So let's see who at the Court refuses to take a polygraph exam

El OchoCinco said:
Well civil fines are always easy to pass through legislation if a state wishes to prohibit abortions but declaring them a felony as homicide quite another.

Also, imagine a series of centers who have done abortions for 20 years under Roe standard and then the state declares abortions prohibited in all instances. Could present quite an interesting takings clause without Due process if the state wipes out entire industries that were legal and permitted one day and then not...
More...

Oh I don't know about the taking argument but it can be stacked up on top of all the other cases. The abortion cases are going to be growth industry for the lawyers.

Anyway, the left is in a kerfluffle right now and lashing out at everything but when they come out of it they will see that the Hyde Amendment is their target and maybe adding in funds for abortion "travel related expenses." They are in too much of a tizzy right now to see that and like everyone else focused on legal remedies.
 
Last edited:
Tsing Tao said:
Politicians wholly dedicated to locking people up and forcing vaccines and censoring anyone who disagreed are now railing against the idea that government could interfere in personal decisions that affect our lives.
More...
This has the mark of Homer Simpson all over it.
 
gwb-trading said:
Until she starts... she doesn't even have access to the court complex much less the computer system unless she is invited as a guest by a staff member to visit the complex. Better go check out the visitor logs to support this absurd conspiracy theory.
More...
I didn't say that I supported a conspiracy. I merely asked if he was saying that she had no access.
 
Y'all are hopefully savvy enough to see that this "investigation" of who leaked the court draft opinion has been structured to ensure that the perpetrator will not be found. There is a reason for that.

Nope, you don't have Joe Biden out there saying that he has personally spoken with the Chief Justice and, is making ALL resources of the FBI available to the Court to assist in the investigation because this is yet another attack on democracy and attempt to undermine the nations institutions.

Instead, you get Merrick Garland popping right up and parsing things about how this is another branch of government, and there would be no crime here to look at anyway, blah, blah, blah, and the Court Marshall is in charge and it is up to him. Frigging court marshall who usual task consists primarily of low level security tasks related to the operation and maintenance of the court building.

It's a scam.
 
The leak is unethical but really much ado about nothing...whoever leaked it knows it does not change anything nor should it. We dont want leaks to affect decisions because then every controversial decision will be leaked on purpose to "test" the waters.

There are valid reasons for either side of the issue to leak the decision but in the end I file it under distractful bullshit. Of course no one will ever be found because it is quite easy to leak something with no trail whatsoever. Happens all the time.
 
El OchoCinco said:
The leak is unethical but really much ado about nothing...whoever leaked it knows it does not change anything nor should it. We dont want leaks to affect decisions because then every controversial decision will be leaked on purpose to "test" the waters.

There are valid reasons for either side of the issue to leak the decision but in the end I file it under distractful bullshit. Of course no one will ever be found because it is quite easy to leak something with no trail whatsoever. Happens all the time.
More...

That's the party line anyway.

Nothing to see here. Just a leak.

If it were a lib court decision and they thought the leak would lead to one of Justice Alito's clerks, then there would be a full balls-to-the-wall "this is another attack on democracy" response.

As I said, talk about an investigation is a scam. It is being launched in a way to ensure that the perpetrator will not be found while dems run around minimizing it as being unimportant anyway.

You have earned the extra potato in your monthly rations and it is only the first week of the month. Well done, Comrade.

Let's just all go back to saving the FBI for important stuff iike investigating whether Brett Kavanaugh might have had too many beers or grabbed someone's arse thirty years ago.
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
Whoa. Fuel on the fire.

I hope that no libs break into the supreme court building or grounds and they start executing unarmed protesters. We have seen that before.


Bill Classifying Abortion as Homicide Is Advanced by Louisiana Lawmakers
The proposal threatens to prosecute women who end a pregnancy, a possible new frontier in the abortion debate as the Supreme Court appears inclined to overturn Roe v. Wade.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/05/us/louisiana-abortion-bill-homicide.html
More...

Mucho problemo here if passed because that law will find its way to the Supreme Court and then the court will either have to rule abortion is or is not murder and that will have legal consequences because then if it’s not murder it’s healthcare and if it is murder then the federal court absolutely will have an interest in that and have to rule abortion illegal under federal law.

As I have been saying this draft opinion is very problematic as written. I know in the public’s mind this is just simply some states will allow abortion and some won’t but no, the complications will just grow and grow over what is a medically necessary “abortion”, what are the penalties, there will be dead women and abandoned babies, then there’s birth control and contraception issues. It will never end.

And all of this is because abortion is actually a privacy issue.
 
UsualName said:
Mucho problemo here if passed because that law will find its way to the Supreme Court and then the court will either have to rule abortion is or is not murder and that will have legal consequences because then if it’s not murder it’s healthcare and if it is murder then the federal court absolutely will have an interest in that and have to rule abortion illegal under federal law.

As I have been saying this draft opinion is very problematic as written. I know in the public’s mind this is just simply some states will allow abortion and some won’t but no, the complications will just grow and grow over what is a medically necessary “abortion”, what are the penalties, there will be dead women and abandoned babies, then there’s birth control and contraception issues. It will never end.

And all of this is because abortion is actually a privacy issue.
More...

Well, I think I have said at length, ad nauseum, that there will be a new wave of abortion cases and that it will basically be a growth industry for the constitutional lawyers.

In regard to abortion being a "privacy issue". That may or may not be true, but the question now- if the draft opinion holds- is: So what? Overturning Roe blows any basis for using a privacy argument as a constitutional argument out the window. It can be used as the basis as an argument for legislation in the states- so those who are so inclined, should do that. The court- assuming that the draft holds- will not be accepting bogus privacy arguments. It does not exist in the constitution and if one thinks it does, then they will have to deal with the fact that the majority of the court does not. Not a good position to be in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top