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

[El OchoCinco]

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.

Who fuck pissed in your wheaties...

I personally dont care about the leak even if it was a con doing it. I said so ... so your attempt to once again pull liberal shit out of your ass when talking to me fails miserably...

Save your outrage for others, its beneath you when talking to me on made up shit.

 

[UsualName]

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.

My point is that pushing abortion to the states is an impossible balancing act and that the Dobbs draft is a very problematic a judicial ruling.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

My point is that pushing abortion to the states is an impossible balancing act and that the Dobbs draft is a very problematic a judicial ruling.

Well then, people will need to get on with the impossible task if the draft is finalized.

Some will go full speed toward working the state legislatures.

Others will go full speed toward getting the Court to agree to certain exceptions, modifications, expansions, whatever. Get going. Just freezing like a deer in the headlights and saying the decision sucks and should have been different is not going to be a winning formula.

Probably any case that relies on the "right to privacy" argument is dead on arrival. However, there could be arguments that have not been used in various instances because Roe was working for them and they wanted to rely on that. Start dusting those arguments off then. The conservatives are certainly going to be dusting their arguments of yore off now that they see a green light in some areas.

 

[UsualName]

Well then, people will need to get on with the impossible task if the draft is finalized.

Some will go full speed toward working the state legislatures.

Others will go full speed toward getting the Court to agree to certain exceptions, modifications, expansions, whatever. Get going. Just freezing like a deer in the headlights and saying the decision sucks and should have been different is not going to be a winning formula.

Probably any case that relies on the "right to privacy" argument is dead on arrival. However, there could be arguments that have not been used in various instances because Roe was working for them and they wanted to rely on that. Start dusting those arguments off then. The conservatives are certainly going to be dusting their arguments of yore off now that they see a green light in some areas.

You missed my point, that privacy is the right course for abortion and that throwing abortion to the states will be impossible. Or at least with the way this Dobbs draft is structured. There is no way to balance the nature needs of women in the draft and women will simply have differing levels of rights state to state. That’s nuts to even think of.

As to your statement of get on with it, it will never stop being “on” because of the nature of the issue itself.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

You missed my point, that privacy is the right course for abortion and that throwing abortion to the states will be impossible.

Au contraire. I got your point 100%. ie. that you think that "privacy is the right course for abortion and that throwing abortion to the states will be impossible."

But my point remains: If the Dodd draft stands that is exactly what will happen.

I think I am running into a recurring problem that arises in communicating with lefties. And that is that you continually believe that how you feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel about a court decision changes what a court decision is or could be in this case.

Alito and other are probably not influenced by how you and Joy Behar feel about this. That how privacy argument is about to be tossed out the window as I said before, at least as a constitutional argument. And, as I said before, the privacy argument based on general humanitarian or libery arguments might be a basis for arguing for legislation to establish statutory- but not constitutional- rights. And, as I said before, go for it.

Or you and others can stay with the deer in the headlight plan to just tell the court "you should not have done that."

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Attorney General Barr surfaces with the correct understanding and orientation toward the court leaking issue.

Thank you Mr. Barr for reading my posts on the forum.

Barr reacted to the leak from the Supreme Court by saying,

“Well, confidentiality is critical to the functioning of the judiciary. They need to be able to have, you know, discourse within the court in deciding the case and make sure that it’s kept confidential until an opinion comes out. And so this was an obstruction of the judicial process. It was an interference in the due administration of justice. So I think that it’s a crime that was done. It appears to have been done. And I think eventually it will be shown to have been done in order to derail the opinion and upset the deliberations of the court. And so I think ultimately it belongs in the criminal justice side of things. And the person who did this should go to jail. Now, there could be some preliminary review of this thing to see if they can figure out quickly who it is and then turn it over to the Department of Justice for prosecution.”



https://radionb.com/news/fox-news-r...rson-who-leaked-scotus-opinion-should-go-jail

 

[UsualName]

Au contraire. I got your point 100%. ie. that you think that "privacy is the right course for abortion and that throwing abortion to the states will be impossible."

But my point remains: If the Dodd draft stands that is exactly what will happen.

I think I am running into a recurring problem that arises in communicating with lefties. And that is that you continually believe that how you feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel about a court decision changes what a court decision is or could be in this case.

Alito and other are probably not influenced by how you and Joy Behar feel about this. That how privacy argument is about to be tossed out the window as I said before, at least as a constitutional argument. And, as I said before, the privacy argument based on general humanitarian or libery arguments might be a basis for arguing for legislation to establish statutory- but not constitutional- rights. And, as I said before, go for it.

Or you and others can stay with the deer in the headlight plan to just tell the court "you should not have done that."

No. Dobbs disposes of abortion being protected as privacy. What it doesn’t do is create a “personhood” framework or a medical care test. And that’s the point. It’s a problematic ruling as drafted.

You foresee this yourself, pointing out Louisiana law makers kicking around charging women with murder - that right there highlights how problematic the ruling is.

And I see your take is that the ruling is an incomplete mess and many, many issues will be litigated, and that’s my other point - the legal philosophy of the draft is unsound.

Now you’re Cali g legitimate concerns a tizzy, they’re not. They’re legitimate concerns youre and ideologues are ignoring. And that is the ultimate point - the ruling is incomplete, problematic and ignorant but that’s what you get from a culture war.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

No. Dobbs disposes of abortion being protected as privacy. What it doesn’t do is create a “personhood” framework or a medical care test. And that’s the point. It’s a problematic ruling as drafted.

You foresee this yourself, pointing out Louisiana law makers kicking around charging women with murder - that right there highlights how problematic the ruling is.

And I see your take is that the ruling is an incomplete mess and many, many issues will be litigated, and that’s my other point - the legal philosophy of the draft is unsound.

Now you’re Cali g legitimate concerns a tizzy, they’re not. They’re legitimate concerns youre and ideologues are ignoring. And that is the ultimate point - the ruling is incomplete, problematic and ignorant but that’s what you get from a culture war.

Nope. We can recycle this same discussion as much as you want. You said I did not see your point and made it clear that I did. So now you are pointing out that I have acknowledged that there are problems ahead. And I certainly said several times over that it will create a whole new growth industry for lawyers. So you are not exactly exposing any inconsistency in my view.

Where we are apart is that you counter my points by saying that because it will not work out smoothly in the real world or at all if I were to take your view, the that that somehow will change the fact that Dobbs could be coming and you and your ilk will just have to deal with it- even though in your current shell-shocked state you think it is so nutty that it will not happen or should not happen. Whatever.

I hear your lefty pundit buddies on tv talking as though they are going to appeal the decision from the Supreme Court to the View or something. It does not work that way.

You can say that sending abortion to the states and state legislatures will not work, and I say, okay, then it is going to the states and os not going to work. Unless you think the DNC is going to issue an order to stay the implementation of the decision or something. Get your next cases line up then. Make sure that they do not rely on the privacy scam because the court is going to kill that. Move on to your next invented right.

 

[UsualName]

Nope. We can recycle this same discussion as much as you want. You said I did not see your point and made it clear that I did. So now you are pointing out that I have acknowledged that there are problems ahead. And I certainly said several times over that it will create a whole new growth industry for lawyers. So you are not exactly exposing any inconsistency in my view.

Where we are apart is that you counter my points by saying that because it will not work out smoothly in the real world or at all if I were to take your view, the that that somehow will change the fact that Dobbs could be coming and you and your ilk will just have to deal with it- even though in your current shell-shocked state you think it is so nutty that it will not happen or should not happen. Whatever.

I hear your lefty pundit buddies on tv talking as though they are going to appeal the decision from the Supreme Court to the View or something. It does not work that way.

You can say that sending abortion to the states and state legislatures will not work, and I say, okay, then it is going to the states and os not going to work. Unless you think the DNC is going to issue an order to stay the implementation of the decision or something. Get your next cases line up then. Make sure that they do not rely on the privacy scam because the court is going to kill that. Move on to your next invented right.

I get it, you couldn’t care less about the constitution or the ramifications. This is known. But just remember it’s your constitutional right to privacy that allows you watch gay porn all day long.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

I get it, you couldn’t care less about the constitution or the ramifications. This is known. But just remember it’s your constitutional right to privacy that allows you watch gay porn all day long.

Yeh well, tell it to the majority of the supreme court who are about to side with my view- not yours.

And of course that means that they too allegedly could not care less about the Constitution.

We are lucky to have you, Joy Reid, and Joy Behar to bring some constitutional rigor to the discussion.