Supposedly the Supreme Court will over turn roe v wade

[SonOfSun]

Actual decision was leaked a few hours before actual release. In this case a draft opinion which may or may not reflect actual outcome was released to put pressure on SCOTUS justices to change their opinion. Neither is appropriate but it's really apples and oranges comparison.

Hours or weeks is relatively unimportant. Ultimately the most important part is the breakdown in the confidence that discussions in the SC are confidential and that's is largely the same - timing doesn't matter there. Before is before and confidentiality was breached. It's like a cheating spouse, not much of a difference if they did it hours ago or weeks ago - the trust is still broken.

Edit: added quote, for some reason it wasn't there.

 

[cgrutt]

Yet timing does in fact matter if it affects outcome. On the one hand it had no impact as final decision had been made. On the other, we'll never know if it affected outcome or not.

 

[tirwin1]

Hours or weeks is relatively unimportant. Ultimately the most important part is the breakdown in the confidence that discussions in the SC are confidential and that's is largely the same - timing doesn't matter there. Before is before and confidentiality was breached. It's like a cheating spouse, not much of a difference if they did it hours ago or weeks ago - the trust is still broken.

Edit: added quote, for some reason it wasn't there.

You are definitely missing the point. The release of a final decision a couple of hours early is nowhere near the same as the release of a draft months ahead of schedule with the intent to influence the final vote. This is apples and oranges.

 

[SonOfSun]

Yet timing does in fact matter if it affects outcome. On the one hand it had no impact as final decision had been made. On the other, we'll never know if it affected outcome or not.

I see your angle on it, but that's a big if. I'd believe that the justices aren't swayed by the public at large. They can't really be fired and they don't have to answer to anyone. There is no recourse for them interpreting the law as they interpret it with their legal expertise. People can dislike (or like) how they interpret law, but what can anyone do about it?

Hell, I have less protection than they do for my opinions (job firing, etc) and I wouldn't change my opinion for anyone. I'm wagering you don't bend your opinions either just because some people are crying about it on TV. If I was a justice I'd give less than a shit about if people agreed or not. If I honestly felt the law was interpreted a certain way I'd vote that way and there would be no convincing me otherwise.

 

[Toecutter]

 

[cgrutt]

If outcome is materially different than the draft that has now been released, perception will be that this leak swayed the opinion of court. It doesn't actually matter if their decision had already been changed or if public pressure caused the change, there will be a massive loss of confidence in the objectivity of the justices hence forth. Ironically, if outcome is materially unchanged from the released draft, we'll never actually know if justices had actually changed their opinion but were forced to reverse course in order to mitigate loss of confidence in the court. Wouldn't that be a kick in the ass, lol...

 

[SonOfSun]

I'd agree it definitely adds some unanswerable questions like the ones you mentioned to the mix. Any way you cut it that isn't a good thing.

 

[GOPerfect]

The story of the first "leak"...

There is a decent amount to the story. Not just a leak like today, by an over zealous clerk.

The timing of the original decision and when it was supposed to hit the headlines; there was a small bit of communication error. It was not done in a malicious way like yesterdays leak.

 

[GOYABEAN]

 

[GOYABEAN]

 

[GOYABEAN]

 

[GOYABEAN]

 

[GOYABEAN]

 

[spat]

I see your angle on it, but that's a big if. I'd believe that the justices aren't swayed by the public at large. They can't really be fired and they don't have to answer to anyone. There is no recourse for them interpreting the law as they interpret it with their legal expertise. People can dislike (or like) how they interpret law, but what can anyone do about it?

Hell, I have less protection than they do for my opinions (job firing, etc) and I wouldn't change my opinion for anyone. I'm wagering you don't bend your opinions either just because some people are crying about it on TV. If I was a justice I'd give less than a shit about if people agreed or not. If I honestly felt the law was interpreted a certain way I'd vote that way and there would be no convincing me otherwise.

If the draft isn't final, and they were expecting to change it before release, that is a major difference from a final copy showing up early.

It's easy to release an existing document without altering it.

But if the document was going to be altered anyway, not letting this shit show affect the changes that were going to be made is a lot more difficult.


Also, while the justices might not be afraid of losing their jobs, having mobs of potentially violent protestors follow them home at night is certainly not nothing.

 

[Darth]

View attachment 157593

The issue has nothing to do with "life."

 

[Arjuna]

 

[Grimscale]

having mobs of potentially violent protestors follow them home at night is certainly not nothing.

Too bad only the Left uses mobs of potentially violent protesters.
The right could take a page from that book.

 

[spat]

View attachment 157593

It's a felony to disturb the eggs of certain endangered birds or reptiles. I guess hatching is not the same as birth ?

The one I can't figure out are the states where it's murder if you intentionally cause a woman to miscarry, but not if she says it's OK.

So, it's not even birth that makes the baby a baby in those states, it's a baby once the mother decides it is ?

 

[Defilade]

Bring on the looney tunes!

 

[nonconformist]

It's a felony to disturb the eggs of certain endangered birds or reptiles. I guess hatching is not the same as birth ?

The one I can't figure out are the states where it's murder if you intentionally cause a woman to miscarry, but not if she says it's OK.

So, it's not even birth that makes the baby a baby in those states, it's a baby once the mother decides it is ?

Yea, low key I've always looked at its as "Schrodinger's Personhood."

 

[Steal2B]

If this opinion was drafted months ago, why do an obviously coordinated leak at this point of time so far before the end of June SCOTUS session, and so far before the mid terms?

What is going on that a swamp puppet master would play their wild trump card now?

 

[BerettaGuy]

During the election season, the NY Times and Gaslighting Media refused to acknowledge the Biden laptop because it was "leaked".
On April 1st, 2022 they finally acknowledged the story with a whimper.
Then a new leak happens and before you can say lickity split! They publish the leak.
I guess they didn't want to appear hypocritical and violate their own policy of acknowledging leaks.
NO! They did not know it was coming 5 weeks ago.
Stop it!
Your tinfoil hat is on too tight!

 

[livingston]

“Life begins at conception.” ~ Joe Biden, 2012​

 

[livingston]

In Supreme Court shadow, Biden urges voters to protect abortion rights​

WASHINGTON, May 3 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden on Tuesday appealed to voters to protect abortion rights by backing candidates who support them in November's elections after a leaked Supreme Court draft showed it could soon overturn its 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

In Supreme Court shadow, Biden urges voters to protect abortion rights

U.S. President Joe Biden on Tuesday appealed to voters to protect abortion rights by backing candidates who support them in November's elections after a leaked Supreme Court draft showed it could soon overturn its 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

www.reuters.com

The only thing Dems have to get a large turnout in November

 

[pjzwtl]

The issue has nothing to do with "life."

It certainly does if we’re talking about constitutional rights.

 

[Darth]

It certainly does if we’re talking about constitutional rights.

Does life have constitutional rights?

 

[cgrutt]

In Supreme Court shadow, Biden urges voters to protect abortion rights​

WASHINGTON, May 3 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden on Tuesday appealed to voters to protect abortion rights by backing candidates who support them in November's elections after a leaked Supreme Court draft showed it could soon overturn its 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

In Supreme Court shadow, Biden urges voters to protect abortion rights

U.S. President Joe Biden on Tuesday appealed to voters to protect abortion rights by backing candidates who support them in November's elections after a leaked Supreme Court draft showed it could soon overturn its 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

www.reuters.com

The only thing Dems have to get a large turnout in November

Harris quoted in article...

"The rights of all Americans are at risk," she said. "If the right to privacy is weakened, every person could face a future in which the government can potentially interfere in the personal decisions you make about your life. This is the time to fight for women and for our country with everything we have."

Gee for a minute there I thought she was talking about vax mandates and covid lockdowns. No .gov interference there... she's too dumb to take notice of the hypocrisy in her drivel.

 

[pjzwtl]

Does life have constitutional rights?

I would say human life is a requirement to have them. The argument really is in when life begins and I’m sure it will always be an argument.

 

[DoOver]

I would say human life is a requirement to have them. The argument really is in when life begins and I’m sure it will always be an argument.

Or not...

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you..."

 

[Saltwater60]

Fun y how NYS and many other protect wild animals life greater than human life.