Draft Alito opinion leaked overturning Roe

Saying “It depends on what the definition of is is” is lawyer speak.

Saying it’s settled law supported by precedent on precedent and then overturning it is a lie, regardless of whatever a listener may have thought.


“Feinstein then outright asked Kavanaugh what he meant by “settled law” and whether he believed Roe v. Wade to be correct law. Kavanaugh said he believed it was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and should be “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis,” the notion that precedents should not be overturned without strong reason.

“And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” Kavanaugh said then.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...gnals-openness-overturning-abortion-decision/

 

No, overturning it means that lawmakers can decide whether your wife or daughter should be forced to give birth to an unwanted child.

 

I think your position makes as much sense as any other, and many people seem to have drawn the same lines. I can’t say this line is the “right” one, but as you say some line must be drawn.

We will see where this goes, but most seem to support some level of abortion, so outright bans would leave many dissenters. My personal objective is to do my best to help my own kids navigate these waters well, but clearly we will never have a world where all pregnancies are wanted.

 

I believe that life begins at ejaculation, and billions and billions of little living people are lost every day. Something needs to be done about this.

 

Are you talking about a big or little kidney bean?

 

Absolutely sickening that that man has a life time appointment on the highest court. We are so screwed.

 

“Judges can't just wake up one day and say I have an agenda — I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion — and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world"

Barrett said, maybe a month before deciding to do just that.

 

Gathering info on women to turn in to authorities, with some telling women to get off their period/ovulation trackers because they can be hacked.

 

Absolutely sickening that that woman has a life time appointment on the highest court. We are so screwed.

 

That's exactly what the justices can and will do. Was that from her "nonpartisan" speech with Mitch McConnell?

 

Well, that is what abortion is. It is death. And the 20+ pages of righteous indignation because the death sacrament is under threat shows the love and devotion people have for it.

We are not the only culture in history to have done this. There is a long thread throughout history of peoples and societies that have done what we have done. Many of them we have to learn about through archaeology because they don't exist anymore. They were judged. God is not mocked.

The Abortion Matrix (full) - YouTube

 

So here's why what he's saying doesn't mean anything. All Supreme Court precedents are "settled law" until the Supreme Court unsettles it. And how much respect a decision is given under stare decisis basically hinges on whether the justices agree with it. His final comment on it being reaffirmed is a statement of fact. I am of the opinion that Kavanaugh did perjure himself at a confirmation hearing, but those comments are all lawyer speak.

 

Food for thought.

 

It's always amusing to me when they try to redefine the rights. For example, the right to liberty at its most narrow and basic meaning means freedom from physical restraint. Conservatives and liberals alike agree on that. But you can basically wave that right away if you define the right the person is asking the court to recognize in an overly narrow and specific manner. That's essentially what conservative judges/justices do whenever they don't want to recognize a right that is well established. ("Oh, it's not the right to marriage. It's the right to gay marriage!")

 

Confirmation hearing, I think.

IMO democrats really need to start getting aggressive about calling scotus out for its obvious partisanship.

They aren’t judges in any real sense of the word. It’s obvious they’re not. Call them what they are. Lawyers. They determine a desired outcome, usually based on partisan preferences, and then do what all lawyers do…create legal arguments in support of their position.

Its frankly insulting that they believe we can’t see through their charade.

We’re not morons.

 

They like to say they're just calling balls and strikes, but they're more akin to the boxing judges who called Roy Jones Jr./Park Si-Hun Olympic bout.

 

You realize that almost every developed country allows abortion now, right? In fact, I'd argue that abortion rights are highly positively correlated with just about every development metric at the country level.

 

Pro choice is the death culture, but places with strict abortion laws often have very high female teen suicide rates. Like El Salvador. And banning abortion will increase maternal morality rates by 21% . Can you really claim the moral high ground based on results like this?

The question isn't how abortion bands will end. The sad question will be who will be this country's Savita Halappanavar?

 

God sanctioned abortion.

 

The word “marriage” is not in the constitution. Under the reasoning that of it is not spelled out, the right doesn’t exist, it can be fully prohibited unless that prohibition would impact religion.