It begun last night in LA.many wearing black hoodies and face coverings.  Cops being assaulted again.

This seems familiar...i wonder how many are being paid.

When law makers who support the ability to choose throw tantrums in public, this doesnt help keep the peace.

Typical response when 1 side doesnt get their way. Wait till the actual ruling is made.

 Summer of Love 3.0

Increased gun sales coming soon.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Morning news showed all the idiots in front the Capital building protesting.   They probably don't even know nothing is going to change in Hawaii and Hawaii was the first state to legalize abortion in 1970.  Democrats like ban all guns because if we can save just one life bullshit.  In the meantime they are all for abortions which kill thousands in Hawaii.  I would say more have been killed by abortions in the past year than those killed by guns in the past 50 years.

Crazy Mazie was on TV yesterday ranting about women's constitutional rights.
I tend to side with the baby's rights.

Crazy Mazie was on TV yesterday ranting about women's constitutional rights.
I tend to side with the baby's rights.

I like who people like her pick and choose when the constitution applies.

Crazy Mazie was on TV yesterday ranting about women's constitutional rights.
I tend to side with the baby's rights.

The only time I would support abortion is Hirono’s!

It begun last night in LA.many wearing black hoodies and face coverings.  Cops being assaulted again.

This seems familiar...i wonder how many are being paid.

When law makers who support the ability to choose throw tantrums in public, this doesnt help keep the peace.

Typical response when 1 side doesnt get their way. Wait till the actual ruling is made.

 Summer of Love 3.0

Increased gun sales coming soon.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Simple solution….dirt nap all them bastards…..problem solved!

The only time I would support abortion is Hirono’s!

===========
Is there such a thing as retroactive abortion?
or perhaps
"Re-imagined abortion"

The biggest issue is not the memo nor the court's supposed ruling.

The biggest problem is the LEAK.

Name another time the Supreme Court's opinions, deliberations or other internal, confidential documents were intentionally leaked to the press without authorization.

Someone needs to be barred from the legal & justice professions, assuming this was a law clerk.

At the risk of being called a Kuleana,
this whole thing is all Democrats and
a lack of morals, religion, and civility.
I think the court has WAY too much power
(Marbury V Madison) was a bad decision.
This whole thing belongs in state legislatures,
not a frigging court room.
 

At the risk of being called a Kuleana,
this whole thing is all Democrats and
a lack of morals, religion, and civility.
I think the court has WAY too much power
(Marbury V Madison) was a bad decision.
This whole thing belongs in state legislatures,
not a frigging court room.
 

The original 1973 decision was a political one, not one based on the Constitution or existing law.  In fact, it bypassed the Constitution, overriding what was and should still be a state-decided issue.

This leaked decision paper is also a political move -- an attempt to rally pro-abortion groups and protestors to try and FORCE the court to change their opinion before it's published.  If the decision isn't published by November, this issue will be a rallying point for Dems to try and elect pro-abortion Democrats to Congress so the overturned Roe ruling can be recreated statutorily.

Funny how some Congress critters are saying this is killing "democracy".  Trying to force the Supreme Court to rule how you want through civil unrest is not how democracy works.  You can elect the politicians who'll enact your desired abortion laws AT THE STATE LEVEL without using the federal government to force all other states to comply with that.

Roe was bad law on its face.  It's time someone with the power to fix or repeal it did so.

Nobody is making it ILLEGAL to get an abortion.  States that are pro-life are simply placing limitations on when the procedure can be performed.

I have a feeling there will soon be a thriving interstate market for the "morning after" pill, too.

So what part of the constitution are they claiming this would violate?

I think this is a plan by the left just to get votes.  They are failing on 1 issue after another.  So this and the 2A are their last 2 to keep voters. 

So what part of the constitution are they claiming this would violate?

I think this is a plan by the left just to get votes.  They are failing on 1 issue after another.  So this and the 2A are their last 2 to keep voters.

Nobody on that side is debating the actual Constitutional text.  If they did, they'd be disproving themselves.  The original decision didn't even address the MOTHER'S right to an abortion.  It said doctors who perform abortions have a right of privacy between themselves and their patients, and therefore the government can't make it illegal for DOCTORS to perform abortions.

They then piggybacked off that rationale to say patients via doctor's privacy rights also have privacy rights when seeking an abortion.

However, the ruling also set real limits on when in the pregnancy abortions could be performed with some exceptions, and over time those exceptions have been eroded and eliminated in most cases.  The slogan from Gov. Bill Clinton in 1992, and for his supporters, was for abortions to be "Safe, legal and rare."  Now those same groups cry for abortions to be "Free, unrestricted and unlimited for all."

In 2012, the Democratic Party excised the word “rare” from its official platform,
writing instead that it favored “safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/how-democrats-purged-safe-legal-rare-from-the-party/2019/11/15/369af73c-01a4-11ea-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html

"Right to privacy"
"Abortion is a right"
"My body, my choice"
"Roe is settled law"

They don't have a logical, Constitutional argument.  All they have are slogans.

Nobody on that side is debating the actual Constitutional text. 

Crazy Maize is. And I'm gonna assume more to follow. Let's move this to the other thread.

It begun last night in LA.many wearing black hoodies and face coverings.  Cops being assaulted again.

This seems familiar...i wonder how many are being paid.

When law makers who support the ability to choose throw tantrums in public, this doesnt help keep the peace.

Typical response when 1 side doesnt get their way. Wait till the actual ruling is made.

 Summer of Love 3.0

Increased gun sales coming soon.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I thought they were passed at Biden for not meeting after he won.
Maybe they got a sweet heart deal for more mansions

Name another time the Supreme Court's opinions, deliberations or other internal, confidential documents were intentionally leaked to the press without authorization.

Stephen Breyer's retirement.

They have a fence now around the SCOTUS building.

Stephen Breyer's retirement.

Doesn't count.  That was an individual, personal decision, not a case being considered by the entire court.

The real answer is, this is the first time that we know of since the Supreme Court was created that this kind of leak has ever occurred.

The court was founded on the premise that it would have 100% integrity and autonomy to make judicial decisions without the pressures and influences of outside political parties.  It's one reason these are lifetime appointments.  It eliminates the potential conflict of facing removal from the bench if your decisions are unpopular or run in opposition to your particular political faction.

I've listened to a number of people who researched it.  Based on my research and their conclusions, this kind of pre-publication of an internal SCOTUS decision paper has never happened.

At the risk of being called a Kuleana,
this whole thing is all Democrats and
a lack of morals, religion, and civility.
I think the court has WAY too much power
(Marbury V Madison) was a bad decision.
This whole thing belongs in state legislatures,
not a frigging court room.
 

Agree….

Doesn't count.  That was an individual, personal decision, not a case being considered by the entire court.
The real answer is, this is the first time that we know of since the Supreme Court was created that this kind of leak has ever occurred.
The court was founded on the premise that it would have 100% integrity and autonomy to make judicial decisions without the pressures and influences of outside political parties.  It's one reason these are lifetime appointments.  It eliminates the potential conflict of facing removal from the bench if your decisions are unpopular or run in opposition to your particular political faction.
I've listened to a number of people who researched it.  Based on my research and their conclusions, this kind of pre-publication of an internal SCOTUS decision paper has never happened.

The news of Stephen Breyer's retirement.was "leaked" prior to public statement.
counts