SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[DrScholl]

18 pages? lol

And all the wishcasting about how it's going to dramatically help Democrats is unbelievably naive. Maybe it's the Democrat's Kavanaugh and it juices them up, but now court-packing and filibuster abolition is going to become a litmus test all over the country (if this is actually the result). Good luck getting independents to vote for you on that.

I for one, find it disgusting that it's even possible to "leak" a future SC decision in order to intimidate the court into doing exactly what they want (which is what this is, no doubt). The court's integrity is on the line, not because they might overrule Roe, but if they buckle to social/political pressure in response to this leak.

The public has a right to know what the court is planning. We aren't talking about some Netflix series where you can say "NO SPOILERS PLEASE".

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I for one, find it disgusting that it's even possible to "leak" a future SC decision in order to intimidate the court into doing exactly what they want (which is what this is, no doubt). The court's integrity is on the line, not because they might overrule Roe, but if they buckle to social/political pressure in response to this leak.

Has it been established that this was leaked by a pro-choicer, and what the motivations were? Or are you just assuming? It's very easy to see the argument that this was releasing by a supporter of ending Roe v. Wade to make sure those 5 stay in line, because if one of them flips now, everyone will know about it.

This. I actually feel like, for the reasons you explained, it's likelier a pro-lifer strategically leaked this to ensure it happened, than a pro-choicer leaked this to shame one of the judges into switching to the pro-Roe camp.

As ElectionsGuy said, it would be incredibly dumb if a pro-choicer leaked this because all they'd be doing is actually forcing them all to double-down and support this to the bitter end when one might have considered changing their mind - because now if they do, it'll look like they're weak-kneed, unprincipled flip-floppers who caved to pressure. On the other hand, a pro-lifer strategically leaking it would be good 3D chess (though on the other hand, the fact that's it's so well thought out makes me wonder that someone pro-life could come up with it, given the average pro-lifer's arguments against abortion and Roe).

It isn't really that well-thought-out. Alito's opinion itself is the standard strict-construction argument against Roe but worded as a right-wing diatribe, and leaking a potentially difficult decision to the public in order to lock the policymaker into making it is a tactic that goes back at least to the Roman Republic, probably further.

[WV222]

1,000 at SCOTUS

https://twitter.com/cami_mondeaux/status/1521348582821044224?s=20&t=qoGO9X5w...

[emailking]

Wonder how big the crowd there will be tomorrow.

[Kamala's side hoe]

8 pages on this in two hours and real issues like inflation are lucky to get two

Sad!

This is potentially one of the biggest Supreme Court decisions in decades, and you're b*tching about thread length?

People in Abdullah's neck of the woods throw rent parties to cover basic living expenses, of course he's going to mention inflation.

I've already seen 3 Asian Americans Millennials/iGens (plus 1 white dude in Ohio) post about this on their Instagram stories in the last 3 hours.

Putting on my doctor's hat for a moment:  abortions CAN have negative side effects for the mother and future pregnancies.    

Depending on how they're performed, an abortion can cause a weakening of the cervix (increasing the risk of a preterm birth in the future) -- among other side effects.  

But that's purely from an anatomical standpoint and in no way endorses any position on this issue (even though I think...I've been fairly clear on how I feel about all this).    

[jamestroll]

It’s the height of hypocrisy of the same “pro lifers” to then fight against expanding the social safety net for prospective mothers. If you do not support universal healthcare and guaranteed paid maternal leave at the VERY minimum, I don’t want to hear pro life out of your mouth. I am pro life, 99% of the rest of these “pro lifers” only want to get high off their power.

I agree with the sentiment, but I think this type of gatekeeping does a disservice to the movement. You can lock arms with people you think are hypocrites.

HARD NO!
One cannot live without the other. This is not negotiable, this is human life.

I would not be particularly picky with my political allies if the debate was over whether murder should be legal or not (from a pro-life perspective).

It’s the height of hypocrisy of the same “pro lifers” to then fight against expanding the social safety net for prospective mothers. If you do not support universal healthcare and guaranteed paid maternal leave at the VERY minimum, I don’t want to hear pro life out of your mouth. I am pro life, 99% of the rest of these “pro lifers” only want to get high off their power.

I agree with the sentiment, but I think this type of gatekeeping does a disservice to the movement. You can lock arms with people you think are hypocrites.

HARD NO!
One cannot live without the other. This is not negotiable, this is human life.

By the way, Republicans will never support paid family leave, universal prek and childcare, because all they care about is power. They don't care about life. They don't care about the dignity of work, of every human person.

I am a (registered) Republican and I support all of these things. Nobody in the real world cares about "power" except, like, the people in government, but even then I don't think you would apply the same level of scrutiny to their opposition.

There is no party registration in Virginia.

[GALeftist]

It's been amazing watching online right wing hacks flail about in real time and settle on pearl clutching about leaks infringing on the sanctity of the court. Ell Em Ay Oh. Please lecture me more on preserving the court's nonpartisan image, McConnellite scumbags.

[Donerail]

Question for more informed people on this issue: let's say the Democrats keep control of both houses of Congress this November and pass the Pro-Choice Protection Act of 2023 or whatever, signed into law by President Biden.

On what grounds could states or others (religious organizations being likely examples) challenge such a law in the courts? The Roberts Court, especially with six conservative justices, has been notably pro-religious freedom in a lot of cases; I suppose the issue would be whether the federal law was so sweeping in its protections of abortion that it didn't have adequate carve-outs on religious freedom grounds, no?

Issue is not religious freedom, it's Congressional powers — you argue that regulating abortion exceeds Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause (or anti-commandeering or federalism or some such thing). Then you offer the Court the opportunity to both strike down protections for abortion rights and a way to narrow current Commerce Clause doctrine — too good to pass up.

[7,052,770]

I for one, find it disgusting that it's even possible to "leak" a future SC decision in order to intimidate the court into doing exactly what they want (which is what this is, no doubt). The court's integrity is on the line, not because they might overrule Roe, but if they buckle to social/political pressure in response to this leak.

Has it been established that this was leaked by a pro-choicer, and what the motivations were? Or are you just assuming? It's very easy to see the argument that this was releasing by a supporter of ending Roe v. Wade to make sure those 5 stay in line, because if one of them flips now, everyone will know about it.

This. I actually feel like, for the reasons you explained, it's likelier a pro-lifer strategically leaked this to ensure it happened, than a pro-choicer leaked this to shame one of the judges into switching to the pro-Roe camp.

As ElectionsGuy said, it would be incredibly dumb if a pro-choicer leaked this because all they'd be doing is actually forcing them all to double-down and support this to the bitter end when one might have considered changing their mind - because now if they do, it'll look like they're weak-kneed, unprincipled flip-floppers who caved to pressure. On the other hand, a pro-lifer strategically leaking it would be good 3D chess (though on the other hand, the fact that's it's so well thought out makes me wonder that someone pro-life could come up with it, given the average pro-lifer's arguments against abortion and Roe).

Exactly. This leak pretty much guarantees that none of the 5 conservative justices can flip now. Who benefits from that? Someone who wants to make sure that none of them flip.

Of course, it's not a guarantee. Not everyone sees things the same way I do. And there could also be additional motivations beyond trying to push the judges in any direction. But it seems like the most likely culprit is some clerk who's worried about Kavanaugh (or maybe another judge, but who could that be?) flipping and wants to prevent that.

[Schiff for Senate]

I for one, find it disgusting that it's even possible to "leak" a future SC decision in order to intimidate the court into doing exactly what they want (which is what this is, no doubt). The court's integrity is on the line, not because they might overrule Roe, but if they buckle to social/political pressure in response to this leak.

Has it been established that this was leaked by a pro-choicer, and what the motivations were? Or are you just assuming? It's very easy to see the argument that this was releasing by a supporter of ending Roe v. Wade to make sure those 5 stay in line, because if one of them flips now, everyone will know about it.

This. I actually feel like, for the reasons you explained, it's likelier a pro-lifer strategically leaked this to ensure it happened, than a pro-choicer leaked this to shame one of the judges into switching to the pro-Roe camp.

As ElectionsGuy said, it would be incredibly dumb if a pro-choicer leaked this because all they'd be doing is actually forcing them all to double-down and support this to the bitter end when one might have considered changing their mind - because now if they do, it'll look like they're weak-kneed, unprincipled flip-floppers who caved to pressure. On the other hand, a pro-lifer strategically leaking it would be good 3D chess (though on the other hand, the fact that's it's so well thought out makes me wonder that someone pro-life could come up with it, given the average pro-lifer's arguments against abortion and Roe).

It isn't really that well-thought-out. Alito's opinion itself is the standard strict-construction argument against Roe but worded as a right-wing diatribe, and leaking a potentially difficult decision to the public in order to lock the policymaker into making it is a tactic that goes back at least to the Roman Republic, probably further.

Fair enough.

Also disappointed that we still haven't hit 20 pages.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I for one, find it disgusting that it's even possible to "leak" a future SC decision in order to intimidate the court into doing exactly what they want (which is what this is, no doubt). The court's integrity is on the line, not because they might overrule Roe, but if they buckle to social/political pressure in response to this leak.

Has it been established that this was leaked by a pro-choicer, and what the motivations were? Or are you just assuming? It's very easy to see the argument that this was releasing by a supporter of ending Roe v. Wade to make sure those 5 stay in line, because if one of them flips now, everyone will know about it.

This. I actually feel like, for the reasons you explained, it's likelier a pro-lifer strategically leaked this to ensure it happened, than a pro-choicer leaked this to shame one of the judges into switching to the pro-Roe camp.

As ElectionsGuy said, it would be incredibly dumb if a pro-choicer leaked this because all they'd be doing is actually forcing them all to double-down and support this to the bitter end when one might have considered changing their mind - because now if they do, it'll look like they're weak-kneed, unprincipled flip-floppers who caved to pressure. On the other hand, a pro-lifer strategically leaking it would be good 3D chess (though on the other hand, the fact that's it's so well thought out makes me wonder that someone pro-life could come up with it, given the average pro-lifer's arguments against abortion and Roe).

It isn't really that well-thought-out. Alito's opinion itself is the standard strict-construction argument against Roe but worded as a right-wing diatribe, and leaking a potentially difficult decision to the public in order to lock the policymaker into making it is a tactic that goes back at least to the Roman Republic, probably further.

Fair enough.

Also disappointed that we still haven't hit 20 pages.

We did if u include deleted posts.

[fhtagn]

I for one, find it disgusting that it's even possible to "leak" a future SC decision in order to intimidate the court into doing exactly what they want (which is what this is, no doubt). The court's integrity is on the line, not because they might overrule Roe, but if they buckle to social/political pressure in response to this leak.

Has it been established that this was leaked by a pro-choicer, and what the motivations were? Or are you just assuming? It's very easy to see the argument that this was releasing by a supporter of ending Roe v. Wade to make sure those 5 stay in line, because if one of them flips now, everyone will know about it.

This. I actually feel like, for the reasons you explained, it's likelier a pro-lifer strategically leaked this to ensure it happened, than a pro-choicer leaked this to shame one of the judges into switching to the pro-Roe camp.

As ElectionsGuy said, it would be incredibly dumb if a pro-choicer leaked this because all they'd be doing is actually forcing them all to double-down and support this to the bitter end when one might have considered changing their mind - because now if they do, it'll look like they're weak-kneed, unprincipled flip-floppers who caved to pressure. On the other hand, a pro-lifer strategically leaking it would be good 3D chess (though on the other hand, the fact that's it's so well thought out makes me wonder that someone pro-life could come up with it, given the average pro-lifer's arguments against abortion and Roe).

It isn't really that well-thought-out. Alito's opinion itself is the standard strict-construction argument against Roe but worded as a right-wing diatribe, and leaking a potentially difficult decision to the public in order to lock the policymaker into making it is a tactic that goes back at least to the Roman Republic, probably further.

Fair enough.

Also disappointed that we still haven't hit 20 pages.

just wait till it's morning and everyone is awake

[BGBC]

It’s the height of hypocrisy of the same “pro lifers” to then fight against expanding the social safety net for prospective mothers. If you do not support universal healthcare and guaranteed paid maternal leave at the VERY minimum, I don’t want to hear pro life out of your mouth. I am pro life, 99% of the rest of these “pro lifers” only want to get high off their power.

I agree with the sentiment, but I think this type of gatekeeping does a disservice to the movement. You can lock arms with people you think are hypocrites.

HARD NO!
One cannot live without the other. This is not negotiable, this is human life.

I would not be particularly picky with my political allies if the debate was over whether murder should be legal or not (from a pro-life perspective).

It’s the height of hypocrisy of the same “pro lifers” to then fight against expanding the social safety net for prospective mothers. If you do not support universal healthcare and guaranteed paid maternal leave at the VERY minimum, I don’t want to hear pro life out of your mouth. I am pro life, 99% of the rest of these “pro lifers” only want to get high off their power.

I agree with the sentiment, but I think this type of gatekeeping does a disservice to the movement. You can lock arms with people you think are hypocrites.

HARD NO!
One cannot live without the other. This is not negotiable, this is human life.

By the way, Republicans will never support paid family leave, universal prek and childcare, because all they care about is power. They don't care about life. They don't care about the dignity of work, of every human person.

I am a (registered) Republican and I support all of these things. Nobody in the real world cares about "power" except, like, the people in government, but even then I don't think you would apply the same level of scrutiny to their opposition.

There is no party registration in Virginia.

I'm not registered in Virginia. Don't ask why.

[fhtagn]

It’s the height of hypocrisy of the same “pro lifers” to then fight against expanding the social safety net for prospective mothers. If you do not support universal healthcare and guaranteed paid maternal leave at the VERY minimum, I don’t want to hear pro life out of your mouth. I am pro life, 99% of the rest of these “pro lifers” only want to get high off their power.

I agree with the sentiment, but I think this type of gatekeeping does a disservice to the movement. You can lock arms with people you think are hypocrites.

HARD NO!
One cannot live without the other. This is not negotiable, this is human life.

I would not be particularly picky with my political allies if the debate was over whether murder should be legal or not (from a pro-life perspective).

It’s the height of hypocrisy of the same “pro lifers” to then fight against expanding the social safety net for prospective mothers. If you do not support universal healthcare and guaranteed paid maternal leave at the VERY minimum, I don’t want to hear pro life out of your mouth. I am pro life, 99% of the rest of these “pro lifers” only want to get high off their power.

I agree with the sentiment, but I think this type of gatekeeping does a disservice to the movement. You can lock arms with people you think are hypocrites.

HARD NO!
One cannot live without the other. This is not negotiable, this is human life.

By the way, Republicans will never support paid family leave, universal prek and childcare, because all they care about is power. They don't care about life. They don't care about the dignity of work, of every human person.

I am a (registered) Republican and I support all of these things. Nobody in the real world cares about "power" except, like, the people in government, but even then I don't think you would apply the same level of scrutiny to their opposition.

There is no party registration in Virginia.

I'm not registered in Virginia. Don't ask why.

but...why?

[ElectionsGuy]

I for one, find it disgusting that it's even possible to "leak" a future SC decision in order to intimidate the court into doing exactly what they want (which is what this is, no doubt). The court's integrity is on the line, not because they might overrule Roe, but if they buckle to social/political pressure in response to this leak.

Has it been established that this was leaked by a pro-choicer, and what the motivations were? Or are you just assuming? It's very easy to see the argument that this was releasing by a supporter of ending Roe v. Wade to make sure those 5 stay in line, because if one of them flips now, everyone will know about it.

Do you really think with the amount of media and activism the left has in their favor that the conservative justices are going to be pressured to stay in place? Barrett and Kavanaugh have been notoriously flaky over the past 2 years, and complained about the court's "image".

If it was a pro-life person who leaked, why would they leak a victory for them potentially two months in advance? It makes much more sense to me that a pro-choicer would've leaked, as a panic mechanism to turn up the heat on the court (and the issue in general) to gain favorability for their side.

[Schiff for Senate]

I for one, find it disgusting that it's even possible to "leak" a future SC decision in order to intimidate the court into doing exactly what they want (which is what this is, no doubt). The court's integrity is on the line, not because they might overrule Roe, but if they buckle to social/political pressure in response to this leak.

Has it been established that this was leaked by a pro-choicer, and what the motivations were? Or are you just assuming? It's very easy to see the argument that this was releasing by a supporter of ending Roe v. Wade to make sure those 5 stay in line, because if one of them flips now, everyone will know about it.

This. I actually feel like, for the reasons you explained, it's likelier a pro-lifer strategically leaked this to ensure it happened, than a pro-choicer leaked this to shame one of the judges into switching to the pro-Roe camp.

As ElectionsGuy said, it would be incredibly dumb if a pro-choicer leaked this because all they'd be doing is actually forcing them all to double-down and support this to the bitter end when one might have considered changing their mind - because now if they do, it'll look like they're weak-kneed, unprincipled flip-floppers who caved to pressure. On the other hand, a pro-lifer strategically leaking it would be good 3D chess (though on the other hand, the fact that's it's so well thought out makes me wonder that someone pro-life could come up with it, given the average pro-lifer's arguments against abortion and Roe).

It isn't really that well-thought-out. Alito's opinion itself is the standard strict-construction argument against Roe but worded as a right-wing diatribe, and leaking a potentially difficult decision to the public in order to lock the policymaker into making it is a tactic that goes back at least to the Roman Republic, probably further.

Fair enough.

Also disappointed that we still haven't hit 20 pages.

We did if u include deleted posts.

If you include deleted posts we reached 20 a while back and may well be on page 21.

[fhtagn]

I for one, find it disgusting that it's even possible to "leak" a future SC decision in order to intimidate the court into doing exactly what they want (which is what this is, no doubt). The court's integrity is on the line, not because they might overrule Roe, but if they buckle to social/political pressure in response to this leak.

Has it been established that this was leaked by a pro-choicer, and what the motivations were? Or are you just assuming? It's very easy to see the argument that this was releasing by a supporter of ending Roe v. Wade to make sure those 5 stay in line, because if one of them flips now, everyone will know about it.

This. I actually feel like, for the reasons you explained, it's likelier a pro-lifer strategically leaked this to ensure it happened, than a pro-choicer leaked this to shame one of the judges into switching to the pro-Roe camp.

As ElectionsGuy said, it would be incredibly dumb if a pro-choicer leaked this because all they'd be doing is actually forcing them all to double-down and support this to the bitter end when one might have considered changing their mind - because now if they do, it'll look like they're weak-kneed, unprincipled flip-floppers who caved to pressure. On the other hand, a pro-lifer strategically leaking it would be good 3D chess (though on the other hand, the fact that's it's so well thought out makes me wonder that someone pro-life could come up with it, given the average pro-lifer's arguments against abortion and Roe).

It isn't really that well-thought-out. Alito's opinion itself is the standard strict-construction argument against Roe but worded as a right-wing diatribe, and leaking a potentially difficult decision to the public in order to lock the policymaker into making it is a tactic that goes back at least to the Roman Republic, probably further.

Fair enough.

Also disappointed that we still haven't hit 20 pages.

We did if u include deleted posts.

If you include deleted posts we reached 20 a while back and may well be on page 21.

it's never too late to try again

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I for one, find it disgusting that it's even possible to "leak" a future SC decision in order to intimidate the court into doing exactly what they want (which is what this is, no doubt). The court's integrity is on the line, not because they might overrule Roe, but if they buckle to social/political pressure in response to this leak.

Has it been established that this was leaked by a pro-choicer, and what the motivations were? Or are you just assuming? It's very easy to see the argument that this was releasing by a supporter of ending Roe v. Wade to make sure those 5 stay in line, because if one of them flips now, everyone will know about it.

Do you really think with the amount of media and activism the left has in their favor that the conservative justices are going to be pressured to stay in place? Barrett and Kavanaugh have been notoriously flaky over the past 2 years, and complained about the court's "image".

If it was a pro-life person who leaked, why would they leak a victory for them potentially two months in advance? It makes much more sense to me that a pro-choicer would've leaked, as a panic mechanism to turn up the heat on the court (and the issue in general) to gain favorability for their side.

Harry just answered you: to keep them all in line. Now it is too late for last-minute compromises or changes, because anything different will be seen as "caving to public pressure."

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

20 pages in...5 hours.
Impressive work, Atlas!

[fhtagn]

19 pages in...5 hours.
Impressive work, Atlas!

Congrats, you made the 20th page!

[Hammy]

I don't think it's unreasonable to be disturbed by the leak. I'm not and I don't care because I have long been opposed to the Supreme Court. If (again, emphasis on if) we could set up a better replacement then I would support the Supreme Court's immediate abolition, I think SCOTUS is one of the worst things about the United States. But if you're a person who thinks positively about it then I get why you would be unsettled by the leak.

I have never agreed so hard with anything you've posted as I do now. The entire upper court system is an embarrassment.

Also thank God I've taken a break from regular posting lately, this place is going to be utter chaos tomorrow.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

19 pages in...5 hours.
Impressive work, Atlas!

Congrats, you made the 20th page!

Thanks!
I'm the one millionth visitor!

[Green Line]

I’m overjoyed for the millions of unborn that will be spared in the coming years, at least in certain states.  Im also disappointed to think how this will cause further division and hatred in our country.  The only solution is to better educate folks that life is precious.

[VBM]

Will this accelerate the population’s migration away from religion, as more and more people get fed up with these people shoving their religious beliefs down our throats?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Will this accelerate the population’s migration away from religion, as more and more people get fed up with these people shoving their religious beliefs down our throats?

Lol. Christians have been against killing the unborn since i was unborn and im 30.