Draft Alito opinion leaked overturning Roe

More garbage.....Alito, the man who has now been shown to have been a liar during the confirmation process, is now lying about this!

If he and the other knuckle draggers rule against Roe by virtue of negating the right to privacy, which this draft ruling does do, then regardless of Alito's writing that this abolition of the right to privacy relates only to abortion, if the right to privacy is obviated, in spite of Alito's verbiage to the contrary, the abolition of the right to privacy would relate to EVERY right presently protected by the existing right to privacy. It would be automatic in spite of Alito's words, AND HE KNOWS THAT!

He's a liar yet again.

 

Then the court is meaningless, precedents are worthless and the judiciary system is illegitimate, meaning our democracy is a fraud.

 

No, I'm saying those comments aren't perjury. Kavanaugh arguably perjured himself at different parts of his two confirmation hearings.

 

Kind of.

 

...and with immense unelected power

 

How many choices does a woman need to make to be considered pro choice?? Didn’t she already make a choice to spread her legs? Didn’t she already make a choice to not use contraception? Didn’t she already make a choice to not require her male partner to use protection? Didn’t she already make a choice not to educate herself about the consequences of unprotected intercourse? Didn’t she already make a choice not to use available methods the day after to counteract her prior nights choices? Choice after choice has been made!! Killing the result of numerous bad choices is not a constitutional right.

 

Stare Decisis is a consideration, that doesn't mean it is absolute in absolutely every decision. Otherwise, as @GatorBen mentioned, we would all still be sending our kids to segregated schools.

 

Since there is no right to control one's own body, I recommend we solve this problem by the government forcing all males to undergo vasectomies until they're ready to make babies. Unwanted pregnancy problem solved.

 

I would expect no person nominated to be a justice to defend Plessy v. Ferguson as "settled law" or stare decisis entitled to respect.

 

Condoms break. Pills fail. IUDs fail. Vasectomies arent 100% effective. Morning after pills aren't always available nor effective.

As to "she opened her legs". Disgusting. I opened my legs. Or rather my rapist pried them open after he punched me. He was choking me so I didn't get to ask him to slip on a condom. But had I ended up pregnant, in your eyes like the eyes of so many other judgemental folks, it would've been my fault I'd gotten attacked and ended up pregnant.

Yeah choices get made. Only abstinence is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy.

Women could get their tubes tied but for that and a few other types of long-term control doctors want the HUSBAND'S permission. If not married they refuse saying "oh you'll change your mind, you're young!".

So yeah choices are made. Just some are made FOR women because, well, obviously men know what's best for women since they don't know any better.

 

So sorry that someone did that to you.

 

You're conflating certain things that are explicit constitutional protections with things that aren't. The right to a trial by jury is explicit under the Sixth Amendment.

There's a lot of bad things the Constitution doesn't prohibit.

"Here's a piece of Chief Justice Robert's dissent in Obergefell: "They (Petitioners) contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex. But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered). Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage."

 

It is in scripture, and it is not an abortion. It was a procedure used for a time to find out adulterers.

 

Thank you. I know I was lucky.

 

Nice deflection. But once again government mandate is your solution. Truly sad.

 

Ok so you made an argument for maybe 2% of all abortion cases and I think we can all come to common ground handling most of that. You know darn well that’s not what is being protested by the extremists.

 

I have no problem with this. Just saying.