The Supreme Court has been destroyed — and the perpetrator thinks he's the victim

evince said:
So any person who seeks an abortion is planning to commit murder?


So any person who has an abortion should be executed?
Click to expand...

It's true for doctors. They know what they're killing.

A person should be executed only if it's the only away to keep society safe from that persons behavior. That would do be exceedingly rare.
 
Yakuda said:
It's true for doctors. They know what they're killing.

A person should be executed only if it's the only away to keep society safe from that persons behavior. That would do be exceedingly rare.
Click to expand...

You said it was murder
 
signalmankenneth said:
The GOP-majority Supreme Court wreaked havoc on abortion access by overturning Roe v. Wade last June. But if you read The Wall Street Journal's recent interview with Samuel Alito, author of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that overturned Roe, you might believe the justice sees himself and fellow Republicans as the true victims of their successful quest to eliminate the constitutional right to abortion.

Instead of discussing the unpopular Dobbs ruling itself, Alito focused on the leaked draft of his opinion, which he said made him and other Republican appointees "targets of assassination." While most people can agree that assassinating judges is bad (a person was arrested for allegedly attempting to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh after the leak), focusing on the leak instead of the damage his opinion has brought and will bring lets Alito continue to play the victim while wielding power over his purported tormentors.

As for the leak itself, Alito, ensconced within the safe confines of the Journal’s opinion pages, asserted in the interview published Friday that he has a “pretty good idea” who did it. While he admitted it’s not enough proof to name the perpetrator — who prematurely provided what was about to become public knowledge — Alito expressed certainty that the leaker couldn't have been a conservative, but rather had to be someone who intended to change the opinion before it came out.

Yet, even if it was a liberal, the leaker may simply have wanted the country to know that this messed up thing was happening, regardless of whether they intended to set in motion some plot for a hit squad of other liberals to then kill the justices, who would undoubtedly be on higher security alert after the leak. (The man accused of planning to attack Kavanaugh was readily apprehended.) That theory, however, would require Alito to grapple with the substance of what his opinion actually did — strip away a popular right — rather than when people learned about it.

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-whit...t-samuel-alito-roe-v-wade-interview-rcna82210
FuSVCPhaUAITv7b.png


FuX7uE_WwAA_KIW.jpg

Click to expand...

They serve at the peoples pleasure
 
Nordberg said:
It was not mentioned, therefore not prohibited.
It is not the Supreme's crappy decisions, but their blatant lack of ethics that are damaging the court. Some of them are canoodling with people who are likely to bring cases. Some already have. Thy cannot provide honest paperwork either. Thomas is taking bribes.
Click to expand...
It is a State's issue not a Federal issue.
 
signalmankenneth said:
The GOP-majority Supreme Court wreaked havoc on abortion access by overturning Roe v. Wade last June. But if you read The Wall Street Journal's recent interview with Samuel Alito, author of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that overturned Roe, you might believe the justice sees himself and fellow Republicans as the true victims of their successful quest to eliminate the constitutional right to abortion.

Instead of discussing the unpopular Dobbs ruling itself, Alito focused on the leaked draft of his opinion, which he said made him and other Republican appointees "targets of assassination." While most people can agree that assassinating judges is bad (a person was arrested for allegedly attempting to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh after the leak), focusing on the leak instead of the damage his opinion has brought and will bring lets Alito continue to play the victim while wielding power over his purported tormentors.

As for the leak itself, Alito, ensconced within the safe confines of the Journal’s opinion pages, asserted in the interview published Friday that he has a “pretty good idea” who did it. While he admitted it’s not enough proof to name the perpetrator — who prematurely provided what was about to become public knowledge — Alito expressed certainty that the leaker couldn't have been a conservative, but rather had to be someone who intended to change the opinion before it came out.

Yet, even if it was a liberal, the leaker may simply have wanted the country to know that this messed up thing was happening, regardless of whether they intended to set in motion some plot for a hit squad of other liberals to then kill the justices, who would undoubtedly be on higher security alert after the leak. (The man accused of planning to attack Kavanaugh was readily apprehended.) That theory, however, would require Alito to grapple with the substance of what his opinion actually did — strip away a popular right — rather than when people learned about it.

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-whit...t-samuel-alito-roe-v-wade-interview-rcna82210
Click to expand...


MSNBC?????

tenor.gif
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Exactly but the idiot author of this article did say it was a constitutional right meaning he has no idea what he’s talking about
Click to expand...

Jordan Rubin was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan. We know what dumb leftist hacks they are.
 
martin said:
One definition of a debate "idiot" might be a member who fails to comprehend what is meant by "eliminate the constitutional right to abortion".
Click to expand...

You don't need to tell us. We know you're a debate idiot. Apparently, you don't know what "eliminate the constitutional right to abortion" means. Let me repeat; there is no "right" to abortion named in the Constitution halfwit. Read it.

Just as there is no separation clause. Another moronic leftist interpretation by a liberal that should never have been put on the court. :palm:
 
martin said:
For what benefit it may be to you low IQ ignoramuses:

The Bill of Rights is silent on many of the individual rights it established. To take one of your favorites, the Second Amendment grants the right "to bear arms". Machine guns are a type of "arms", so are atomic bombs. Neither may be lawfully possessed as even you know and accept. Likewise, The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment says nothing about "a right to privacy" but the Court long ago found that this right exists under the Due Process Clause. In 1973, in the case of Roe v. Wade, the Court found a woman's right to an abortion existed as a Constitutional right under her Constitutional right to privacy. From that moment on, until Dobbs, a Constitutional right to an abortion existed under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Some day the right is sure to exist again.
Click to expand...

Wrong again shit-for-brains. The Constitution does not bestow rights on anyone. They are PRESUMED and given to us from God. The Constitution is a document that LIMITS Government and it's abiolity to trample our rights that are presumed.

The second amendment did not grant the right to keep and bear arms. It clearly states that it was already presumed and limits Government from infringing that right.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The right to privacy is not about rights, but about preventing the Government from intruding on that right. The DOBBs decision was terribly flawed much like the "separation" argument and rightly pushed back to the states.

Therefore, inventing rights from the bench is wrong and those who do it are partisan hacks. There is no separation clause either halfwit.
 
martin said:
Another declaration minus argument from dumbo, well, plus the inevitable personal insult. Dumbo shows every day that debate arguments are beyond him. In my case, he's also is a daily pest. My first post in this exchange was at 5:54. The pest pounced at 6:00.

Having pointed out that the Constitution contains many rights that only the Court has enumerated, such as the right to privacy, dumbo responds with slurs and a single declaration: that abortion is not an enumerated right.
Click to expand...

Irony and projection from a dumbass who doesn't know what he's emoting about. The Constitution does not contain any rights. It does not bestow rights on it's citizens. It is a document that limits Governments ability to trample those rights that are inferred, and God given.

You're the perfect example of how badly our leftist educational establishment is failing its citizens. :palm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top