SCOTUS

[AOD]

What Justice Alito has said in the leaked decision by some SCUMBAG FLP.. :

Are you sure about this?

[cradleandshoot]

FYI, abortion would not be reserved to the states.

Congress could enact a national law banning or protecting abortions.

States can act, but feds could act too.

That is not what Justice Rehnquist stated in his original dissent in 1973. I'm not a legal eagle like yourself but he was. He was directly referring to the 14th amendment.

"There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter"

Again counselor, these are Justice Rehnquists legal opinions, not mine. It is apparent, given the LEAKED documents, that no one gives a rats ass about, that Justice Alito tends to agree with the late Justice Rehnquist.

[cradleandshoot]

What Justice Alito has said in the leaked decision by some SCUMBAG FLP.. :

Are you sure about this?

I'm sure somebody leaked it, which is unprecedented in the history of the SCOTUS until today. The question would be valid to say... WHY???

[jhu72]

There are reasons on both sides of the isle to release the document. Hell, Alito could have done it himself, trying to make sure that none of the 5 goes soft.

[Peter Brown]

https://college.cengage.com/polisci/edu ... ssent.html

Justice Rehnquist was correct in his dissent 50 years ago. In his opinion there was NO constitutional right to an abortion. What Justice Alito has said in the leaked decision by some SCUMBAG FLP.. is that abortion rights are state rights. The same effing thing Justice Rehnquist said in his dissent 50 years ago. Right on cue the FLP hatemongers have stepped forward to spew their venom. Here in NYS you folks don't have to worry. The right to an abortion has been guaranteed as should have been done in the first place... IT IS A STATE RIGHT!!!! Let the states and the people of the states decide

"There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter"

The cognoscenti are pointing at one of Sotomajor’s lunatic clerk FLP’ers as the culprit. He’s been a vocal (aren’t they all?) leftist screaming about Kavanaugh, even though that was bunk, and he’s known the author of the piece and has collaborated with the author in the past. Further, as anyone knows, Sotomajor doesn’t get along with any other judge and nor is she particularly keen on tradition.

Anyway…

Abortion is such a revealing topic on the mind of a FLP. (And you need to assume of course that this is a majority opinion which won’t change until any decision is made public: neither assumptions are gimme’s).

Their reactions have been characteristically hysterical and overly emotional…same as it ever was.

Abortion will still be legal in every state where they dominate, and illegal only in states they don’t. Meanwhile, libs are positively ecstatic that a clerk violated protocol, because of course recall this is the ‘party of norms’, much like it’s the ‘party of science’ as they can’t define woman…except in this case.

What you’ll never hear any FLP lament is either the life of the aborted baby (as if…) nor the emotional trauma most women feel for being responsible taking another humans life. Imagine never acknowledging those two facts. Completely devoid of humanity…

[jhu72]

.

[ggait]

CS.

Rehnquist would agree that the feds can legislate in this area too. 100%.

States in his view have jurisdiction. He didn’t say they had exclusive jurisdiction.

That is the typical rule.

[Peter Brown]

What Justice Alito has said in the leaked decision by some SCUMBAG FLP.. :

Are you sure about this?

I'm sure somebody leaked it, which is unprecedented in the history of the SCOTUS until today. The question would be valid to say... WHY???

We all know why. And we all know who.

[jhu72]

https://college.cengage.com/polisci/edu ... ssent.html

Justice Rehnquist was correct in his dissent 50 years ago. In his opinion there was NO constitutional right to an abortion. What Justice Alito has said in the leaked decision by some SCUMBAG FLP.. is that abortion rights are state rights. The same effing thing Justice Rehnquist said in his dissent 50 years ago. Right on cue the FLP hatemongers have stepped forward to spew their venom. Here in NYS you folks don't have to worry. The right to an abortion has been guaranteed as should have been done in the first place... IT IS A STATE RIGHT!!!! Let the states and the people of the states decide

"There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter"

The cognoscenti are pointing at one of Sotomajor’s lunatic clerk FLP’ers as the culprit. He’s been a vocal (aren’t they all?) leftist screaming about Kavanaugh, even though that was bunk, and he’s known the author of the piece and has collaborated with the author in the past. Further, as anyone knows, Sotomajor doesn’t get along with any other judge and nor is she particularly keen on tradition.

Anyway…

Abortion is such a revealing topic on the mind of a FLP. (And you need to assume of course that this is a majority opinion which won’t change until any decision is made public: neither sumo Tim are gimme’s).

Their reactions have been characteristically hysterical and overly emotional…same as it ever was.

Abortion will still be legal in every state where they dominate, and illegal only in states they don’t. Meanwhile, libs are positively ecstatic that a clerk violated protocol, because of course recall this is the ‘party of norms’, much like it’s the ‘party of science’ as they can’t define woman…except in this case.

What you’ll never hear any FLP lament is either the life of the aborted baby (as if…) nor the emotional trauma most women feel for being responsible taking another humans life. Imagine never acknowledging those two facts. Completely devoid of humanity…

... more KellyAnne bullsh*t; a person who would standby while her party marches gays into the ovens. Of course the anti-life republiCONs' have no desire to ban abortion in all states. Sure sounds reasonable to any dumbass.

[Peter Brown]

https://college.cengage.com/polisci/edu ... ssent.html

Justice Rehnquist was correct in his dissent 50 years ago. In his opinion there was NO constitutional right to an abortion. What Justice Alito has said in the leaked decision by some SCUMBAG FLP.. is that abortion rights are state rights. The same effing thing Justice Rehnquist said in his dissent 50 years ago. Right on cue the FLP hatemongers have stepped forward to spew their venom. Here in NYS you folks don't have to worry. The right to an abortion has been guaranteed as should have been done in the first place... IT IS A STATE RIGHT!!!! Let the states and the people of the states decide

"There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter"

The cognoscenti are pointing at one of Sotomajor’s lunatic clerk FLP’ers as the culprit. He’s been a vocal (aren’t they all?) leftist screaming about Kavanaugh, even though that was bunk, and he’s known the author of the piece and has collaborated with the author in the past. Further, as anyone knows, Sotomajor doesn’t get along with any other judge and nor is she particularly keen on tradition.

Anyway…

Abortion is such a revealing topic on the mind of a FLP. (And you need to assume of course that this is a majority opinion which won’t change until any decision is made public: neither sumo Tim are gimme’s).

Their reactions have been characteristically hysterical and overly emotional…same as it ever was.

Abortion will still be legal in every state where they dominate, and illegal only in states they don’t. Meanwhile, libs are positively ecstatic that a clerk violated protocol, because of course recall this is the ‘party of norms’, much like it’s the ‘party of science’ as they can’t define woman…except in this case.

What you’ll never hear any FLP lament is either the life of the aborted baby (as if…) nor the emotional trauma most women feel for being responsible taking another humans life. Imagine never acknowledging those two facts. Completely devoid of humanity…

... more KellyAnne bullsh*t; a person who would standby while her party marches gays into the ovens. Of course the anti-life republiCONs' have no desire to ban abortion in all states. Sure sounds reasonable to any dumbass.

‘Marching gays into the ovens’.

That sounds balanced.

The more bizarre thing is watching Democrats idly stand by twirling their thumbs, while you say what you say, which in effect becomes their own opinions if they don’t raise a dissent.

Revealing day yet again! November 8 shall be positively amazing.

[Seacoaster(1)]

More on the Publicly-Employed Praying-Performance Coach Case:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/02/podc ... court.html

A complicated legal case has been reduced to a provocative headline: “Can a public high school coach pray publicly?”

The takes were just as hot in reply. “Jesus said to pray in a ‘closet,’ not on the 50-yard line,” read an op-ed in The Los Angeles Times, while The Atlantic implored: “Let Coach Kennedy Pray.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District will likely be another firebomb fanning the culture-war flames. In a series of decisions on public funding for religious schools, same-sex foster parenting and public health exemptions during the pandemic, the court has moved “in the direction of a larger role for religion in public life,” Adam Liptak, our legal correspondent, said on Wednesday’s show.

But what are the long-term implications of this shift? And how is a “lopsided, supercharged six-justice conservative majority,” as Adam described the current court, expanding the cultural and legal power of the religious right?

What is at stake in this ruling?

The case in question asks whether the law permits Joseph Kennedy, a high school football coach in Bremerton, Wash., to pray on the field after football games. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed to be searching on Monday for a narrow way to rule in favor of the coach.

Narrowly, this case is about the rights of government workers (in this case, a public school coach) to free speech and the free exercise of their faith. But it’s also a case that will have spillover effects for other legal questions, including: When is a government official acting as a state representative, and when are they acting as an individual? What constitutes religious coercion? And just how separated should church and state really be?

“The court is moving in the direction of encouraging religion to enter the public square and to infuse government. And there never has been a period since the 19th century when the court was that willing to just let the wall of separation between church and state down,” Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard, said.

Who could come out ahead

The recent run of victories for claims of religious freedom in the Supreme Court have mostly involved Christian groups. That is a change from an earlier era, a recent study found, when the court’s rulings tended to protect minority religions and dissenting Christian denominations. (And the court’s track record in cases involving Muslim plaintiffs is decidedly mixed, most notably because it rejected a challenge to former President Donald J. Trump’s ban on travel from several predominantly Muslim countries.)

“While other [religious groups] may be collateral beneficiaries, the Christians are the primary beneficiaries and that allows them to essentially dictate the terms of their engagement with culture,” Robert Tuttle, a professor of law and religion at George Washington University, said.

What could the long-term implications be?

Experts say a conservative majority on the court has emboldened conservative legislators and activists on the religious right to be more strident on multiple issues, including abortion, gun rights, affirmative action and voting rights. As Stuart Stevens, a longtime Republican strategist and Trump critic, told The Morning, “Many in the party see that they no longer need to pretend and they can go back to voicing what they really believe.”

While conservatives are celebrating their majority on the court, some experts question whether this string of rulings will actually be a long-term victory for religious freedom.

“I think initially, the court’s direction will be seen by the religious right as a validation of its central place in American politics. But in the long run, I think religious people generally may come to regret what happens when they become so intertwined with the political ascendancy of the right,” Mr. Tribe said. “Religious and political or governmental institutions should stay as far apart as possible if the society is not to tear itself apart.

“Because the winds of politics don’t follow any particular theology or scripture,” he said. “You know, if you ride the back of the tiger, you may end up inside.”

[cradleandshoot]

CS.

Rehnquist would agree that the feds can legislate in this area too. 100%.

States in his view have jurisdiction. He didn’t say they had exclusive jurisdiction.

That is the typical rule.

Thank you for your input ggait. The problem with what Alito is doing shoots the concept of stare decisi all to hell. Some of us may disagree with the original Roe v Wade decision. The case was decided and if we open the can of worms of overturning cases already decided in the SCOTUS.. neither party will like the outcome of that.

[jhu72]

CS.

Rehnquist would agree that the feds can legislate in this area too. 100%.

States in his view have jurisdiction. He didn’t say they had exclusive jurisdiction.

That is the typical rule.

Thank you for your input ggait. The problem with what Alito is doing shoots the concept of stare decisi all to hell. Some of us may disagree with the original Roe v Wade decision. The case was decided and if we open the can of worms of overturning cases already decided in the SCOTUS.. neither party will like the outcome of that.

... yes!

[CU88]

Sen Susan Collins: “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office..”

Sucker born every minute...

[jhu72]

Sen Susan Collins: “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office..”

Sucker born every minute...

little CYA hey.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Sen Susan Collins: “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office..”

Sucker born every minute...

At a certain point, you just have to laugh to survive. She really is a chucklehead.

[jhu72]

As a point of information, this is not the first time something like this has happenend. The court used to use an outside printing office prior to 80s. Leaks would occur occasionally. This caused SCOTUS to bring printing inhouse. Of course this SCOTUS session has been full of leaks, not documents, but talk. The 1973 original Rowe v Wade decision was also leaked prior to scheduled release.

[AOD]

What Justice Alito has said in the leaked decision by some SCUMBAG FLP.. :

Are you sure about this?

I'm sure somebody leaked it, which is unprecedented in the history of the SCOTUS until today. The question would be valid to say... WHY???

Well, yes, of course it was leaked. But you ascribed the leak to some . . . .

So my question is, are you sure that's who leaked it?

[AOD]

Sen Susan Collins: “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office..”

Sucker born every minute...

At a certain point, you just have to laugh to survive. She really is a chucklehead.

That's politics. Frankly, I don't believe she's surprised in the least. She simply says what's needed to be said to give her political cover.

[jhu72]

Sen Susan Collins: “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office..”

Sucker born every minute...

At a certain point, you just have to laugh to survive. She really is a chucklehead.

That's politics. Frankly, I don't believe she's surprised in the least. She simply says what's needed to be said to give her political cover.

+1