Roe v Wade overturned????? Draft says so

[BigRedBuster]

 

[JJ Husker]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

The fact Alito issued the stay is either evidence of how far off base the original ruling was or, more likely, just more salt in the wound before SCOTUS eventually upholds it.

[ZRod]

14 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

The fact Alito issued the stay is either evidence of how far off base the original ruling was or, more likely, just more salt in the wound before SCOTUS eventually upholds it.

Probably the later. I didn't follow this case so I don't understand how this even came about with a drug that's been approved for decades.

[commando]

isn't sudafed used to make an illegal drug?    maybe that will be next.   

[Ulty]

14 minutes ago, commando said:

isn't sudafed used to make an illegal drug?    maybe that will be next.   

Probably not, because that wouldn't target liberals and rile up the base. 

 

Sudafed can be used to make meth, and the stereotypical meth user shares too many similarities with the typical GOP voter (rural, midwestern, uneducated, crazy). They need those people.

[BigRedBuster]

Interesting thread. 
 

 

[TGHusker]

3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Interesting thread. 
 

 

I don't know what fool gave you a laughing face on your post but they obviously don't understand the corruption shown by this.  Regardless of the topic and whether you are pro-life or pro-choice - this type of corruption should not be tolerated within our govt.   The GOP ... I have no more words to express my disappointment with this party

 

More on the above: 

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1649075829932949505.html

 

[ZRod]

3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Interesting thread. 
 

 

I still don't even understand how this case came about, or was accepted. That just blows my mind.

 

I'm pretty sure, based on the verbage the judge used, that I know the end game. It just reeks of bias and corruption.

[RedDenver]

 

[Archy1221]

On 4/20/2023 at 3:55 PM, TGHusker said:

I don't know what fool gave you a laughing face on your post but they obviously don't understand the corruption shown by this.  Regardless of the topic and whether you are pro-life or pro-choice - this type of corruption should not be tolerated within our govt.   The GOP ... I have no more words to express my disappointment with this party

 

More on the above: 

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1649075829932949505.html

 

Wait…..I thought there was some super secret 6 yr wizard plan to get the abortion pill banned from the US using the courts.    No wonder someone gave a smiley face to the post.  apparently they forgot to let the people that actually matter in on the plan.   
 

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/supreme-court-issues-stay-preserving-224422369.html

[BigRedBuster]

 

[BigRedBuster]

Her entire story.  This is unacceptable.  

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

He's proving how stupid his argument is.  Thanks.

 

 

[TGHusker]

 

Judge Alito believes he knows who leaked the Dobbs draft but doesn't have enough confirming information to speak out and name the person who leaked the draft. 

 

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-samuel-alito-this-made-us-targets-of-assassination-dobbs-leak-abortion-court-74624ef9

 

Quote

 

Justice Samuel Alito was supposed to speak to law students at George Mason University in Arlington, Va., but when they showed up, he wasn’t there. “That Alito was speaking via closed circuit from a room at the Supreme Court seven miles away, rather than in person, was a sign these are not normal times,” the Washington Post reported. The Post didn’t explain what made the “times” abnormal.

 

It wasn’t a lingering fear of Covid-19. In a mid-April interview in his chambers, Justice Alito fills us in on the May 12, 2022, event: “Our police conferred with the George Mason Police and the Arlington Police and they said, ‘It’s not a good idea. He shouldn’t come here. . . . The security problems will be severe.’ So I ended up giving the speech by Zoom,” he says. “Still, there were so many protesters and they were so loud that you could hear them.”

By now a noisy mob of law students may sound like any other school day, but last May also was a tumultuous time for the court. The preceding week, someone had leaked a draft of Justice Alito’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a landmark abortion case that wouldn’t be decided until late June. The last question at the George Mason event, the Post reported, was about how the justices were getting along in the wake of that unprecedented breach of confidentiality. At the time, Justice Alito said little in response beyond “we’re doing our work.”

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

He now says that the leak “created an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust. We worked through it, and last year we got our work done. This year, I think, we’re trying to get back to normal operations as much as we can. . . . But it was damaging.” Chief Justice John Roberts directed the marshal of the Supreme Court to investigate the leak. In January she issued her findings: “Investigators have been unable to determine at this time, using a preponderance of the evidence standard, the identity of the person(s) who disclosed the draft majority opinion.”

 

Justice Alito says the marshal “did a good job with the resources that were available to her” and agrees that the evidence was insufficient for a public accusation. “I personally have a pretty good idea who is responsible, but that’s different from the level of proof that is needed to name somebody,” he says. He’s certain about the motive: “It was a part of an effort to prevent the Dobbs draft . . . from becoming the decision of the court. And that’s how it was used for those six weeks by people on the outside—as part of the campaign to try to intimidate the court.”

That campaign included unlawful assemblies outside justices’ homes, and that wasn’t the worst of it. “Those of us who were thought to be in the majority, thought to have approved my draft opinion, were really targets of assassination,” Justice Alito says. “It was rational for people to believe that they might be able to stop the decision in Dobbs by killing one of us.” On June 8, an armed man was arrested outside the home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh; the suspect was later charged with attempted assassination and has pleaded not guilty.

 

 

Quote

 

A federal law called Section 1507 makes it a crime to picket or parade “in or near” a federal judge’s residence “with the intent of influencing” him “in the discharge of his duty.” During a hearing last month, Attorney General Merrick Garland told Sen. Mike Lee (R., Utah) that the marshals have “full authority to arrest” violators of Section 1507. But according to training slides obtained by Sen. Katie Britt (R., Ala.), deputies on the justices’ residential details are told to enforce the law only as “a last resort to prevent physical harm to the Justices and/or their families.”

Although the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner of speech, the training slides indicate that the Justice Department believes it is unconstitutional to enforce Section 1507 absent “criminal threats and intimidation.” Regular protests outside the justices’ homes continue.

In some ways this is an old story. Each side of the abortion debate has featured a vigorous protest culture since at least the 1970s, when the court decided Roe v. Wade. The last time it reconsidered Roe, the three-justice plurality opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) asserted that it would “subvert the Court’s legitimacy” to overturn a precedent while “under fire,” meaning subjected to public criticism. The losing side has even resorted to violence before: Antiabortion extremists assassinated four abortion doctors between 1993 and 2009.

But as the court has grown more conservative in recent years, the left has stepped up the attacks on the court’s “legitimacy,” including character assassination of individual justices, with little objection from mainstream Democrats and plenty of help from the media.

Justice Alito says “this type of concerted attack on the court and on individual justices” is “new during my lifetime. . . . We are being hammered daily, and I think quite unfairly in a lot of instances. And nobody, practically nobody, is defending us. The idea has always been that judges are not supposed to respond to criticisms, but if the courts are being unfairly attacked, the organized bar will come to their defense.” Instead, “if anything, they’ve participated to some degree in these attacks.”

 

 

[knapplc]

Creating a Republican Utopia, one stupid law at a time.