Supreme Court Draft Decision Would Strike Down Roe v. Wade

Rumors fueling up that the "Leaker" is a law clerk for Breyer !!

Elizabeth Deutsch 🚬 hmmmm

originally posted by: 3000Hard

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: 3000Hard

originally posted by: frogs453
Guess us females better start practicing, "Under his eye" and "May the Lord open". All fun and games until they ban reading for us too.

Am I missing a law that's in place regarding a man's reproductive system and what he can do with it?

I don’t think there is such a law. Just let men be in charge of your body! Go cook!
/sarc

This is mad! This is wrong!
I can’t understand why those that are “pro-life” just can’t ban abortion for themselves, and not dictate what a woman can or cannot do.

Ummm. . . maybe it's because we see abortion as the deliberate, intentional killing of an unborn human.

And some of us are against that.

Just because some of you are against something is not a good enough reason. Some people are against guns, that’s not a good enough reason to ban them.
Some people may not think as you do. Issues such as ‘is there a heartbeat?’ or viability may not carry the same weight between two people. As far as god being a factor, some people are fine with this reality without all the invisible person gobbledygook.

I try not to bring religion into the argument.

It it a living human being?

And comparing this to firearms just doesn't make any sense.

If you cannot agree that the living unborn human is actually a living unborn human, then you might want to open a science textbook.

a reply to: xuenchen

Hmmm, I saw the lawyer's tweet. He doxxed her and tried to stipulate that it's speculation. Nice. I can speculate too.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Rumors fueling up that the "Leaker" is a law clerk for Breyer !!

Elizabeth Deutsch 🚬 hmmmm

I suspect we will see many such rumors naming names. While our curiosity begs us to find out, in fact it doesn't change the big picture. For all we know, the NSA leaked the document to take the edge off the final decision in June/July, much like the leaking of UFO footage to ease us into acceptance. Will there be riots and discontent? Hopefully not.

Is Liz a relation of John Deutsch? It seems that having political juice begets more familial political juice. Carlin was right; it's a big club and we aren't in it. Having seen the products of that club and their empty and corrupt lifestyles, I am happy to be excluded from membership. The big club members may be having some big problems that are a result of membership dues charged to their souls.

a reply to: 3000Hard

Just because some of you are against something is not a good enough reason.

Really? Let's follow that one out to a logical conclusion, shall we?

Just because one is against speed limits, should we allow people to drive at 150 mph?

Just because one is against burglary, should we still allow burglars?

Just because one is against vandalism, should we still allow vandalism?

Just because one is against rape, should we still allow rape?

Just because one is against assault, should we still let people assault each other?

Just because one is against murder, should we still let people kill each other?

That's what laws are: mutually agreed upon limits to freedom. Without laws, there would be some people who would destroy society for their own self interests, and there would be no freedom left. That's just the nature of things. So we set these broad limits on individual freedom to ensure that everyone has freedom.

You may not think I deserve the house I live in. Too bad; it is still illegal for you to burn it down. Someone may not like the fact that you're alive. Too bad; murder is illegal. I get to stay in the house I have and you get to keep living whether others like it or not.

So yes, it does matter what others think about the legality (or the need for illegality) of others' actions. What you propose is called "chaos" and it doesn't work out too well for the majority of people.

The comparison with gun laws is completely ludicrous. My owning a gun does not in any way infringe on any rights anyone might have. Killing someone certainly does interfere with that someone's rights. You might be more accurate to equate firearm usage to kill another with abortion; in both those cases someone besides the perpetrator dies. Of course, it is already illegal to kill someone with a firearm, so there's that.

Oh, but killing someone with a firearm in self-defense is OK, you might say. Sure it is... and so is letting a mother die because an abortion is medically necessary. The more I think about it, the more I think this is definitely a more apt metaphor.

As for bringing up religion, why is it people seem to think that it is impossible to believe in right and wrong without religion? Did you just make an argument for religious values? Because if it requires God to know right and wrong, and knowing right and wrong is a good thing then it follows that God is a good thing. Since we are ignoring the Constitutional issues involved with Roe v. Wade, let's just ignore the First Amendment as well... require everyone to become a Bible-thumping evangelist so we can be assured they will know right from wrong. How do you like that idea?

Oh, you don't? No matter.

Just because some of you are against something is not a good enough reason.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Its sad how many higher up people break laws and get a pass.

a reply to: pteridine

I suspect we will see many such rumors naming names.

I think you are correct. I'm going to try desperately to not point a finger until I see some solid evidence.

I'll say this: whoever leaked this document is a bona-fide traitor to their country and should be held responsible for any social unrest that comes about over this decision prior to the actual ruling being released. That's a serious, serious charge and should never be taken lightly.

TheRedneck

a reply to: carewemust

And even sadder to see people who seem to be OK with this.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: St Udio



the way i see it;.......

the Democrats are concocting this scam of overturning Roe-v-Wade

so they get voters out his mid-term.... needlessly Scared Voters ... because the SCOTUS flipping on Womens Rights to an abortion is a False-Flag, scare-mongering Operation (on par with the mail-in-ballot fraud of last vote count)

You nailed it. Just like the coronavirus fear, the fear of racism, and the fear of a protest at the Capitol, this will be the rallying cry of something once again fabricated by democrats.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: xuenchen

Hmmm, I saw the lawyer's tweet. He doxxed her and tried to stipulate that it's speculation. Nice. I can speculate too.

and what happens if and when this rumor turns into truth ? 🐔

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: pteridine

I suspect we will see many such rumors naming names.

I think you are correct. I'm going to try desperately to not point a finger until I see some solid evidence.

I'll say this: whoever leaked this document is a bona-fide traitor to their country and should be held responsible for any social unrest that comes about over this decision prior to the actual ruling being released. That's a serious, serious charge and should never be taken lightly.

TheRedneck

That is certainly difficult to hold back after what we all witnessed one of the justices do a few months ago on this exact case.

But you are correct as usual.

a reply to: xuenchen

and what happens if and when this rumor turns into truth ?

In a just world?

Then they are tried, convicted of treason, set in a rickety boat, towed into International waters, and never allowed to set foot on US soil again under penalty of summary execution.

In this world?

They write a book, make millions of dollars, retire to a lavish mansion with a staff of servants, and live out their lives with everything the society that they tried to destroy can offer.

TheRedneck

As a male who finds abortion to be a most unpleasant topic, I think it is every woman's right to do as she deems necessary with her body. Same goes for males. Each person has the right to do as he pleases with his or her body.

Could that right be enshrined in the Ninth Amendment? After all, the only SCOTUS case mentioning the Ninth was the Griswold case in Connecticut many years ago, and the right involved was that right to practice birth control.

I agree that Roe showed poor reasoning, but I don't think the Ninth was mentioned at all. It showed poor legal reasoning, but its conclusion was correct.

This leak seems to be pure politics and nothing more.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: xuenchen
In this world?

They write a book, make millions of dollars, retire to a lavish mansion with a staff of servants, and live out their lives with everything the society that they tried to destroy can offer.

You forgot the MSNBC or CNN contributor role as an expert on government integrity.

a reply to: xuenchen

If it's the truth, I have no issue with it. I have issue with a lawyer posting a name and tons of personal information on social media because "he thinks" it could be the person.

a reply to: Salander

I agree that Roe showed poor reasoning, but I don't think the Ninth was mentioned at all. It showed poor legal reasoning, but its conclusion was correct.

Indeed. Alito conveniently left the 9th Amendment out of his draft opinion, as well.

Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Clearly, the constitutional right to access to safe and legal abortions has been a right retained by the people for the past 49 years.

At the very least I suspect the 9th Amendment will be brought up in the dissenting arguments.

Amazing how many Constitutional Scholars there are in these threads....

a reply to: matafuchs

Not to mention the sudden increase in biologists, as well.

originally posted by: 3000Hard

Just because some of you are against something is not a good enough reason. Some people are against guns, that’s not a good enough reason to ban them.

And yet guns are basically illegal in many parts of the country, why is that?