The response to the leaked draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade has unleashed a torrent of outrage on the left. While many are calling for marches and sweeping new legislation, some are focused on calling out the justices in the majority for alleged “perjury” or “lying” in their confirmation hearings, particularly Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch. In reality, they did not lie in testimony in referencing Roe as established precedent. The suggestion of perjury is utter nonsense.
The draft opinion written by Justice Alito declares “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) declared that some of the conservative justices “have lied to the U.S. Senate.” Sen. Susan Collins (R., Me.) publicly decried what she claimed were false or misleading answers on Roe by Justices Alito and Kavanaugh.
No less a legal figure as Stephen Colbert declared “They knew, that if they were honest, they wouldn’t get the job. So they lied, which I think is perjury. But what do I know? I’m no Supreme Court justice, I’m not a good enough liar.”
In recent hearings, some of us have criticized Democratic members for demanding assurances on how nominees would vote on particular cases or issues. However, both Democratic and Republican nominees have largely stuck to rote responses on Roe and other cases to refuse to make such commitments. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously insisted, there would be “no forecasts, no hints.”
The problem is that politicians often display a type of selective auditory attention problem: they hear what they want to hear. Indeed, confirmation hearings are highly choreographed on both sides. Each senator seeks to secure a thirty-second clip showing that he or she secured assurances or trashed a nominee.
For pro-choice senators like Sen. Collins, it is essential to have some answer that would support a claim that, despite seemingly antagonistic judicial philosophical views, a nominee would not likely overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Notably, however, these same senators have supported the Ginsburg Rule, which is customarily cited to refuse to make promises or predictions on votes. Indeed, I have long been a critic of the rule because it is used to refuse to even discuss judicial philosophy. So nominees now just restate elementary points of judging without saying anything of substance.
Most of those crying “perjury” do not cite the specific perjurious language.
Take Alito. Many of us said when Alito was nominated that he was presumptively opposed to the logic of Roe. After all, in 1985, Alito wrote as a Justice Department lawyer that the Constitution does not contain a right protecting abortions.
However, appearances had to be observed.
The late Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.), asked him if he agreed with that statement today and Alito responded in classic confirmation nonspeak. He first repeated the facts (by noting that he was a Justice Department attorney at the time) and then went rote: “Today if the issue were to come before me. The first question would be the question that we’ve been discussing and that’s the issue of stare decisis. And if the analysis were to get beyond that point, I would approach that question with an open mind.”
That says absolutely nothing but how every jurist approaches case precedent. You begin with the touchstone of stare decisis and the preference for preserving precedent. You then approach the countervailing question with “an open mind.”
When Sen. Dick Durbin (D., IL.) pressed him on whether Roe is “settled law,” Alito responded again by stating the obvious:
“Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973. So, it’s been on the books for a long time. It has been challenged in a number of occasions. And I discussed those yesterday. And the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the decision–sometimes on the merits; sometimes, in Casey, based on stare decisis. And I believe when a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed, that strengthens its value as stare decisis…”
That again says nothing. Indeed, it was decided in 1973 and that is a long time ago. Plessy v. Ferguson was on the books for 58 years before it was overturned in 1958. It was also supported by stare decisis but it did not matter.
He never pledged to preserve Roe. Even if he did, he never promised that he would never change his mind on such cases.
Then came Gorsuch.
I testified in the Gorsuch hearing and he was widely viewed as a Roe skeptic. After all, he wrote a book that declared the “the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”
When asked about that statement in the context of Roe, Gorsuch responded: “Senator, as the book explains, the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
When Durbin asked if he accepted that, Gorsuch stated another truism: “That’s the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes.” In other words, he accepted that Roe is the established precedent. That is about as earthshaking as saying he accepts that the Supreme Court sits in Washington. Likewise, then-senator Al Franken asked Gorsuch if he viewed Roe as “settled law.” Again, that is like asking for the location of the Supreme Court. Gorsuch declared “It is absolutely settled law.”
Then came Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh also stated the obvious in calling Roe “important precedent” and noting that the Court strives to preserve precedent. When pressed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Cal.), he again said that such cases are “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis” 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 succeeded in repeating nothing but verbal nullities.
The one exception to this pattern of confirmation nonspeak was Barrett. At the time, I wrote that Barrett was refreshingly and surprisingly honest about her judicial philosophy and approach to Roe. She specifically rejected the claim that Roe constitutes “super precedent.” Barrett said that this term “define[s] cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. And I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category.” (Notably, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson took the same position against Roe as super precedent.).
What is most striking about these claims that the justices lied is that most of these critics insisted during their confirmations that they were clearly antagonistic toward Roe. Nothing that they said changed any minds on their judicial philosophy as hostile to the logic of Roe.
Notably, liberal nominees have used the same language about cases like District of Columbia v. Heller, supporting gun rights. They acknowledge that it is a settled precedent but that does not guarantee that they will vote to preserve it. Indeed, they have voted to limit or overturn past cases with which they disagree. No one called for perjury prosecutions or denounced them as liars.
None of this is likely to matter in the echo-chambered news today, particularly with the approaching midterm elections. That is why Bismarck warned that “people never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election.”
TiT,
District of Columbia v. Heller is settled law too.
Anonymous, in my youth I met many racist people who were not religious. Hitler and Stalin were not religious but they were racist bigots. Both of these men believed in centralized government just like people in our nation believe in centralized control. Why do Democrats believe that abortion should not be left up to the individual states? It’s because it goes against their belief that all control should be in the hands of the federal government. They couch it in concern for the rights of women but it’s really all about their quest for more power. Abortion is not the only issue where they call for centralized control. It’s all just a part of their mission.
More alt-right discipleship anti-Democratic rhetoric: 70% of Americans support a woman’s right to choose, and many of these are Republicans. It’s not just Democrats who understand that rights guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights apply to all citizens, regardless of where they live. States cannot pass laws that abridge rights guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights: if you have a “right’, no state can take that right away from you, and the duty of the SCOTUS is to strike down laws that interfere with rights guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Natacha, you are correct. 70% of Americans believe that a women has a right to chose but unlike you believing that an abortion being allowed up to the moment of birth 65% believe abortion should not be allowed after the first trimester. Just a little piece of information that you always leave out. The 65% who don’t think that abortion should be allowed after the first trimester do so because they believe that after the first trimester a baby that is being aborted is being killed. It seems that your alright with it.
You are nothing but a despicable liar: I NEVER said that abortion should be allowed up to the moment of birth–I’ve always said that I agreed with the holding in Roe, which limits abortion to the point of fetal viability. You just make things up to attack me because you cannot come up with facts or argument to counter those expressed by me.
Tell me where in the constitution that abortion is a given right . And while you think about democrats standing up for womens rights tell me why they allow males to par take in womens sports and compete against females . And that is equal rights for women ?
“. . . a given right . . .”
“Given” by whom?
Your view of a “right” is monstrously dangerous. That which can be “given,” can be taken.
NUTCHACHA,
In fact, there is no “woman’s right to choose” – to choose homicide (i.e. human-cide), understanding that human life begins after 24 hours of fertilization, and that to end life is to kill.
Your criteria for homicide are locus and methodology of sustenance; no matter, homicide, or human-cide, is murder.
Your hysterical and incoherent comment assumes no prevailing law, no fundamental law – whatever you want, you get, you must be provided – alternatively, you must be crazy, you’re like “Crazy Abe” Lincoln, you recognize, acknowledge and obey no statutory or fundamental law, you believe yourself an omnipotent and tyrannical, despot and dictator.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” – 10th Amendment.
No right to abortion is enumerated or rationally presumed under the 9th Amendment, and the power to legislate with reference to abortion is not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, nor is it prohibited by it to the States, therefore, it is reserved to the States, or to the people.
Only States have the constitutional power to legislate related to abortion.
Please cite the Constitution wherein a right to abortion and/or a right to homicide is provided.
Your statements are nothing more than egregiously wrong and erroneous.
__________________________________________________________
9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
homicide noun
ho·mi·cide | \ ˈhä-mə-ˌsīd
, ˈhō-
\
Definition of homicide
1 : a person who kills another
2 : a killing of one human being by another
__________________________________
kill verb
\ ˈkil
\
killed; killing; kills
Definition of kill
transitive verb
1a : to deprive of life : cause the death of
2a : to put an end to
Put down the sheep dewormer.
The U.S. constitution says NOTHING about ‘abortion’
Abortion is not an enumerated right or presumed right per the 9th Amendment.
Privacy does not provide the right to end any life – young, middle-aged or old.
Abortion goes to statutory law legislated by the States or to the people.
An embryo/fetus is human, or homi, life after the 24-hour fertilization period – if not ended, it will become an adult human being – abortion is murder or homicide of a nascent, very young human being.
This conversation is incoherent and hysterical.
“Separation of church and state” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution either.
If you think that the Constitution has to mention by name all of the things it applies to, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the Constitution. The entire point of the 9th Amendment is to point out that there are many unenumerated rights.
Murdering babies is not one of them.
“The U.S. constitution says NOTHING about ‘abortion’”
Neither does it say anything about going maskless or unvaccinated.
Is civics education really that dead?
Oh please. States like California restrict their citizens’ second amendment rights like crazy. And that’s an explicit right in the constitution, not an invented one like abortion.
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IS ABORTION MENTIONED YOU LAME POS, POST YOUR PROOF(YOU CAN’T) AND STOP WITH YOUR 70% BULL, LIKE YOUR MEDIA OVERLORDS YOU ARE SPOUTING STATS THEY PULLED OUT OF THEIR OVERSIZED, OVERUSED SLACK ANAL CAVITIES. GTFOH.
Ti T,
You’ve made some exceptionally stupid arguments in your many comments, and “Why do Democrats believe that abortion should not be left up to the individual states? It’s because it goes against their belief that all control should be in the hands of the federal government” is one of them.
Roe and Casey put the right to an abortion in the hands of pregnant women, not in the hands of the federal government, with states having a right to regulate for safety.
Anonymous, laws are written and voted on by legislatures. This is the problem with Roe. Roe is simply a decree by the Supreme Court. In our national laws are not made by decree but by a vote of our elected officials. To add a new right an amendment to the Constitution must be put into place. With Roe this has never been done. An amendment process has never been seriously considered by the Democrats because they don’t agree that such things should be decided by the will of the people. They also know that any new amendment would have to reflect the will of the people that says 65% of the people do not believe that abortion should be allowed after the first trimester. They don’t want a solution they just want the issue to make sure that you fill in the little oval at the voting booth correctly.
What, exactly, is the U.S. Code?
Democratic politicians want abortion to be allowed up to the moment of birth. Most of the American people believe that abortion should not be allowed after the first trimester. https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-06-25/ap-norc-poll-most-say-restrict-abortion-after-1st-trimester. Even one minute before a baby is born it’s life can be extinguished. One minute after birth a baby can be laying on her mothers stomach crying or one minute earlier the baby can never be allowed to cry. The baby has no choice about how her body is treated.
More lies. Democratic politicians do not support abortion up to the moment of birth.
Dearest Natacha, I offer for your studied perusement the following article in The Washington Post listing prominent Democrats who do believe that there should be no restrictions on Abortion. Big names like Warren and Sanders. If your going to defend what the democrats stand for you should at least know what the stand for. I am sure that after reading this article you will be offering your apology for calling me a liar. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/medicare-for-all/abortion-restrictions/
Dearest TIT: NONE of those Democrats specifically said that abortion should be allowed up to the moment of live birth. What each of them DID say is that the abortion decision belongs to a woman and her doctor. They didn’t qualify what they said, but that does not translate into support for abortion up to the point of live birth. Nowhere in any official position paper by the Democratic party does it say that abortion should be allowed up to the moment of live birth. More of your alt-right lies.
Alt right alt left it is still socialist fascist. The Natchknocna group are still the chiztosa cerros ridiculosos.
CORRECT, THEY GO BEYOND THE DATE OF BIRTH PENDEJA.
Some Democrats support killing the baby right after birth e.g. Ralph Northam, former VA Governor
“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” he said. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
He wasn’t talking about abortion. He was talking about infants born with conditions like total anencephaly that are incompatible with life after birth.
LOLOL YOU’RE NOT SPEAKING TO YOUR FELLOW LYING PEDOCRATS HERE HALFWIT, TRY HARDER.
Not so. Try harder.
“Democratic politicians want abortion to be allowed up to the moment of birth.
BS, this is not true and you know it. Why do you spout known falsehoods?
BabyTrump, here is a list of Democrates who support no restrictions on abortion. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/medicare-for-all/abortion-restrictions/. Natacha said the same thing as you in another posting and I supplied the same link to The Washington Post. Apparently you vote for people who’s positions you know nothing about. Please let me make a suggestion. If you research something about what you say you might not display yourself as someone who is woefully misinformed. How could you not know that prominent Democrats support no restrictions on abortion? Now that you do know will there be any adjustments to your thinking? Will there at least be a thanks I didn’t know that? Will there be any reassessment on who you should support? Perhaps there will only be an “I don’t care what they say they’re still my heroes.”
Not True. ABC News divisions , The View’s own Whoopie Goldberg told everybody that abortion was a decision to be made by the mother, doctor AND THE CHILD. How is the child going to decide when it is being torn apart into pieces to be sold to the highest bidder. I’m sure they decided that. Progressives are nut cases. https://nypost.com/2022/05/03/whoopi-goldberg-explodes-over-abortion-this-is-my-body/
The View empowers viewers to believe they know more than they do. Whoopie and many of the others might be able to talk fast, but they cannot think more than one level deep. Listening to that crowd makes one believe they are at a party listening to drunk and drugged-out crazies.
Those that oppose abortion say they oppose it because it is taking the life of a potential person. This is a religious definition. Some religions say life begins at birth, some say at conception, Why are we using the religious definition of a person for a law? I thought our constitution does not favor one religion over another.
Nice strawman. Life begins at conception because through science, we know that, that first cell is alive, unique and can reproduce. Nothing to do with religion, but you knew that.
Life begins at conception because through science, we know that…..
Embryology 101
****
“A new life begins with the unification of the maternal and paternal chromosomes upon fertilization.”
Scheffler K, Uraji J, Jentoft I, Cavazza T, Mönnich E, Mogessie B, Schuh M. Two mechanisms drive pronuclear migration in mouse zygotes. Nat Commun. 2021
*****
“The zygote, formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being”
Keith L. Moore. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology [Philadelphia: Saunders], 2008
*****
“Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the female gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote.
T.W. Sadler. Langman’s Medical Embryology [Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins], 2006 (10th Edition).
*****
“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.”
Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)
*****
“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”
Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
*****
“The oviduct or Fallopian tube is the anatomical region where every new life begins in mammalian species. After a long journey, the spermatozoa meet the oocyte in the specific site of the oviduct named ampulla, and fertilization takes place.”
Coy et al., Roles of the oviduct in mammalian fertilization, REPRODUCTION 144(6):649 (Oct. 1, 2012).
******
“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.”
Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)
******
“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”
Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003
*****
Too many more to list
Estovir,
If you were honest, you’d acknowledge that SOME scientists believe what you quoted and OTHER scientists do not agree.
It is particularly stupid for a scientist to write The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg,” since a key point of acknowledging that it is a **cycle** is recognizing that there is no “start,” only continued turns in the cycle.
“…since a key point of acknowledging that it is a **cycle** is recognizing that there is no ‘start,’ only continued turns in the cycle.”
Whaaat????????????????????
I do not believe I existed, even in amoebic form, two million years ago..
No one suggested that you “existed, … in amoebic form, two million years ago.”
Once abiogensis occurred, life has been continuous since then. The life cycle for life on Earth has no start other than the original abiogenesis.
Similarly with mammals: once mammals evolved ~210M years ago, mammalian life has been continuous, with a life cycle that moves through the production of functioning haploid gametes, intercourse and fusion of haploid gametes into a diploid zygote, prenatal development / birth / maturation, production of functioning haploid gametes, intercourse and fusion of haploid gametes into a diploid zygote, prenatal development / birth / maturation, … — over and over. The claim “The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg” is false. Once a species comes into existence there is no “start” to the cycle, only continuation of the cycle and possible extinction.
Our species is a tiny subset of life on Earth, and no one is suggesting that the beginning of life was the beginning of our species. Once the species came into existence ~200K years ago, human life has also been continuous, with no “start” to the life cycle. Here’s one image of the human life cycle from the UT Austin biology dept: http://www.zo.utexas.edu/faculty/sjasper/images/13.4.gif If you
No, Jim, science does not say that “life begins at conception.”
Here is a good discussion in a developmental biology text: https://web.archive.org/web/20030511191256/http://www.devbio.com/printer.php?ch=21&id=162
Your claim that “that first cell is alive, unique and can reproduce” is misleading. In fact, many fertilized eggs are incapable of reproducing, which is why somewhere on the order of half of all fertilized eggs die prior to implantation. Second, the unfertilized egg and sperm were also alive and unique. Third, even when an egg implants, it might develop into more than one person, or into only part of a person (when eggs merge prior to implantation), so the life of the eventual person cannot be said to have begun at fertilization.
IT DOESN’T KNOW WHAT A STRAWMAN IS, IT’S FUNCTIONALLY ILLITERATE ….ALMOST.
BabyTrump, the laws of our national are built on the religious principle that we should treat our neighbors as we treat ourselves. There are nations were this religious principle is not adhered to. The laws of our nation are permeated with the principles put forth in the Ten Commandments. A man once said that the things of the world belong to the world but man belongs to God. An understanding of what this man said is not to be found in places like China. What this man said is that men were not to be made slaves by other men. A man who understood what a man in ancient times was saying was the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. Perhaps the the word Reverend before his name to you means that we should not consider anything he had to say as having any meaning. You should look further into your inheritance and where the principles that guarantee your freedom come from.
TiT says:
“the laws of our national are built on the religious principle that we should treat our neighbors as we treat ourselves.”
If you believe that nonsense, small wonder you swallowed Trump’s lies hook, line and sinker.
MAYBE YOU’LL COME AROUND TO THE FACTS WHEN YOU STOP SWALLOWING RANDOM APPENDAGES.
Ares,
Is that your way of insinuating that I am a fag?
You are an old, never married, single Jew who lives alone in Marin County at the following address, so that makes you a homersexual
Homersexual?
JeffSiberman, I didn’t say that treating your neighbor as yourself is always practiced. I just said that it is a principle to be desired. I make no claim as to the perfection of mankind by any Republican or Democrat. Instead of speaking to the point you enter your weak “ but Trump “ argument. Instead we could talk about Martin Luther King Jr. being a religious man who believed that all men are created equal based upon his understanding of the teaching of a man born in Bethlehem. But no, you had to get your little gig in. Your mission for the day has been accomplished.
You’ll have to pardon me. I get paid by the post.
“The laws of our nation are permeated with the principles put forth in the Ten Commandments.”
Really? What took so long?
@BabyTrump – While some do use that line of reasoning, a more direct line is two-fold. First, how do you explain away our Creator-not-government-given rights which include life liberty and pursuit of happiness? Clearly, none of these are afforded the object of an abortion. Likewise, as Mr. Kennedy asked the most recent nominee: at what point in time do equal protection rights attach? Second, how do you get around the notion that one’s exercise of rights cannot impinge on another’s, and who is to be the advocate for a voiceless in urterio being?
Since we have not found a mutually agreeable definition to the beginning of life, why do pro-aborntionists insist neither of those points matter? I absolutely agree that any person, regardless of which gender, should have bodily autonomy. However, so too does a fetal body inside of a woman’s body. It is the existence of this second body and its rights that (should) determine what actions the mother can take, because she is no longer taking actions that only affect her body and rights. I thought our Constitution favored principles and reasoning instead of feeling and emotion.
And when it comes to stare decisis, we must remember that our Founders warned the Court to NOT use precedence in their opinions. How far we’ve strayed from the wisdom of our Founders…
Where’s the evidence? Partial quotes won’t cut it, but I’m interested.
The Roe ruling “fails even to consider what I would suppose to be the most important compelling interest of the State in prohibiting abortion: the interest in maintaining that respect for the paramount sanctity of human life which has always been at the centre of Western civilization, not merely by guarding life itself, however defined, but by safeguarding the penumbra, whether at the beginning, through some overwhelming disability of mind or body, or at death.”
“Role of the Supreme Court in American Government”, 1977
– Archibald Cox, Democrat
Law Processor and Attorney
Solicitor General under JFK
Watergate Special Prosecutor
https://www.amazon.com/Role-Supreme-Court-American-Government-dp-019519909X/dp/019519909X/
“So I mean, the idea that we’re going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child, based on a decision by the Supreme Court, I think goes way overboard.”
– Joe Biden
Anyone who thinks that the “sanctity of human life … has always been at the centre of Western civilization” hasn’t paid attention to the actual history of Western civilization, which is full of war, including religious wars.
The exceptions prove the rule.
Wars are not exceptions. There are barely any years in human history without wars.
You state that wars have existed throughout human history, and that is true. But do we need to fight so many battles? Pre-Trump and post-Trump, Ukraine was invaded by Russia. That indicates a potential cause of war, leftists. During Trump’s administration, wars decreased. That shows there are ways to reduce warfare.
To reduce wars, we need more Trumps, whether we like his personality, tweeting or love life. We need to avoid the Obamas and the Bidens.
Expand your vision. Humanity includes the entire world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars:_2003%E2%80%93present
So it does. You can expand your world by realizing the world needs more Trumps.
All i can say is you’re nothing but a moron. Cant let these communist republicans who work with the murderers in russia spin the narrative.
donald was a communist and worked with the russians and we are better off never putting him back in office.
You are correct. Sanctity of life is of high value among conservatives. There is no such sanctity on the left. Western civilization contains both but as a whole has gradually moved in a more positive direction. The Jews stopped throwing living women and children into the fire pits choosing the sacrifice of an animal that is eaten. Today’s conservative wants to limit the killing of babies. The left has pushed for killing viable babies. The left killed over 100 million people outside of war in the twentieth century. The right is moving forward. The left, not so fast.
“Sanctity of life is of high value among conservatives.”
Whose life? Certainly not the woman’s. To anti-abortion zealots, an individual woman is merely chattel of the state.
“Sanctity of life is of high value among conservatives.”
Hahahaha!
Wait, you’re serious? Let me laugh even louder.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
There are those writing on this blog that tell us that most people are in favor of Roe v Wade. They are absolutely correct. However when the populace is polled. However, 65% say that abortion should not be allowed after the first trimester. https://nmaahc.si.edu/explore/stories/two-landmark-decisions-fight-equality-and-justice. The position of those on the left is that abortion should be allowed up until the moment of birth. Some have even said that the decision to let the child live can be made after birth. These are the taking of a life that the left is fighting so hard to maintain.
What planet are you living on? Because it isn’t Earth … you are spouting out falsehood from extreme-right wing groups … >99.9999% percent of people who consider themselves ‘left’ would disagree with what you wrote here…
The LEFT are baby killing groomers. We already know that. This is what we are fighting against. At least you admit it.
You have a very important fact mixed up. According to Conservatives the left are fetus killers. It is the Right who are baby killers. The
right forgets about the welfare after the baby is born. And on top of that, your BS stinks and you can suck it.
Both are guilty by seif admission.One socialist the other fascist.Either that or both are illiterates. At present self Admission wins twice. Ever hear the phrase. Nuremberg Trial? There you can add “with plea for clemency.” Words have meanings. Yours mean sentencing. I would recommend a school……but where?
And when it comes to stare decisis, remember, our Founders advised the courts to NOT rely on precedent. How far we’ve strayed from the wisdom of our Founders.
The Dims are now arguing like children: “But you saaaid!” Very appropo!
American history does teach us that “taking away existing rights” is almost always a national disaster. When “Alcohol Prohibition” was passed by the same type of authoritarian-minded leaders (taking away rights and freedoms) it created a huge backlash, black markets and organized crime.
It also opens a huge can of worms for conservatives. Isn’t “In Vitro Fertilization” in the very same predicament? “In Vitro fertilization” also fails Alito’s “deeply rooted” argument about unenumerated rights (rights not listed by name).
If a state-government controls our own bodies (not us) could that restart the evil “Eugenics Movement”? State officials sterilized young girls and boys that wanted to keep out of the gene pool. Some girls were sterilized for being perceived as too promiscuous. [source: Virginia ACLU eugenics research].
Many Americans aren’t aware that Nazi Germany adopted many eugenics practices from states like Virginia.
What about 2nd Amendment rights? In 1791, when the 2nd Amendment was ratified, the Gatlin Gun hadn’t been invented. It would be nearly 100 years after the 2nd Amendment before there were continuous firing weapons. Could a future court overturn these rights just like Roe?
What if the same happened to gun rights as happened with alcohol prohibition? Total overturning of the right itself? Can you image the disaster that would create?
+10
Many of your arguments have a point.
Frankly while Alito is correct that Rowe was badly decides – this Draft is no better.
But it is hypocracy for those arguing that free speech – and enumerated right, is severely limited, while abortion is not.
Eugenics and the majority of infringements on individual liberty come from the left – Eugenics was early 20th century progressive.
Three things;
1. There is no constitutional protection for abortion because it would impinge on the child’s protected right to life*. A woman and a child in utero are 2 separate entities.
* All rights are God given.
2. Possible SC decision is being grossly misrepresented, tragically it is not about ending abortion, but about returning decisions for abortion and limitations on abortion to the states.
3. “My body, my choice” mantra went out the window with vax mandates.
An embryo has no “protected right to life.” It has no legal rights at all.
Your personal religious belief that “All rights are God given” has no bearing on the law. The First Amendment protects us from your desire to insist that others live according to your personal religious beliefs.
“A woman and a child in utero are 2 separate entities.”
They aren’t. They are literally connected, with the embryo/fetus getting oxygen through the woman’s respiratory and cardiovascular systems, getting nutrition through the woman’s gastrointestinal and cardiovascular systems, … They have distinct DNA, but DNA alone does not establish “distinct entities.” For example, someone who has had a bone marrow transplant has two distinct groups of DNA in their bodies, but that does not make their bone marrow a “distinct entity” from the rest of their body.
“it is not about ending abortion, but about returning decisions for abortion and limitations on abortion to the states”
It is about reducing women’s rights to bodily autonomy by pretending that states have a right to outlaw it if they want.
““My body, my choice” mantra went out the window with vax mandates.”
BS. No one was forced to be vaccinated against their will, and lots of people have chosen not to be vaccinated.
“Your personal religious belief that “All rights are God given” has no bearing on the law. ”
Our founders beg to differ.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The declaration of independence is the legal justification for an “insurrection”
It LEGALLY defines legitimate government, as well as providing examples of illegitimate government
The DoI is not the law and has no bearing on the Constitutional protection against the establishment of religion.
Main and Florida are two separate entities – connected by a network of roads and numerous other inter dependencies – they are still independent.
One of the reasons Human pregnancy is so complicated and often problematic, is that the fetus and the mother are litterally two separate entities. Absent a long list of biological adapations and complexities – the mother and fetus would actively seek to kill each other and often do.
After a child is born it gets nutrition from the same mother’s digestive system – dependence on another for food does not destroy the fact that you are a separate entity.
Terrible analogy.
Maine is not inside Florida or vice versa. If one of these fell into the ocean, the other would survive, whereas if a woman drowned in the ocean, the embryo would drown with her.
“the fetus and the mother are litterally two separate entities”
They aren’t. They are literally connected, with the embryo/fetus inside the woman, completely dependent on her for oxygen, carrying away CO2, nutrition, etc.
“After a child is born it gets nutrition from the same mother’s digestive system ”
Sometimes. Other times it gets nutrition from another lactating woman or from formula. After the child is born, THEN they are two separate entities.
I completely agree with a woman’s right to bodily autonomy.
That right includes ending the dependence of a fetus on her body – even if death is a result.
It does NOT include the right to kill.
Women do not get abortions because they want their children gestated in some artificial uterous rather than her body.
The purpose of an abortion is to kill the fetus – not remove it.
The right is to remove it not kill it.
1. Everyone does not believe that an undeveloped blob of tissue incapable of independent life is a “child”. A woman has the right to determine her destiny, which includes doing something about an unwanted pregnancy, regardless of whether it was due to rape, incest, failure of contraception, a malformed fetus, genetic problems, unreasonable medical risk for carrying a pregnancy to term or whatever other reason she does not wish to an unwanted pregnancy to continue. The rights of a fully-formed, sentient person trump those of an undeveloped blob of tissue incapable of independent life, up to the point when independent life is possible. This is the holding of Roe, and it is sound law. If you believe abortion is wrong, then don’t get one, but where do you get off trying to force other people to live by your rules? We are a secular nation–meaning that religious beliefs do not control our laws. You do not have any right to force people who do not believe that life begins at conception to live by your rules. You believe that a fertilized egg is a “child”, but not everyone agrees with you, and in America, they don’t have to. For the record, I am a Catholic, and would never get an abortion, but I also strongly believe that in a secular country everyone does not have to live by the tenants of my religious beliefs.
2. SC decision is legally wrong because rights guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights apply to everyone, no matter what state a citizen lives in. We are the UNITED States of America, not a coalition of independent countries, and our freedoms and rights are spelled out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The role of the SCOTUS is to protect those rights and not allow states to infringe on them. The right to make medical decisions, of which abortion is one, has been the law in nearly a half-century and is guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. No state can take away a right guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
3. With few exceptions, no one was ever forced to get vaccinated–there was usually the choice of getting vaccinated, getting tested, working from home or participating via zoom at meetings, taking classes etc..
Nutacha – aspirations are not rights.
If you drive your car into a tree and are paralyzed – you wish to be able to walk again is not a right.
When a man has sex with you – they risk responsibility for an “unwanted pregnancy” – and 2 decades of child support.
It is NOT his right to end the unwanted pregnancy.
The fetus is in the woman’s body – and the same right that should have barred mask and vaccine mandates, precludes government from preventing her from removing the fetus.
But just as the man has no right to make the fetus disappear – neither does the woman.
Bother the man and women have “equal rights” and responsibilites with respect to the Fetus, and eventual child.
The women has the unique right to end the fetus’s dependence on her body – nothing more.
That constitution – which does not enumerate the right you claim, also does not provide a general police power to the federal government.
Federal BTW quite literally means a confederation of states with their own governmental powers.
The power of the majority in the country to impose its will by force on the majority in a soveign state, is quite limited.
You can not condition keeping one right on surrendering another.
Your right to control of your won body is violated by a vaccine mandate, or a mandate that provides an exception for regular testing – which violates the same right, or staying at home which violates your right to free association.
You can not as an example say – you have a personal choice between free speech and owning a gun – but you can only pick one.
Do you think before you post ?
Try reading your own remarks before you post and asking – what is WRONG with my arguments ?
It is always obvious.
Correction to my previous note. I was in error. Life on earth should have have been stated as starting 3.5-3.8 billions years ago. Otherwise no changes.
13,000 years TOPS!
Of course they didn’t. From this article I now have better talking points in support of these Justices. Increasingly, there are more and more of us who don’t believe what the democrats spew. In fact, even democratic voters don’t believe the lies that come from their party these days. Biden is trying to turn our Republic into a one branch government by excoriating our judiciary and controlling Congress. Note: I didn’t say “our” Congress – we didn’t vote for most of them either.
NOW YOU KNOW – THEY STOLE THE ELECTION
The SCOTUS “leak” was stolen by the very same communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) who stole the 2020 election.
The “leak” theft could not be beneficial to conservatives; it could only be deleterious to conservatives.
Understanding the SCOTUS “leak” theft, facilitates understanding the 2020 election theft.
______________________________________________________________________
“The end justifies the means.”
– Sergey Nechayev, Communist Revolutionary.
I doubt this leak was by a conservative.
But ultimately the leak benefits conservatives – not democrats.
This is all a tempest in a teapot. Better for it to blow over in early may than early july.
The longer people get to think about this the less upset they will be.
If you wanted Roe VS Wade to be constitutional law then 2/3 of the House and Senate and 3/4 of the States would have had to vote to amend the constitution. That was never going to happen over these past 50 years. As such any Supreme Court decision could be overturned by a later court..
Of note virtually every other democracy in the world has settled the issue of abortion by a plebiscite or legislative action. Not a court case. I would refer you to Justice Ginsburg and her writings on Roe vs. Wade and her points about it being overstepping.
When life begins is not a religious question. It began approx 1.5-2 billion years ago on this planet. We know this because every bit of life that now survives has a characteristic signature that is unique to this planet in the building blocks of amino acids and sugars and their isomers and other constituents of surviving life. We have, as yet, been unable to create life or the primordial conditions that gave rise to it.
To this point only life can creat life. A sperm or ovum are alive but not sentient. If they were not alive, then fertilization could not occur and the lifeless sperm and ovum would simply decompose.
When is sentience apparent. It seems the more we learn the murkier that answer becomes. A pride of lions, or a group of orcas and other social animals communicate and learn by observing others in their group. Sentience or mimicking or learning? Communication, speaking ?
Can we define murder as the killing of a sentient being yet not call it murder when a developing being is killed but has yet to achieve sentience, even though we know that being will develop sentience if allowed simply to live and survive.
When a person dies because of a mishap and civil damages are assessed, do we not calculate the years of life lost and income that was never achieved?
“If you wanted Roe VS Wade to be constitutional law then 2/3 of the House and Senate and 3/4 of the States would have had to vote to amend the constitution.”
No, it can become law in the same way that other legislation is passed.
Probably not – there is no general police power.
Look at the federal governments actions regarding Covid.
There were no direct federal mandates – “everyone must be vaccinated” – the federal government has no power to do so.
What was done is rules like – you must mask to fly. or the CDC recomends.
“If you wanted Roe VS Wade to be constitutional law then 2/3 of the House and Senate and 3/4 of the States would have had to vote to amend the constitution.”
No. It’s actually a fairly easy decision — if you grasp the nature and purpose of the Constitution:
There is nothing in the Constitution granting government the power to control a woman’s body, medical decisions, property, future, happiness. Ergo — Hands off! All anti-abortion laws are stricken as unConstitutional.
If you want government (federal, state, or local) to have the power to criminalize abortion, then it is *your* side that has to pass a constitutional amendment.
Daniel,
First, at least some legal scholars would disagree with your claim that “All precedents create settled law until they are overturned,” which you seem to be equating with “controlling law.” For example: https://www.virginialawreview.org/articles/settled-law/
When Plessy was overturned, it resulted in an expansion of rights in Brown. The converse will be true here, assuming that the final ruling looks like Alito’s first draft, and likely even if it doesn’t.
Alito wrote “Casey relied on cases involving the right to marry a person of a different race, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); the right to marry while in prison, Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78 (1987); the right to obtain contraceptives, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972), Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977); the right to reside with relatives, Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977); the right to make decisions about the education of one’s children, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); the right not to be sterilized without consent, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); and the right in certain circumstances not to undergo involuntary surgery, forced administration of drugs, or other substantially similar procedures, Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985), Washington v. Harper, 494 U. S. 210 (1990), Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165 (1952). Respondents and the Solicitor General also rely on post-Casey decisions like Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts), and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) (right to marry a person of the same sex). … None of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history.”
So he is arguing that many rights are not “deeply rooted in history.” Despite his claim that “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” I do not trust Alito to be truthful. I believe that he’d be totally happy to overturn some of the rights in that list — such as same-sex marriage — if he can convince other Justices to join him in it.
His argument is in significant part: we’re going to focus on what men thought about abortion when the 14th Amendment was passed, 50 years before women would get the right to vote; men’s bigotry towards women then justifies the choice to restrict women’s bodily autonomy now.
“If a Senator wanted to know if a nominee would rule out overturning Roe/Casey he or she should have asked exactly that.”
I agree. Many are not particularly skilled questioners.
You are deliberately misquoting Alito in a deceptive way. When he said that none of these rights is deeply rooted in history he was referring to those he mentioned in the sentence you intentionally omitted: illicit drug use and prostitution. His point was that at a high degree of generality, saying that one’s “concept of existence” is a source of rights proves too much.
Daniel,
Sorry that my reply was decoupled from your original 11:58am comment. There’s some web-based tech glitch that periodically causes this for me (I don’t reply by email).
“When he said that none of these rights is deeply rooted in history he was referring to those he mentioned in the sentence you intentionally omitted: illicit drug use and prostitution.”
I doubt it, as those are NOT rights.
In the two sentences I omitted, he said “These attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s “concept of existence” prove too much. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like. None of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history.”
If, by “these rights,” he was referring back to “could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like,” he likely would have said something like “those ostensible rights.”
“His point was that at a high degree of generality, saying that one’s “concept of existence” is a source of rights proves too much.”
He has just listed a slew of rulings involving the right to autonomy, about which you are silent.
If you believe that he was NOT talking about “the right to marry a person of a different race, … the right to marry while in prison, … the right to obtain contraceptives, … the right to reside with relatives, … the right to make decisions about the education of one’s children, … the right not to be sterilized without consent, … the right in certain circumstances not to undergo involuntary surgery, forced administration of drugs, or other substantially similar procedures, …. [and the] right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts, and … [the] right to marry a person of the same sex,” when he said “None of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history,” then tell us where you think each of those rights DOES have a “claim to being deeply rooted in history.”
You are deliberately misreading Alito. He first says that the decision on abortion is not derived from precedent. That’s where he cites the cases you mention, none of which relates to abortion. Then, in a new paragraph, he says the generalised “concept of existence” as a source of rights proves too much, referring to illicit drug use, prostitution and the like. He then says, at the end of that separate paragraph, that these rights are not derived from history and so are not recognised as constitutional rights, which is why the concept proves too much.
Since the cases you cite are in a different paragraph relating to reliance on precedent and this statement relates to rights that may be claimed to derive from a particular “concept of existence”, the statement that these rights do not derive from history relates to the latter not the former.
He goes on to say that the abortion cases were not derived from precedent and therefore also cannot affect precedent. He says they are different because they involve extinguishing life. This may with the passage of time prove to be a distinction that can’t be maintained, but that is a prediction about how substantive due process jurisprudence will evolve over time. For purposes of this opinion it is absolutely clear that any Justices who sign on to it will not intend to disrupt those earlier decisions.
Daniel,
No, I am **not** “deliberately misreading Alito.” You and I have different opinions about how to correctly interpret what he wrote. That does not make mine a “deliberate misreading,” nor yours, for that matter.
“He first says that the decision on abortion is not derived from precedent. That’s where he cites the cases you mention, none of which relates to abortion.”
He acknowledges that the rulings in Roe and Casey cited multiple cases as precedent. That the precedential cases were not abortion cases does not, in and of itself, imply that they are not relevant precedent.
He is arguing that he doesn’t believe Roe and Casey “have a sound basis in precedent,” but the majority who wrote Roe and Casey clearly disagree. Whether or not the precedent is being used soundly is a matter of opinion, different from the fact that the court previously ruled that the cases he cited *are* precedential for abortion rights.
“the statement that these rights do not derive from history relates to the latter not the former.”
I already disagreed. As I said:
If you believe that he was NOT talking about the rights in the first paragraph (“the right to marry a person of a different race, … the right to marry while in prison, … the right to obtain contraceptives, … the right to reside with relatives, … the right to make decisions about the education of one’s children, … the right not to be sterilized without consent, … the right in certain circumstances not to undergo involuntary surgery, forced administration of drugs, or other substantially similar procedures, …. [and the] right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts, and … [the] right to marry a person of the same sex,” when he said “None of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history,” then tell us where you think each of those rights DOES have a “claim to being deeply rooted in history.”
But you’ve ignored that. I suspect you refused because because you’re unable to tell us where you think each of those rights DOES have a “claim to being deeply rooted in history,” but you don’t want to admit that you’re unable. If I’m wrong about that, just tell us: where do you think each of those rights DOES have a “claim to being deeply rooted in history.”
“For purposes of this opinion it is absolutely clear that any Justices who sign on to it will not intend to disrupt those earlier decisions.”
That’s what the text says, but they’re not legally bound by it, and I simply do not trust that Alito is being honest. I think he and Thomas, both of whom dissented from Obergefell, would be totally happy to overturn Obergefell if they can marshal the votes to do it.
I don’t know which of those, if any, are grounded in history. My point was not to defend a position on that one way or another but to show that Alito was not making a statement about those cases but about something else. It is absolutely clear from what Alito wrote that he was saying two things:
1. Those cases were not solid precedents for Roe/Casey because they are all distinguishable in that they did not involve extinguishing life; and
2. The “concept of existence” notion proves far too much, because it would recognise many rights not grounded in history. In my comment below I refer to the specific opinion Alito cited for that proposition, which refers also to physician assisted suicide, polygamy, and consensual duels in addition to prostitution and illicit drug use.
If the rights recognised in the cases Alito distinguishes and to which you refer were to be challenged, the Court would have to apply the stare decisis analysis Alito uses here. That would entail considering the nature of the right, whether the decision was “egregiously” wrong, how workable it has proven to be and what the consequences have been. Whether a majority could be formed to overrule any of those cannot be known in advance, but I would not expect it, and that result certainly would not flow from the decision here.
Sorry, I forgot to include reliance interests as part of the state decisis analysis.
Daniel,
Re: “1. Those cases were not solid precedents for Roe/Casey because they are all distinguishable in that they did not involve extinguishing life”
I’ll assume that you’re using “solid” to mean the same as Alito’s use of “sound.”
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding, but you seem to be implying that if a Justice asserts that K is a key factor in case Y, then X cannot be a “solid” or “sound” precedent for Y unless case X also includes key factor K.
IF that’s what you mean (if not, please clarify what you do mean), THEN you are arguing that if any case Y has a key factor that hasn’t previously been in a case before the court, Y by definition cannot have ANY solid precedents.
IF that’s what you mean, THEN by grouping “Roe/Casey” together, you seem to also be arguing that this is heritable, and Roe cannot be a “solid precedent” for Casey — despite Roe having that key factor — because you believe that Roe in turn lacks “solid precedents.”
IF that’s what you mean, THEN your argument has implications for whether lots of other cases can possibly have “solid” or “sound” precedents, as many cases that come before the Court arguably have unique factors themselves or rely on a precedent where the precedential case was the first case to have that unique factor.
I simply don’t buy the argument that if K is a key factor in case Y, then X cannot possibly be a “solid” or “sound” precedent for Y unless X also includes key factor K.
Re: “2. The “concept of existence” notion proves far too much, because it would recognise many rights not grounded in history. In my comment below I refer to the specific opinion Alito cited for that proposition, which refers also to physician assisted suicide, polygamy, and consensual duels in addition to prostitution and illicit drug use.”
I’ve now looked up that case, and I now agree that Alito was including “illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like” when he wrote “None of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history.”
But I think he was *also* referring to the rights in the previous paragraph. If you look at the first sentence of the paragraph where he said “None of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history,” it opens with “These attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s “concept of existence” prove too much,” and the “appeals to a broader right to autonomy” he’s referring to are clearly the ones in the previous paragraph.
So: you’ve convinced me to include the rights that I omitted. My mistake. Do you agree that he’s also referring to the rights in the previous paragraph, and if not, why not?
Further evidence that Alito was referring to claimed rights such as illicit drug use and prostitution rather than those established in the cases cited in the preceding paragraph is that he tied the list of those claimed rights to a specific opinion: a dissent to a denial of an en banc hearing in Compassion in Dying v Washington.
In that dissent, the judge says that the “concept of existence” notion is way too broad because it would support such rights as those to physician assisted suicide, polygamy, consensual duels, prostitution and illicit drug use. This is completely separate from the precedents mentioned by Alito in the earlier paragraph.
In the very next paragraph Alito says those precedents are distinguishable from Roe/Casey because they did not involve extinguishing life and neither dictated the outcome in Roe/Casey nor will be affected by the overturning of Roe/Casey.
Pretty much all drug use was licit until the modern era – so Alito was wrong about that.
I am not as sure about prostitution – but I suspect the actual laws against it are not that old.
In ancient times women were stoned for adultery – not prostitution.
Anonymous, I was with you until you said that Alito would overturn the right to same sex marriage. Can you provide us with any case where he ruled against same sex marriage. You were doing real good until you destroyed your credibility with a statement that you have no way of providing any proof for. You would do yourself some good if you would just stick to what you know for sure rather than just saying something that resides in your brain that you just have to get out.
Ti T,
“Can you provide us with any case where he ruled against same sex marriage.”
Yes. See his dissent in Obergefell: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
“you destroyed your credibility with a statement that you have no way of providing any proof for. ”
If you didn’t know that he dissented in Obergefell, then you are ignorant.
As for your last sentence, take your own advice.
TiT says:
“You were doing real good until you destroyed your credibility with a statement that you have no way of providing any proof for. You would do yourself some good if you would just stick to what you know for sure rather than just saying something that resides in your brain that you just have to get out.”
Spoken by a Trumpist who believes the Big Lie!
Alito, Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh would NOT have directly answered the question, because they were hungry for the power of being a SCOTUS justice. The problem isn’t that the right questions weren’t asked–the problem is that these four (4) desperately craved the power of the SCOTUS and would have said and done anything necessary to get it.
Pretty much no one is nominated for any federal position that does not want it.
You need not Trust Alito.
We have recent rulings on many of these issues where the court had majorities favoring gay and trans rights that included many of those purportedly voting for this draft.
I would note this is a february draft by Alito.
There was likely a confernce vote – and 5 justices voted to overturn Rowe – while Six voted to uphold the Mississippi law.
Alito was assigned to draft the oppinion. While it is certain that at that time there were 5 votes to overturn Rowe – we do not know how many justices were actually going to sign alito’s oppinion.
Does anything stop the SCOTUS from not ruling until after the mid terms?
They can kick the decison until next term if they wish.
But that was not likely.
This leak serves republicans.
It gives people more time to calm down.
There will be plenty of bad news for democrats between now and midterms to drop this off peoples radar.
Let’s hope so. Republicans have a way of blowing it. Dems will be looing for some kind of manufactured crises to not let go to waste.
Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh, aided by Alito, have officially turned Americans against the SCOTUS. These three DID lie to get the power to force Americans to live according to their standards, Constitution and Bill of Rights be damned. Republican Senator Susan Collins said they lied. Everything Trump touches, dies, even the SCOTUS.
Nope, the American public has spoken and through the system has elected people to get Roe thrown out. Sorry you do not like the system in place, that is your problem.
No, the American people’s voices were NOT heeded: The fat orange one CHEATED his way into office and nominated three of the liars who will take away not just a woman’s right to choose, but the other rights Alito says aren’t “deeply rooted” in the Constitution. Fatso, with the help of his Russian hacker friends, found a way to defeat the will of the American people by lying about his opponent on social media sites in districts where support for her was soft enough that the lies would work, and thus, he could get the Electoral College votes needed to steal the presidency. That DID happen. The majority of what Turley calls the “conservative” judges were nominated by presidents who LOST the popular vote. The SCOTUS does not represent the values or views of most Americans. Yes, the American public DID speak, but their voices were killed by Republicans gaming the system. We will speak again in November, of that you can be sure.
Again, you are wrong. The people voted using the system we have and installed the people to make the changes you are witnessing. Again, sorry you do not like the system when you lose. Deal with it or move. It is so comical that you write Trump stole his election and believe Biden won his. Nice fat shaming liberal hypocrite.
Todate there is ONE election in which allegations of fraud have been genuinely PROVEN false – that is YOUR 2016 claims.
Trump won in 2016 by about 9 times what Biden won in 2020.
There was no Russian collusion – Mueller LOST and had to withdraw his case against Russians.
The Steele dossier is more than garbage – it is actually a HOAX, as was he Alpha Bank nonsense.
84% support for identification laws,
Over 60% want a ban on vote trafficking
80% of voters believe that the convenience of mail voting must be balanced with adequate protections against fraud.
52%, want private funding of elections “cut off.”
Eight in 10 want states to clean up voter roles and eliminate duplicate names, dead voters, and outdated and inaccurate information.
Nearly all want voting by foreign citizens banned. Only 9% of voters think that noncitizens should be able to vote.
Trump was elected by the Electoral College, but he lost the popular vote, so don’t pretend that his election was “the American public” speaking.
Again, sorry you do not like the system. That is your problem. The American public did indeed speak.. They put in place the people to make these changes possible using the system in front of them. This really isn’t that hard to comprehend.
Voters in certain districts in certain swing states who flipped their support from Hillary Clinton to Trump didn’t know they were being lied to by Russian hackers. Cheating in his manner to get into office is not “the system”.
No, Jim, the people who voted in the 2016 election were NOT the people who put the Electoral College system in place. The Founders put the EC system in place, and they did it to entice slave-holding states to join the country, and they made it exceptionally difficult to change, as the states who have greater voting power in the EC are not inclined to give up their extra voting power. As you say “This really isn’t that hard to comprehend.”
The States elect the president. U.S.A. stands for what? Again, I’m sorry you don’t like the system. And yes, they made it hard to change on purpose so people like you who want to whine because they lost, can’t just change it.
I know that the states elect the President via the EC.
My point is that that’s not equivalent to “the American public has spoken,” which is what you claimed.
The states and the EC are not interchangeable with the American public. I wasn’t “whining,” just pointing out that your original claim was false.
Most Americans believe abortion should be either “mostly” or “always” illegal, and support banning abortion after 15 weeks, a Fox News poll released this week found.
The national poll, conducted prior to the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion overruling Roe v. Wade, found that 54 percent favor banning abortion in their respective state after 15 weeks of pregnancy, compared to 41 percent who oppose. Additionally, more favor banning abortion in their state after just six weeks than oppose — 50 percent to 46 percent.
Natacha, so if a Justice says that a law is established law and then later believes that the constitutionality of the law should be reviewed according to you he is a liar. Here is some established law that I am sure that you would also find to be sacrosanct. https://nmaahc.si.edu/explore/stories/two-landmark-decisions-fight-equality-and-justice. Even the discriminatory laws of the south didn’t put into law the allowance of the actual killing of another human being that has been put in place by Row v Wade.
But then there’s the death penalty that SCOTUS has upheld! Which proves that their true motive is not the “sanctity of life,” but to deny women autonomy and independence.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
If what you claim were true – armies of MODERATES would be flooding the phone lines.
And Republicans would be obliterated in November.
Your free to wish for that.
You still do not grasp that aside from the lawlessnes, the election fraud and the censorship and supression of damaging news.
Biden was not elected because people supported him.
He was elected because the left and our institutuons lied about Trump, about biden
More and more people understand you are not trustworthy.
It is very hard to regain trust once you have lost it.
Why do you think the trend line for Biden has been down since the election ?
Perhaps their testimony did not meet the legal definition of perjury, but it was clearly misleading. Most people aren’t lawyers who are skilled in parceling out double-speak. The fact is, they deliberately misrepresented their positions on Roe, and that’s what Americans will see, that the Supreme Court has devolved to nothing more than disingenuous political hacks with law degrees.
You felt this way when they forced us to buy Obamacare correct?
…. that’s what Americans will see….
Americans see a nation collapsing. Abortion is not on their top 10 list of concerns nor is SCOTUS reversing Roe v Wade a remote cause for their crippling anxiety, depression and a sense of loss of life, liberty and property (Amendment V).
SCOTUS is not on their minds. Most Americans are worried about inflation, soaring violent crime, defunding the police and the vilifying of law enforcement, forced public health measures that lack unassailable medical evidence, destruction of local economies as well as government and Big Tech censorship, cancel culture, ruining of lives and careers by political polemicists, and radical, Woke religionists undermining our nation’s foundational principles, namely:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.
That Dave Chappelle was attacked on stage last night in LA by a violent Left wing, radical “activist”, purportedly a “Trans”, confirms everything that Americans believe: our country is headed in the wrong direction. That is what they see.
“…the Supreme Court has devolved to nothing more than disingenuous political hacks with law degrees.”
That happened in 1973 when seven unelected hacks on SCOTUS took the decision about the lawfulness of abortion out of the hands of the political branches. What Alito’s draft opinion says is that the citizens of each state – through their elected representatives – should decide the legal status of abortion. If you care about “our democracy” and self government, then Alito’s solution is the correct one.
It amazes me how irate the liberals get when there want to kill human life gets threatened. Such an odd thing to fight for.
Yes. Bizarre their lust for child murder.
James,
We also want to groom your children into pedophilia. Don’t forget that.
True enough and your point?
You made my point.
DUH!! We all know that.
And their WONT (no apostrophe) to kill human life.
That, and the grooming of young children in 3rd grade and younger. THESE are hills they decided to die on?? Sad.