SCOTUS opinion leaked: Roe v Wade

LV426 said:
If his logic in this draft opinion regarding Roe is sound, then none of the decisions based on a right to privacy are legitimate either.

So he can't say that this doesn't affect those other decisions because those decisions were rooted in the same right to privacy argument he and his fellow Nazis shredded with this decision.

That's the contradiction.

Merely saying it doesn't apply to those other decisions doesn't make it so, nor does it make a sound legal argument.

Clearly precedent doesn't matter for these Nazi judges, so why would Alito's newly-set precedent in this decision hold to Legal scrutiny when the one for Roe and Casey did not?
Click to expand...

His explanation was that "But none of these decisions (Griswold, Lawrence, Loving) involved what is distinctive about abortion: its effect on what Roe termed "potential life."

Certainly the constitutional guarantee of "life, liberty, and property without due process of law" gives a higher priority to life than it does consensual sex, interracial marriage, or birth control.

I favor the freedom of a person to get an abortion, but that doesn't make Roe good constitutional law just because we like the results. To suggest the Constitution splits the right to get an abortion into trimesters is certainly more imagination on the part of the justices than any constitutional principle.
 
LV426 said:
Again, I don't open questionable links.

I want actual facts, not what you think is a fact.

THIS contains facts because it's an actual study, not propaganda that swindles the moronic:

Only two sex forms but multiple gender variants: How to explain?
Are sex and gender interchangeable terms? In classical biology, both are sometimes but not always used on an equal basis for some groups of animals. However, for our own species the Homo sapiens, they are not. A major question is why are there only two types of gametes (sperm- and egg cells), two types of sex steroids, (androgens and estrogens in vertebrates, and two types of ecdysteroids in insects), while the reproduction-related behaviour of the gamete producers displays a much greater variability than just two prominent forms, namely heterosexual males and heterosexual females? It indicates that in addition to a few sex-determining genes ( = the first pillar), other factors play a role. A second possible pillar is the still poorly understood cognitive memory system in which electrical phenomena and its association with the plasma membrane membrane-cytoskeletal complex of cells play a major role (learning, imitation and imprinting). This paper advances a third pillar, that hitherto has been almost completely ignored, namely the cellular Ca2+-homeostasis system, more specifically its sex-specific differences. Differential male-female genetics- and hormone-based Ca2+-homeostasis with effects on gender-related processes has been named Calcigender before. It will be argued that it follows from the principles of Ca2+- physiology and homeostasis that all individuals of a sexually reproducing animal population have a personalized gender behaviour. Thus, subdividing gender-behaviours in hetero-, homo-, bi-, trans- etc. which all result from a differential use of the very same basic physiological principles, is too primitive a system that may yield false sociological interpretations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5824932/
Click to expand...
Bruce still has the Y..only males have the Y chromosome....Bruce is still a male u stupid fuck
 
dukkha said:
Written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by POLITICO.

The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision – Planned Parenthood v. Casey – that largely maintained the right. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito writes.
“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” he writes in the document, labeled as the “Opinion of the Court.” “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

Deliberations on controversial cases have in the past been fluid. Justices can and sometimes do change their votes as draft opinions circulate and major decisions can be subject to multiple drafts and vote-trading, sometimes until just days before a decision is unveiled. The court’s holding will not be final until it is published, likely in the next two months.

No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending


POLITICO received a copy of the draft opinion from a person familiar with the court’s proceedings in the Mississippi case along with other details supporting the authenticity of the document. The draft opinion runs 98 pages, including a 31-page appendix of historical state abortion laws. The document is replete with citations to previous court decisions, books and other authorities, and includes 118 footnotes. The appearances and timing of this draft are consistent with court practice.

The disclosure of Alito’s draft majority opinion – a severe breach of Supreme Court secrecy and tradition around its deliberations – comes as all sides in the abortion debate are girding for the ruling. Speculation about the looming decision has been intense since the December oral arguments indicated a majority was inclined to support the Mississippi law.

Under longstanding court procedures, justices hold preliminary votes on cases shortly after argument and assign a member of the majority to write a draft of the court’s opinion. The draft is often amended in consultation with other justices, and in some cases the justices change their votes altogether, creating the possibility that the current alignment on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization could change.

The chief justice typically assigns majority opinions when he is in the majority. When he is not, that decision is typically made by the most senior justice in the majority.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473
Click to expand...

PRESIDENT OBAMA LEAKED IT LMBAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
 
.
Interesting argument, not one that I heard previously.

the Supreme Court is set to overturn Roe v Wade. The initial majority draft was leaked overnight, suggesting that the country's highest court will strike down the landmark ruling that legalised abortion nationwide. With Republican legislatures passing restrictive measures across America, the decision is expected to allow each state to decide whether to restrict or ban abortion. At least it'll give the Democrats something to run on in 2024.

Already the rhetoric is ramping up across the country, with accusations flying as to who is to blame. Senator Bernie Sanders has already demanded that Congress pass legislation to codify Roe v Wade as the law of the land; Hillary Clinton calls it 'an utter disgrace' and 'a direct assault on the dignity, rights, and lives of women.' One name though ought to loom large in discussions about the Supreme Court decisions: the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the celebrated justice whose refusal to retire under a Democrat president has clearly backfired so spectacularly.

Her death in post in 2020 caused a vacancy which Donald Trump duly filled with Amy Coney Barrett, giving the Supreme Court a clear pro-life, anti-abortion majority for the first time in modern history. Those supporters of Ginsburg who are mourning today might wish to reflect on how their heroine's stubbornness led to this decision. The irony was clearly lost on some of her fans, who, during the court's deliberations, queued up at one of Washington's museums, to purchase branded merchandise with her face on.

She may well be remembered as 'the notorious RBG' but Ginsburg's notoriety might ultimately owe more to her role in this judgement than any of her previous achievements.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/roe-v-wade-and-rbg-s-legacy
 
Primavera said:
.
Interesting argument, not one that I heard previously.

the Supreme Court is set to overturn Roe v Wade. The initial majority draft was leaked overnight, suggesting that the country's highest court will strike down the landmark ruling that legalised abortion nationwide. With Republican legislatures passing restrictive measures across America, the decision is expected to allow each state to decide whether to restrict or ban abortion. At least it'll give the Democrats something to run on in 2024.

Already the rhetoric is ramping up across the country, with accusations flying as to who is to blame. Senator Bernie Sanders has already demanded that Congress pass legislation to codify Roe v Wade as the law of the land; Hillary Clinton calls it 'an utter disgrace' and 'a direct assault on the dignity, rights, and lives of women.' One name though ought to loom large in discussions about the Supreme Court decisions: the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the celebrated justice whose refusal to retire under a Democrat president has clearly backfired so spectacularly.

Her death in post in 2020 caused a vacancy which Donald Trump duly filled with Amy Coney Barrett, giving the Supreme Court a clear pro-life, anti-abortion majority for the first time in modern history. Those supporters of Ginsburg who are mourning today might wish to reflect on how their heroine's stubbornness led to this decision. The irony was clearly lost on some of her fans, who, during the court's deliberations, queued up at one of Washington's museums, to purchase branded merchandise with her face on.

She may well be remembered as 'the notorious RBG' but Ginsburg's notoriety might ultimately owe more to her role in this judgement than any of her previous achievements.
Click to expand...

Oh, my goodness. Saying this is RBG's fault is like blaming the Ukraine conflict on NATO.
 
This guy says it best.


Stop abortion at the source. Vasectomies are reversible. Make every young man have one. when he's deemed financially & emotionally fit to be a father it will be reversed. What's that? Did the idea of regulating a man's body make you uncomfortable? Then mind your fucking business!

- Stephen Szczerba
 
.
Interesting argument, not one that I heard previously.

the Supreme Court is set to overturn Roe v Wade. The initial majority draft was leaked overnight, suggesting that the country's highest court will strike down the landmark ruling that legalised abortion nationwide. With Republican legislatures passing restrictive measures across America, the decision is expected to allow each state to decide whether to restrict or ban abortion. At least it'll give the Democrats something to run on in 2024.

Already the rhetoric is ramping up across the country, with accusations flying as to who is to blame. Senator Bernie Sanders has already demanded that Congress pass legislation to codify Roe v Wade as the law of the land; Hillary Clinton calls it 'an utter disgrace' and 'a direct assault on the dignity, rights, and lives of women.' One name though ought to loom large in discussions about the Supreme Court decisions: the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the celebrated justice whose refusal to retire under a Democrat president has clearly backfired so spectacularly.

Her death in post in 2020 caused a vacancy which Donald Trump duly filled with Amy Coney Barrett, giving the Supreme Court a clear pro-life, anti-abortion majority for the first time in modern history. Those supporters of Ginsburg who are mourning today might wish to reflect on how their heroine's stubbornness led to this decision. The irony was clearly lost on some of her fans, who, during the court's deliberations, queued up at one of Washington's museums, to purchase branded merchandise with her face on.

She may well be remembered as 'the notorious RBG' but Ginsburg's notoriety might ultimately owe more to her role in this judgement than any of her previous achievements.
 
ExpressLane said:
So are you saying a zygote isn't a living human? Are you saying the taking of innocent human life isn't homicide?
Click to expand...

There are “only two cases in which a woman was charged in any State with participating in her own abortion”: from Pennsylvania in 19111 and from Texas in 1922. There is no documented case since 1922 in which a woman has been charged in an abortion in the United States.

As one legal scholar in the 1980s who studied this issue concluded after surveying the 50 states, women “were never charged with murder, only seldom were named co-conspirators, and still more rarely were regarded as accomplices...”

While some women were prosecuted for their abortions under the English common law, by the 1870s or 1880s, most American states came to recognize that the better policy was to not prosecute women. That was the position of New York by 1885. With the exception of [four] state cases, the vast majority of the states with reported cases that discussed this issue determined that states could not prosecute women under any theory of criminal liability.

https://www.lifenews.com/2016/03/31/when-abortion-was-illegal-women-were-not-jailed-for-having-abortions-heres-why/

 
FreeSpeech1789 said:
Then explain why one can be charged with murder of the child for intentionally killing a pregnant woman?

The laq defines personhood at birth because the law makes no sense and is nor backed by science it is backed by nothing except a desire to keep abortion legal.
Click to expand...

How about you explaining why no women who have abortions are charged with murder?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top