SCOTUS, Now with KBJ

[The Sicatoka]

But I'm still not discounting Roberts himself being the leaker.

As CJ SCOTUS his name will be tied to it ... "the Roberts court's ruling ..."

I'd be more surprised if it was someone else.

[The Sicatoka]

... where are the leftists to storm SCOTUS and assault cops and smear their sh*t on the walls?

They only come out after dark. See: Portland, Seattle.

[MissThundercat]

My shock isn't that they're overturning Roe (because they said they were gonna), it's how broad that draft is. Gorsuch and Roberts both voted that the civil rights act protects LGBTQ persons and seem unlikely to overrule Obergefell, so the fact that every major civil rights decision in the last 50 years including those are apparently up for grabs is disconcerting.

At work, I don't go for Physical Management (restraining a resident) unless the situation calls for it.

I'm taking the same approach here. I'm not going to panic yet, but if Lawrence, etc are reversed, I'm ready to get ugly if the situation calls for it.

[Swansong]

They only come out after dark. See: Portland, Seattle.

Really? You choose now to ****post?

[rufus]

If SCOTUS overturns itself on Roe it means the Federal government never had the power to decide this issue. Then, the issue falls under A10, specifically,

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It becomes a State issue, and it's easier to move states than move countries if you don't like the laws.

Call your state representatives* and let them know it's coming if you are ... concerned (<-- that was for you rufus).



*Assuming you even know what state district you're in and who represents you.

The Federal government certainly has the power to decide the issue. All Congress has to do is pass a law.

And go eff yourself.

[Swansong]

I find it curious and horrifying that Alito's rational seems to be a wholly invented test that unenumerated rights need a "deep basis in history" in order to be "rights".

[Kepler]

I find it curious and horrifying that Alito's rational seems to be a wholly invented test that unenumerated rights need a "deep basis in history" in order to be "rights".

This is the dream of the Federalist Society, and of conservatives writ large.




If you are a historically oppressor group, you want things to go back to the way things were before. The conservative mind simply elevates "the way things were before" to its own self-evident virtue.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

I find it curious and horrifying that Alito's rational seems to be a wholly invented test that unenumerated rights need a "deep basis in history" in order to be "rights".

Sets the stage for a clean sweep of court-granted rights since the 1870s that haven't been cemented with a Constitutional amendment. So like I said, Obergefell and Loving are next.

[ScoobyDoo]

Read arguments on both sides and it makes much more sense that this was leaked by conservatives. They have their talking points ready today (it's all about the leak). And, they have much more to gain by releasing it early. NOW, Justices on the conservative side will feel even more pressure. And, if they do "sand off the rough edges" of Alito's opinion they will be able again to run around saying the Democrats were playing chicken little.

This is a win win for their side.

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

Ya know what else isn’t in the constitution?

the number 9.

[WeAreNDHockey]

By then, they won't be able to do anything. Their vote won't matter anymore. Only who the Repubs decide who won the election.

Voting is not fighting fire with fire. The House is not representative of the vote. The Senate is clearly not reprentative of the vote. Many state legislatures are not representative of the vote. Already twice in this century the presidency has not been representative of the vote. If anyone actually thinks voting is what I am talking about they are missing the boat.

[unofan]

If SCOTUS overturns itself on Roe it means the Federal government never had the power to decide this issue.

Somebody stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Congress would still have power to act under Article I.

[dxmnkd316]

I continue to waiver between 'I can't believe it' and 'I'm not that surprised'.

that's where I'm at. I can't square these two feelings but I'm feeling both.

[dxmnkd316]

I find it curious and horrifying that Alito's rational seems to be a wholly invented test that unenumerated rights need a "deep basis in history" in order to be "rights".

yep, and I think Kepler said it even earlier than me

Deeply rooted in history is very thinly veiled threat to all post reconstruction rights. Every single one of them.

[dxmnkd316]

Sets the stage for a clean sweep of court-granted rights since the 1870s that haven't been cemented with a Constitutional amendment. So like I said, Obergefell and Loving are next.

I still don't understand the philosophy behind "court-granted" rights

the whole point is to determine if it was a right to begin with. Correct? And when they decided that the 14th granted that right, that's it. It did.