Draft Alito opinion leaked overturning Roe

The Court already said this is limited to this decision given the unique nature of abortion.

 

What is a male?

 

Well, God judged the entire world once, and He has said He will do it again.

 

It is not surprising that the culture of death would attempt to twist the scriptures.

 

Good. Have you read the Lake Mead thread? Out here, we could use the rain!

 

The court hasn’t said anything. That is a draft opinion. If that draft opinion is issued, they are overruling the right to privacy. This, they are overruling the underpinnings of many other decisions. They could have written the opinion to simply overrule abortion while still recognizing a right to privacy. This draft goes farther. If it is issued in this form, you no longer have a constitutional right to privacy.

 

The person who has consistently twisted the scripture is you. The ordeal of bitter water is in the scripture.

 

Overstatement. But it certainly signals that's where they're heading.

 

You’re going in circles. One post you tell me it’s not perjury. The next post you say it is.

I’ve probably had my law degree longer than you’ve had yours, and I’ve heard plenty of lawyer speak in my life.

He lied.

 

@Gator715

I suggest you read the first grammatical paragraph on page 5 of the draft opinion, which I referenced earlier.

Of course THIS opinion overturning Roe is limited to abortion. That’s what’s in front of the court today.

But the first paragraph on page 5 opens the door for a whole lot more, no matter how many times you post the same tweet in this thread.

 

No rain this time, although I hope God does send you rain soon.

 

The point of that portion of the draft is not to defend the right to privacy overall. Justices like Clarence Thomas don't even hide the ball with respect to that. It's to point out that this decision does not address all of these other issues, and that there might be Constitutional rights that may prevent the government in acting in such a manner.

 

Let Him. God is God. Man, who makes the laws, is not. It is up to God to judge - not some guy getting his mistress secret abortions, not some woman in some nice suburb, not you, not me. It is up to God.

And as this is NOT a theocracy and we have many who believe in God but in different forms, or don't believe in God, it is not the place of anyone to push their beliefs on the rest.

 

I didn’t think you were defending it.

 

If that’s a lie, we can go ahead and impeach all the liberal justices for perjury too, because those answers are standard fare for discussing controversial decisions in confirmation hearings.

In her hearing, Sotomayor similarly described Heller as “settled law,” said she “absolutely understood” that the Supreme Court had found the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual right, and talked about it being precedent and the importance of stare decisis. Nearly as soon as she got on the Court, she joined Breyer’s dissent in McDonald which argued that the relevant history makes clear that the Second Amendment was not intended to enshrine an individual right and that the Court should take the opportunity to overrule Heller.

Kagan similarly described Heller and McDonald as “settled law” and “binding precedent” that she would “afford the full measure of respect that is due to all constitutional decisions of the Court.” When she dissents from the NYSRPA v. Bruen opinion later this term (which it seems fairly likely is being written by Thomas based on who has written what for that session) should she be impeached as well?

 

I never said anyone should be impeached, nor did I say others haven’t lied.

Because they have. At least be intellectually honest and admit it.

 

They are all liars. Every single one. None of them rule in an objective manner. They are all partisan advocates.

This is obvious to anyone who isn’t naive or ignorant.

 

They’re non-statements that are crafted specifically not to say anything at all.

No nominee is going to commit to how they would rule on a hypothetical controversial issue, so they give the meaningless but factually true statements that it is precedent, it says what it says, and respect is due to precedents.