidence of "a clearly partisan Supreme Court." Id prefer empirical data rather than personal option.
A draft decision that shows an intent to remove a long established right of American women. It is a right that has divided American society and the court is siding with those who oppose it. It puts them in the same camp as evangelicals who have long campaigned against abortion. There are no reasons other than religiously-based values for overruling Roe v Wade after nearly 50 years. That is a court that has declared its political colors. It is why Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett were appointed - to swing the Court to the Right.
So the issue here has become the actions of a leaker, not those of a clearly partisan Supreme Court where its members are choosing to throw out a long-established precedent on the basis of their ideological preferences at the cost of millions of American women.
Actually John roberts has frustrated conservatives for years by siding with the liberal justices on issues. People just need to realize that roe v Wade was bad case law and it was always going to be at risk of being overturned because of that.
how is overturning roe v wade happening at the “cost of millions of American women”? Are they going to spontaneously combust? Do you really not understand what happens if roe is overturned? Do you even understand any of this or are you just throwing out hyper emotional talking points without even the ground level understanding of how to back them up?
but to answer your initial question: yes the issue is the leaker as that is a possibly illegal action that undermines the Supreme Court. You may approve of the leak this time because it goes in your favor, but what happens next time when it doesn’t? Will you still support the leaker or only when it’s convenient for your cause? Don’t continue to criticize the “insurrectionists” while supporting this leaker. It’s hypocritical and intellectually inconsistent.
You have no idea what will happen to many American women when they are denied the right to abortion. Many will choose to commit a criminal act and some will lose their lives in a back street. It will send the US back into a past that most Western countries long ago left behind. But the Taliban will approve.
So the issue here has become the actions of a leaker, not those of a clearly partisan Supreme Court where its members are choosing to throw out a long-established precedent on the basis of their ideological preferences at the cost of millions of American women.
Even RBG said that Roe v. Wade was a very shaky ruling. It was unconstitutional. 99.999% of republicans support exceptions in cases of rape or where the mother's health is in danger.
What women have been doing is the equivalent of going to the pet store and buying a dog, then they realize they don't want the dog so they kill the dog. It's really easy to not get pregnant.
Only a male with no understanding of women and their experience of pregnancy can liken pregnancy to going to the pet store. But you aren't sufficiently self aware to realise the contempt for women that is inherent in your attitude.
Actually John roberts has frustrated conservatives for years by siding with the liberal justices on issues. People just need to realize that roe v Wade was bad case law and it was always going to be at risk of being overturned because of that.
how is overturning roe v wade happening at the “cost of millions of American women”? Are they going to spontaneously combust? Do you really not understand what happens if roe is overturned? Do you even understand any of this or are you just throwing out hyper emotional talking points without even the ground level understanding of how to back them up?
but to answer your initial question: yes the issue is the leaker as that is a possibly illegal action that undermines the Supreme Court. You may approve of the leak this time because it goes in your favor, but what happens next time when it doesn’t? Will you still support the leaker or only when it’s convenient for your cause? Don’t continue to criticize the “insurrectionists” while supporting this leaker. It’s hypocritical and intellectually inconsistent.
You have no idea what will happen to many American women when they are denied the right to abortion. Many will choose to commit a criminal act and some will lose their lives in a back street. It will send the US back into a past that most Western countries long ago left behind. But the Taliban will approve.
You don’t either. That’s why it was emotional hyperbole to claim that it will happen at the “cost of millions of women”.
Again, you seem to know so much about this issue. Please tell us what will happen if Roe is overturned. Do you honestly think abortion will just go away?
If a woman decides to risk her life by having a shady procedure done in a back alley, no one is to blame other than that woman. That sounds cruel, but it’s true.
You have no idea what will happen to many American women when they are denied the right to abortion. Many will choose to commit a criminal act and some will lose their lives in a back street. It will send the US back into a past that most Western countries long ago left behind. But the Taliban will approve.
You don’t either. That’s why it was emotional hyperbole to claim that it will happen at the “cost of millions of women”.
Again, you seem to know so much about this issue. Please tell us what will happen if Roe is overturned. Do you honestly think abortion will just go away?
If a woman decides to risk her life by having a shady procedure done in a back alley, no one is to blame other than that woman. That sounds cruel, but it’s true.
Women with ectopic pregnancies or the dozens of other complications that threaten the life of the mother will die without access to abortions. Women who are raped will be forced to conceive the rapists baby (same for incest). Overturning Roe clears the way for state legislation making a fetus a person, which would mean that women can be jailed for a miscarriage. And women will be jailed and forced to conceive if they are caught trying to get a back alley abortion. No one talks about that because it is barbaric. But it is being planned in many jurisdictions as we speak. Women will be chained to a delivery table, put in stirrups and forced to conceive while serving jail time for seeking an abortion. That is just outright medieval.
And the only person to blame for women dying after hemorrhaging during a back alley abortion are the religious zealots in this country who see women as birthing slaves to their "god".
Please provide evidence of "a clearly partisan Supreme Court." Id prefer empirical data rather than personal option.
Lol. What kind of "empirical data" would satisfy you?
I'll make it easier for you to understand. Imagine Sonya Sotomayor's husband was in close, regular contact with the Biden administration and state officials about the prospect of implementing some obviously unconstitutional maneuver that would prevent Ron DeSantis from running for president (this would still be less outrageous than seeking to overturn certified election results, but nevertheless...). Imagine Sotomayor ruled on cases associated with this partisan ratf*cking scheme, rather than recusing herself. Clearly, this would compromise her status as an impartial judge. Republicans would be up in arms, and rightly so.
Basically the same thing has played out with Clarence Thomas. You don't need empirical data to see that he is a political agent.
Please provide evidence of "a clearly partisan Supreme Court." Id prefer empirical data rather than personal option.
Lol. What kind of "empirical data" would satisfy you?
I'll make it easier for you to understand. Imagine Sonya Sotomayor's husband was in close, regular contact with the Biden administration and state officials about the prospect of implementing some obviously unconstitutional maneuver that would prevent Ron DeSantis from running for president (this would still be less outrageous than seeking to overturn certified election results, but nevertheless...). Imagine Sotomayor ruled on cases associated with this partisan ratf*cking scheme, rather than recusing herself. Clearly, this would compromise her status as an impartial judge. Republicans would be up in arms, and rightly so.
Basically the same thing has played out with Clarence Thomas. You don't need empirical data to see that he is a political agent.
What are you too really arguing about. Of course individual justices are partisan, everyone is to some degree. You really think Sotomayor is anything but an activist? How about Ginsberg? I mean my God she wasn't even the first woman justice the reason she was loved is because she didn't care about precedent and did whatever she wanted. And yeah Thomas is obviously extremely conservative. For us to lie about him or the nature of humanity is just silly. The real question isn't if the Court has bias, it's why are liberals so comfortable with 9 justices legislating from the bench? The answer is clearly because they always had a majority, now that they don't they push back. Let's not pretend either of you are truly principled at all lol
Actually John roberts has frustrated conservatives for years by siding with the liberal justices on issues. People just need to realize that roe v Wade was bad case law and it was always going to be at risk of being overturned because of that.
how is overturning roe v wade happening at the “cost of millions of American women”? Are they going to spontaneously combust? Do you really not understand what happens if roe is overturned? Do you even understand any of this or are you just throwing out hyper emotional talking points without even the ground level understanding of how to back them up?
but to answer your initial question: yes the issue is the leaker as that is a possibly illegal action that undermines the Supreme Court. You may approve of the leak this time because it goes in your favor, but what happens next time when it doesn’t? Will you still support the leaker or only when it’s convenient for your cause? Don’t continue to criticize the “insurrectionists” while supporting this leaker. It’s hypocritical and intellectually inconsistent.
It is not in the least hypocritical or inconsistent to say that the "possibly illegal" leaking of a draft opinion is less serious of an offense than an armed insurrection to overturn the results of an election. The argument that it "undermines" the Supreme Court to release a draft their work product before the official date for its release depends on accepting the questionable idea that the Supreme Court, unlike the other branches of government, needs to conduct its activities in secret. The public gets to see drafts of statutes and the discussions about them on C-Span.
Armed insurrection to deprive the majority of voters of their choice of government is quite a bit more than "possibly illegal." It is the negation of democracy itself, the substitution of rule by bullets instead of by ballots.
It is hard to imagine a stupider argument than saying that these two things are equivalent.
You don’t either. That’s why it was emotional hyperbole to claim that it will happen at the “cost of millions of women”.
Again, you seem to know so much about this issue. Please tell us what will happen if Roe is overturned. Do you honestly think abortion will just go away?
If a woman decides to risk her life by having a shady procedure done in a back alley, no one is to blame other than that woman. That sounds cruel, but it’s true.
Women with ectopic pregnancies or the dozens of other complications that threaten the life of the mother will die without access to abortions. Women who are raped will be forced to conceive the rapists baby (same for incest). Overturning Roe clears the way for state legislation making a fetus a person, which would mean that women can be jailed for a miscarriage. And women will be jailed and forced to conceive if they are caught trying to get a back alley abortion. No one talks about that because it is barbaric. But it is being planned in many jurisdictions as we speak. Women will be chained to a delivery table, put in stirrups and forced to conceive while serving jail time for seeking an abortion. That is just outright medieval.
And the only person to blame for women dying after hemorrhaging during a back alley abortion are the religious zealots in this country who see women as birthing slaves to their "god".
So you don’t think there will be exceptions for rape, incest or if the mother’s life is in danger? I find it hard to believe that even the most conservative of states will be able to get legislation without those exceptions passed. I would also be surprised to see any state pass legislation that cites a medical miscarriage as murder. I think you’re going too much into emotional outrage here.
This will go back to the states, as it should, and if someone isn’t happy with the legislation their state passes they can move to another state or put in the effort to get new lawmakers elected in their state that share the same values. Abortion shouldn’t be a federally decided issue. RBG and others have said that the decision was shaky at best, and the conservatives played the long game and won. It really is that simple.
Please provide evidence of "a clearly partisan Supreme Court." Id prefer empirical data rather than personal option.
There are no reasons other than religiously-based values for overruling Roe v Wade after nearly 50 years. That is a court that has declared its political colors.
We can only hope that one day all your legally flawed posts will have become so numerous that the majority of posters reading these threads will readily identify you as the FAKE lawyer you are, and quit reading.
There are plenty of "reasons other than religiously-based values for overruling Roe v Wade after nearly 50 years." Indeed you can even read those reasons and analysis in the leaked draft opinion, and the hundreds (thousands) of legal articles written since Roe that discuss its flawed reasoning.
The Dems have had many decades to pass a law protecting abortion.
Never did.
They wanted to be able to run on the fear that Roe v Wade would be overturned if we did not put Dems in power.
Well, here we are
Good point. Democrats had a super majority mid-January, 2009 through mid-January, 2011 with Senator Sanders voting with Democrats. Democrats could have passed any legislation they so desired during those 2 years.
Please provide evidence of "a clearly partisan Supreme Court." Id prefer empirical data rather than personal option.
Lol. What kind of "empirical data" would satisfy you?
I'll make it easier for you to understand. Imagine Sonya Sotomayor's husband was in close, regular contact with the Biden administration and state officials about the prospect of implementing some obviously unconstitutional maneuver that would prevent Ron DeSantis from running for president (this would still be less outrageous than seeking to overturn certified election results, but nevertheless...). Imagine Sotomayor ruled on cases associated with this partisan ratf*cking scheme, rather than recusing herself. Clearly, this would compromise her status as an impartial judge. Republicans would be up in arms, and rightly so.
Basically the same thing has played out with Clarence Thomas. You don't need empirical data to see that he is a political agent.
Uh how about the voting records of the court? Is that empire or enough for you?