2 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

I'm here for the insult but please don't slander White Castle.

it's the only drive-thru that allows a zero turn. 

12 minutes ago, toolg said:

Thread about the workings inside SCOTUS, for those concerned about the leak:

 

This.  The result of the leak is that it'll soften the blow and deflect.  Makes absolutely no sense that it came from a liberal.  

3 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

This.  The result of the leak is that it'll soften the blow and deflect.  Makes absolutely no sense that it came from a liberal.  

Who cares? I thought it wasn't a big deal anyway?

This is flat out awesome. Every democrat should be celebrating. The dems were going to get historically crushed in the next 2 elections. They had zero hope. The republicans just giftwrapped the mid-terms to them, something that was unthinkable 24 hours ago. 

3 minutes ago, Gannan said:

This is flat out awesome. Every democrat should be celebrating. The dems were going to get historically crushed in the next 2 elections. They had zero hope. The republicans just giftwrapped the mid-terms to them, something that was unthinkable 24 hours ago. 

Hillary 2024!!!

3 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

This.  The result of the leak is that it'll soften the blow and deflect.  Makes absolutely no sense that it came from a liberal.  

There is no valid reason for a liberal clerk to leak except for sheer incompetence. Not today, so far into the process. The immediate reaction inside SCOTUS is to freeze any further discussion of the opinion. Now they will focus on the leak itself. All things that will help the conservative opinion.

1 minute ago, Dave Moss said:

Hillary 2024!!!

Think bigger.

AOC 2024

1 minute ago, Dave Moss said:

Hillary 2024!!!

Wait till Trump gets back on twitter and starts poop tweeting about mandatory minimum prison sentences for women who get abortions. It's going to be awesome 

12 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

This.  The result of the leak is that it'll soften the blow and deflect.  Makes absolutely no sense that it came from a liberal.  

I mean, yes it does. It motivates the base, and puts public pressure on the Court to get these 5 to move. People are going to be harassing them at their homes, work, everywhere. 

I don't know who leaked it. The relationship between one of Sotomayor's clerks and the reporter needs to be investigated. Whoever did leak it needs to be fired, and if it is proven that a justice knew it was being leaked, then impeachment proceedings should begin.

So the leak is an egregious breach of trust but overturning precedent that has stood for 50 years is no big deal. Got it.

Supreme Court Justice Roberts confirms draft Roe v. Wade opinion, orders leak investigation

 

Nicole Darrah

·Breaking News Editor

Tue, May 3, 2022, 11:35 AM

 

 

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed on Tuesday the authenticity of a leaked draft opinion suggesting the nation’s highest court planned to overturn Roe v. Wade — and called it an "egregious breach” of trust.

Politico on Monday night published a draft opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, that stated the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision, which legalized abortion nationwide, "was egregiously wrong from the start.”

38 minutes ago, TEW said:

And SCOTUS now seems like it will not recognize that non-existent right because it is not in the constitution and thus does not exist.

The key here is that SCOTUS does not give rights. It was not a right to give, and thus is not being "taken away.”

If you want something to be a right, it needs to go through the amendment process. Yes, it is inconvenient. Yes, it is difficult. Yes, you probably cannot get it done politically in the case of abortion. This is by design. Amendments should be difficult and have broad support.6

You are a strict originalist; I am not. The notion of implied rights has existed and been repeatedly recognized by the Court since long before Roe. It would be impractical and, quite frankly, impossible to enumerate every single individual right in the Constitution. The document intentionally provides room for interpretation so to provide a framework for rights and immunities that is flexible enough to be workable across history. That flexibility has made it the longest-surviving constitution in history. But if the right insists on applying the Consitution to the 21st Century manner exclusively consistent with 18th-Century social and legal standards, then I would not bet on us remaining a country very much longer. But you can argue that the Court went too far in how they made the ruling, as this is probably the most extreme application of implied substantive due process, and you are correct that the true remedy here is an amendment.

As Vikas and I discussed earlier, it is truly astounding that Democrats never pursued this course in the last 50 years. They seem to have never really allowed themselves to imagine that this day would come. Abortion rights always existed on some very shaky ground. I guess they figured the religious right would age out of power, but through disproportality of Congressional representation and a good amount of chicanery under McConnell, that diminishing minority has only become more entrenched and more dominant over the levers of power.

5 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

You are a strict originalist; I am not. The notion of implied rights has existed and been repeatedly recognized by the Court since long before Roe. It would be impractical and, quite frankly, impossible to enumerate every single individual right in the Constitution. The document intentionally provides room for interpretation so to provide a framework for rights and immunities that is flexible enough to be workable across history. That flexibility has made it the longest-surviving constitution in history. But if the right insists on applying the Consitution to the 21st Century manner exclusively consistent with 18th-Century social and legal standards, then I would not bet on us remaining a country very much longer. But you can argue that the Court went too far in how they made the ruling, and you are correct that the true remedy here is an amendment.

As Vikas and I discussed earlier, it is truly astounding that Democrats never pursued this course in the last 50 years. They seem to have never really allowed themselves to imagine that this day would come. Abortion rights always existed on some very shaky ground. I guess they figured the religious right would age out of power, but through disproportality of Congressional representation and a good amount of chicanery under McConnell, that diminishing minority has only become more entrenched and more dominant over the levers of power.

I believe in the law. You believe in whims of judges. Well, this is what you get. There is nothing, anywhere, at all, that implies a mother has the constitutional right to abort her child. There is nothing in the constitution which remotely touches the subject.
 

Democrats never addressed the issue because they never had the votes to do so. Amendments are hard to pass, and rightly so. We are not a nation of the simple majority and never have been. We have a republic with checks and balances and a purposely difficult amendment process.

Not remaining a country much longer because Democrats don’t get their way? Don’t get me excited. 

19 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

So the leak is an egregious breach of trust but overturning precedent that has stood for 50 years is no big deal. Got it.

I usually don't deal in insults on here but that's just an idiotic take

1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

My lawyer friend was saying last night that this is first time SCOTUS has taken away right. I couldn't really think of another example, either. They've either expanded rights or denied their extension but never outright annulled one that I can think of.

I disagree with that take.  West Coast Hotel v Parrish in 1937, the supreme court ruled that Washington State passing a minimum wage law did not violate the constitution.  So this ruling opened up the gates for states and the federal government to pass minimum wage laws which takes away rights from employers as it mandates they pay their employees a certain wage even though that wage may be above what the free market dictates their labor is worth. 

 And this overturned the decision in Adkins v Children's Hospital in 1923 in which the supreme court ruled that minimum wages laws were in violation of the constitution. 

You could come up with a reason for either side to have leaked it. Whipping the left into a frenzy thinking that they won’t be allowed to slaughter babies any more would be one reason. 

I hope they determine who leaked it - I would be SHOCKED if a justice was involved and I’m hoping that’s not the case because damn. 

8 minutes ago, TEW said:

I believe in the law. You believe in whims of judges. Well, this is what you get. There is nothing, anywhere, at all, that implies a mother has the constitutional right to abort her child. There is nothing in the constitution which remotely touches the subject.
 

Democrats never addressed the issue because they never had the votes to do so. Amendments are hard to pass, and rightly so. We are not a nation of the simple majority and never have been. We have a republic with checks and balances and a purposely difficult amendment process.

Not remaining a country much longer because Democrats don’t get their way? Don’t get me excited. 

I disagree that they didn't have the votes to do so.  This wouldn't need to be done by amendment.  It could have been done through legislation.  The same way EMTALA was done through legislation, the same way the national drinking age was done through legislation, etc...

3 minutes ago, binkybink77 said:

You could come up with a reason for either side to have leaked it. Whipping the left into a frenzy thinking that they won’t be allowed to slaughter babies any more would be one reason. 

I hope they determine who leaked it - I would be SHOCKED if a justice was involved and I’m hoping that’s not the case because damn. 

It would take some real stones for a clerk to leak this without at least the tacit approval of his/her boss.

7 minutes ago, TEW said:

I believe in the law. You believe in whims of judges. Well, this is what you get. There is nothing, anywhere, at all, that implies a mother has the constitutional right to abort her child. There is nothing in the constitution which remotely touches the subject.

 

Give me another instance in where the government has the prerogative ro interfere with an citizen's medical decisions.

And if you so adamantly believe in the law, how did you feel about McConnell completely disregarding it when Garland was nominated? That is the main reason that we are here. If Garland had been confirmed, the Court would still have a semblance of balance while maintaining a conservative majority. The minority automatically has outsized power in our system, but that's not enough for the Republicans. They have to steal more power in order to force their religious agenda on every American.

 

9 minutes ago, TEW said:

We are not a nation of the simple majority and never have been.

 That is true, but the minority holds too much power. It is too disproportionate to be sustainable.

Just now, Phillyterp85 said:

I disagree that they didn't have the votes to do so.  This wouldn't need to be done by amendment.  It could have been done through legislation.  The same way EMTALA was done through legislation, the same way the national drinking age was done through legislation, etc...

Make Medicare/Medicaid funding dependent on no limitations on abortions before a certain number of weeks. Same way they got every state to make the drinking age 21 by tying it to highway funding.

7 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

I disagree with that take.  West Coast Hotel v Parrish in 1937, the supreme court ruled that Washington State passing a minimum wage law did not violate the constitution.  So this ruling opened up the gates for states and the federal government to pass minimum wage laws which takes away rights from employers as it mandates they pay their employees a certain wage even though that wage may be above what the free market dictates their labor is worth. 

 And this overturned the decision in Adkins v Children's Hospital in 1923 in which the supreme court ruled that minimum wages laws were in violation of the constitution. 

 

I think he was talking about an individual/personal right but duly noted.

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

Give me another instance in where the government has the prerogative ro interfere with an citizen's medical decisions.

REALLY?

End of life decisions

Use of medical marijuana

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

Make Medicare/Medicaid funding dependent on no limitations on abortions before a certain number of weeks. Same way they got every state to make the drinking age 21 by tying it to highway funding.

yup

4 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

REALLY?

End of life decisions

Use of medical marijuana

 

Ok, good examples. I'm not sure that there are many similar ones. These, as well, I and many others would consider intrusive.

Just now, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

I think he was talking about an individual/personal right but duly noted.

That is an individual right IMO.  If I am the sole owner of a business, minimum wage laws mandate the minimum that I must pay someone.  So that is affecting my rights.  I also think it's an interesting comparison given that like this ruling, the West Coast Hotel v Parrish ruling was a direct overturning of a previous ruling. 

2 hours ago, Kz! said:

This is one of the best takes I've seen on the decision:

Honestly, if killing babies is that important to you, move to a blue state that will allow it. Go be with other like minded-people. If you're against slaughtering children, move to a red state and make your voice heard. State's rights are pivotal here. 

Fixed his tweet:

and a lot of conservative, pro-gun, pro-life, low tax, low IQ very red states.