7 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Who else would it be?

have to whip up the rockers out there with fear mongering

Hoping it is someone lower on the totem pole. Like some lackey making copies. Not one of the justices themselves. If it is one of them, not sure how this Court ever functions again. 
 

I really, really hope the White House at least declines to comment on something like this. 

2 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

There is no argument; I am stating facts. 5/7 were Republican appointed on the Court that decided Roe. 

All of the Republican Justices on this Court were nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote, and confirmed by a Senate that provides outsized influence to the minority. This is by design.

I've said before that I understand and support the Constitutional mechanics that provide greater leverage to the minority, but it is too disproportionate.

As a counter-point, it is bat ish crazy that the Congress never passed a law memorializing this and taking it out of the court’s hands. The votes were there in 1976, 1992 and 2008. 

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

As a counter-point, it is bat ish crazy that the Congress never passed a law memorializing this and taking it out of the court’s hands. The votes were there in 1976, 1992 and 2008. 

Because then it would disappear as a rallying cry/wedge issue. 

I don't think any career politician wanted this to go away 

Called it. Great news in general. It wasn’t stopping red states from banning abortion anyway. All it was doing was holding together the Republican coalition. 

3 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Called it. 

 

It's been essentially pre-ordained since November 2016. Any hand-wringing on the left by people who sat on the sidelines in that election just makes me laugh. This is what happens when you shirk your civic duty. 

 

 

 

 

 

Here we go..... Never let a good crisis go to waste.. 

 

 

FFS. This is shameless. 
 

 

14 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

 

 

It was actually a widely accepted and fairly common medical practice in the Early Republic. 

 

Quote

The law regarding abortion in the earliest decades of the Republic was in most instances quite permissive. Imitating the British common law, the American common law failed to recognize abortion before quickening as a crime (quickening being the time when a woman first feels the stirring of the foetus, which rarely occurs before the sixteenth week of pregnancy). After quickening, abortion was considered a crime punishable with a fine and imprisonment.[9]

....

Among the first to observe publicly that abortion was a rather common phenomenon was Professor Hodge of the University of Pennsylvania, who in an 1839 lecture first saw it necessary to prepare his students for the numerous abortion requests they would receive.[12] In 1838 America's best-known abortionist, 'Madame Restell', started her trade in New York City, and in one newspaper advertisement for an abortifacient (which were to become very common) she claimed that in her first year of sales hundreds of married women availed themselves of her product.[13] Glover, in 1846, also spoke of a widespread resort to abortion,[14] and by 1859 abortion had become so prevalent that the American Medical Association felt compelled to put out a statement discouraging its use (as it did again in 1871).[15]

From: R. Sauer, Abortion in America, 1800-1973

 

I don't think it's good that it was leaked. Seems very unethical. Is it legal to leak these kinds of documents?

I agree that it's definitely going to help the left in elections

2 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

I don't think it's good that it was leaked. Seems very unethical. Is it legal to leak these kinds of documents?

I agree that it's definitely going to help the left in elections

Not sure about the legality, or criminality, of leaking something like this. I would think that clerks and others on the staff have to sign confidentiality agreements, but that would still make it a civil matter. To be criminal, they would need to be subject to agreements with the government not to disclose (similar to those who work with confidential national security info). 
 

It is ridiculously unethical. If it can be proven that this was done by a clerk, or God forbid a justice himself/herself, impeachment is in order. If a justice’s clerk leaked this, that clerk should be fired and the justice should face an impeachment debate at the least. 

A very bad and damaging day for the country. 

Meh. The woke crowd holding their votes in protest over issues nobody cares about need to know what it's truly like to be on the sh** end of the stick. Maybe then we'll have a functional Democratic party with a coherent message and prioritized list of platform issues.

If rewinding the clock back 50 years by undoing minority rights doesn't do the trick, nothing will.

2 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

Meh. The woke crowd holding their votes in protest over issues nobody cares about need to know what it's truly like to be on the sh** end of the stick. Maybe then we'll have a functional Democratic party with a coherent message and prioritized list of platform issues.

If rewinding the clock back 50 years by undoing minority rights doesn't do the trick, nothing will.

SPOILER ALERT:

It won’t do the trick

It's almost summer. Maybe we'll have an occupation of the federal supreme court this time. 

Barricades are already up 

Funny that this happens in the midst of all the campaigning for mid terms.  🧐 

this world is so Fed.  

3 hours ago, Thrive said:

This is turning out to be another very strange year. 
 

Curious to see the national reaction to this: can’t imagine this will do anything less than create a bigger gap between the dominant political parties.

And therein lies the exact reasoning for the leak and the exact reasoning trump appointed who he did.  Divide divide divide.  That’s all these Fers do.  Doesn’t matter what side you’re on here. We’re all just Fing pawns and we should start realizing it and banning together to get all the scumbags out of office.    

This won't matter much in November, the economy will drive the election

1 hour ago, Joe Shades 73 said:

This won't matter much in November

Did you type that with a straight face?

I like how people think overturning Roe vs. Wade won't matter much in 6 months when it has been an issue between the parties for decades. Of course it will.

From a personal perspective I HATE abortion and it's something I'd never argue in favor of (except in extreme circumstances). There are plenty of people willing to adopt.

These issues won't be resolved, because both sides get far too much traction out of whipping people into a frenzy with them.

23 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

These issues won't be resolved, because both sides get far too much traction out of whipping people into a frenzy with them.

 

I think it's finally coming to a head. 

8 hours ago, vikas83 said:

As a counter-point, it is bat ish crazy that the Congress never passed a law memorializing this and taking it out of the court’s hands. The votes were there in 1976, 1992 and 2008. 

To that end...


 

 

Ohhhhhh, now it matters! It really is amazing how in the 25 years that I've followed politics, I can't think of a single prominent Democrat who has every seriously promoted a legislative remedy to this issue, and now that the ship has sailed, they want to ride that train. Too little too late. The only fix is a Constitutional amendment, and that has a snowball's chance in hell in the current climate. The party leadership is one big pile of fail. There's nothing voters can do here but just