SCOTUS Draft Leak

Not everyone is myopically focused on money, money, money. I know some are, but you can't project your own concerns onto everyone else.

As I keep pointing out, the entire world is experiencing the damage from this pandemic. A multitude of economic hardships have hit just about any country you can name. Any thinking person would realize that neither the Democrats nor the Biden Administration can be blamed for a world-wide financial crisis if they have any brains at all. I don't have anything further to say about people that dumb.

 

Why not, Clown? You do, incessantly, annoyingly and stupidly, because you know you are doing so just to be a condescending representative of the Ideology of Division Religion.

Clarabell is in the Building....

 

What “victory”??? There has been no decision from SCOTUS yet. It’s too early to be talking about a “victory” don’t you think?

How about this: Don’t get your panties in a wad until a decision is made. Then we can talk about “victory”. What say?

 

Yet smart enough to remember the first ten months of this pandemic didn’t have the double digit inflation baggage.

 

You do understand that we don't even know that we're in a recession until a few quarters after we are already in a recession, right? The economy isn't a switch that turns on or off instantly. It's more like a battleship trying to do a U-turn. It is a rolling process.

 

Interesting. Even far-left liberal Ginsburg didn't like Roe v. Wade.



Supreme Court leak confirms Ruth Bader Ginsburg's prescient warning about Roe v. Wade

Ginsburg firmly supported abortion, but she lamented the court's decision to unilaterally create a new 'regime' on the subject

May 4, 2022

The unprecedented leak of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's draft opinion in a key case striking down Roe v. Wade (1973) has sparked a heated debate, perhaps drawing new attention to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's opinion on the key abortion precedent.

Although Ginsburg firmly advocated for women's access to abortion as a constitutional right, she criticized the way in which Roe v. Wade established that right – and her reasoning for this nuanced position may shed light on the current debate.

Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed that Alito's draft opinion in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization was genuine – although the draft dates back to February, and it does not represent the current or final opinion of the court. In the draft, Alito strikes down Roe v. Wade, which struck down state laws across the country, and allows states to again make their own laws on abortion.

Should the court indeed strike down Roe in this manner, it might vindicate Ginsburg's concerns about the pivotal decision.

Ginsburg warned against major judicial shifts in a 1992 lecture at New York University, citing Roe as an example.

"Measured motions seem to me right, in the main, for constitutional as well as common law adjudication," she argued. "Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped, experience teaches, may prove unstable. The most prominent example in recent decades is Roe v. Wade."

Ginsburg noted that Roe struck down far more than the specific Texas criminal abortion statute at issue in the case.

"Suppose the court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force," she said. "A less encompassing Roe, one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day, I believe and will summarize why, might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy."

Ginsburg contrasted Roe v. Wade with a case that never received a full hearing at the court, Struck v. Secretary of Defense. In that case, the Air Force tried to discharge a female Air Force captain because she became pregnant. Although the captain's performance as a manager and nurse was exemplary, Air Force regulations required a woman who got pregnant to leave the service or get an abortion.

The captain refused to get an abortion, for religious reasons, instead arranging to have her child get adopted. The Air Force sought to discharge her, and she challenged the move in court. After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, the Air Force made an exception and allowed her to remain in the service.

The captain argued "that the Air Force regime differentiated invidiously by allowing males who became fathers, but not females who became mothers, to remain in service and by allowing women who had undergone abortions, but not women who delivered infants, to continue their military careers," Ginsburg noted.

Ginsburg drew two conclusions from the case: first that "if even the military, an institution not known for avant garde policy, had taken to providing facilities for abortion, then was not a decision of Roe's muscularity unnecessary?" and second that if the court had considered this alternate case, it might have concluded "that disadvantageous treatment of a woman because of her pregnancy and reproductive choice is a paradigm case of discrimination on the basis of sex."

Ginsburg went on to contrast the court's landmark decision in Roe with a slew of decisions from 1971 to 1982 in which the court struck down "a series of state and federal laws that differentiated explicitly on the basis of sex."

Rather than creating a new philosophy of law and imposing it on the nation immediately, "the court, in effect, opened a dialogue with the political branches of government."

"In essence, the court instructed Congress and state legislatures: rethink ancient positions on these questions," Ginsburg noted. "The ball, one might say, was tossed by the justices back into the legislators' court, where the political forces of the day could operate."

Alito's opinion effectively reverses what Ginsburg described as fashioning a new "regime" on abortion – a move that would be unnecessary had the court instead proceeded to work with state legislatures and Congress to hammer out compromises on abortion.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/why-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-disapproved-of-roe-v-wade

 

This is such a sad argument emanating from this. I have two very upstanding and honorable women in my life that both became pregnant when they were young. One gave the child for adoption. The other had the child aborted. Both occurred over forty years ago and both still struggle with the heartache of the choice they made when they were young…… In my heart I would tell you that I am pro-life for all the reasons that have been espoused for eons. But then too, I am a man that himself was not very sexually prudent as a youngster….. This is a personal decision that a woman should make between herself, her doctor and her maker. I don’t think our founding fathers had the framework in their minds to even remotely address this issue and saying that, I do not feel this is an issue for SCOTUS to address as unpopular as that may be to say……. But I am up to here having to listen to ultra-left idiots rambling about how this opens the doors for conservatives to rape, pillage and burn the rights of minorities and women…… One has nothing to do with the other. Stop the hate speech. It does more harm than good.

 

What this actually does without any hyperbole whatsoever, is put the State in charge of a woman's health decisions, not her doctor. That is not disputable. It also puts the State in control of a child that has been raped by a father, an uncle, a brother, or any other adult and tells them that they have to carry the product of incest to full term. No choice. If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, she has no choice but to risk dying because the State will not let her have an abortion.

I thought y'all hated the government intruding in your lives, but I guess that you have made peace with that in this instance. Good for you.

 

Apparently you only read the part of my post that you wanted to see. I do not believe this to be an issue that requires government oversight.

 

Ok, from a pro-choice organization:



The majority of leftist are not stupid but they are dishonest.

 

That's a terrible analogy @JoeNation . . . Unlike piloting a battleship, it's much easier to know what's coming over the economic horizon. You just need the right man at the helm.

 

And this is the crux of the matter that is lost in all the dramatic overtures. The real truth of the matter is that we are legislating convenience. “I want to have sex but I don’t want to be bothered with the results”…. This has little to do with rape or incest but that will always be the battle cry.

 

Setting aside inflation due to wage escalation without attendant productivity, and looking only at other causes of our malaise, you're right that much of the hardship felt can be attributed to COVID-precipitated shutdowns.

Peeling the onion back however, uncovers Democrat’s responsibility for all of the economic hardship which could have been avoided had the economy been shut down only to the extent that President Trump wanted. After all, his admonition not to "let the cure be worse than the illness" was illustrative of his not-so-tactful, real-world approach.

COVID would efficiently take out those most vulnerable, no matter who was president, and then eventually burn itself out working more slowly through the rest of the healthier population. Allowing commerce an earlier return, abiding by CDC guidelines, would have spared this nation the economic suffering that now will be with us for years to come.

America could have emerged from this pandemic much stronger, and better able to support not only its own population, but many other hurting nations as well.

We had our chance to follow a common sense, balanced approach to a better end, and left it in the rear view mirror . . .

 

This needs to be repeated. Well said, TC

 

But your party does. You might have different feelings about the issue than your party, and if so, good for you, but I haven't heard you railing against the government, just the Left.

 

1987? Seriously?

 

The funniest and saddest part of this entire thread to me is 4-5 old men getting heated up over abortion. A procedure none of us will ever need under any circumstances. Now that is irony.

 

And this group is also cited

Again, you obviously have NO reading comprehension. We already know you have no understanding of the constitution or the foundation of this country. This is the latest information by a pro choice organization that is In with the NIH. Wonder why they stopped tracking it?

 

How would you feel if your mother would have aborted you…… oh, never mind.

 

4-5 old men? Your ignorance is amazing!