SCOTUS

[kramerica.inc]

Here in MD at Wegmans, milk went up from $2.89/Gallon last week to $4.89.
Time for the kids to stop drinking milk/eating cereal.

[ggait]

FYI, the leaks keep coming out of SCOTUS.

While the focus has been on the leaked draft, by my count that is only one of four leaks coming out of the court on Roe. Extremely likely that leaks have come from both sides.

By JOSH GERSTEIN, ALEXANDER WARD and RYAN LIZZA

05/11/2022 04:31 AM EDT

The Supreme Court is set to gather Thursday for the first time since the disclosure that it voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, and there’s no sign that the court is changing course from issuing that ruling by the end of June.

Justice Samuel Alito’s sweeping and blunt draft majority opinion from February overturning Roe remains the court’s only circulated draft in the pending Mississippi abortion case, POLITICO has learned, and none of the conservative justices who initially sided with Alito have to date switched their votes. No dissenting draft opinions have circulated from any justice, including the three liberals.

[cradleandshoot]

Cradle, you need to get yourself into a food store. $5 won’t get you two gallons of curdled milk.

My wife and I shop together every week at Wegmans. A gallon of fat free milk at our Wegmans is 2.47 cents. My math puts that just under 5 dollars. I don't know where you buy your milk but your getting ripped off. Don't doubt me in this SC.. I go shopping with my wife every damn week. I've done it for years. I know how to shop cheap. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty freaky good at it. My wife and I average now about 120 dollars a week. If you think I'm blowing smoke up your ass.. go check Wegmans web site. My wife and I buy 2 gallons of fat free milk every damn week. It actually only cost a 1.99 a gallon about 6 months ago. When was the last time you actually shopped at you local Piggly Wiggly?

Well Cradle, I've been divorced since 2013 so if I didn't food shop I'd starve. Food Lions and Harris Teeters for me. I'd have to drive into the back woods to find a Piggly Wiggly. It must have something to do with you having more dairy farms in upstate NY than there are in eastern NC. Milk down here is a lot more than what you pay. On the positive side there are lots of pig farms so ribs and boston butts are cheap!

I don't know why but with the exception of bacon pork products are pretty cheap even up North. My wife and I also still price shop. ALDIs and Price Rite are 2 very popular stores. Both stores have the same thing in common.. be educated before you buy. Hell even Wal Mart saves us alot of money on some stuff. I'm becoming more disappointed with Danny Wegman and his stores everyday. Less popular or common brands are being replaced by Wegmans brands. I always was a fan of Chock ful of Nuts Coffee.

[cradleandshoot]

Here in MD at Wegmans, milk went up from $2.89/Gallon last week to $4.89.
Time for the kids to stop drinking milk/eating cereal.

Are the dairy farmers reaping the benefits of that increase?? My guess is that price controls from the federal government are still not paying them jack chit.

[PizzaSnake]

Abortion not part of the American tradition? Seems Alito must have been home-schooled, and poorly at that.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... ecipe.html

Ben Franklin’s abortion recipe…

[Peter Brown]

Here in MD at Wegmans, milk went up from $2.89/Gallon last week to $4.89.
Time for the kids to stop drinking milk/eating cereal.

Are the dairy farmers reaping the benefits of that increase?? My guess is that price controls from the federal government are still not paying them jack chit.

6DD3785B-0BB9-42A3-9EC5-529C01812BEB.jpeg (119.33 KiB) Viewed 1027 times

8EB2EFA8-B107-42AB-90EC-2D759E2E80DA.jpeg (92.57 KiB) Viewed 1027 times

No sane person objects to this boss move.

[MDlaxfan76]

Here in MD at Wegmans, milk went up from $2.89/Gallon last week to $4.89.
Time for the kids to stop drinking milk/eating cereal.

yikes, I'd double check that...online (Hunt Valley) it's $2.79 for the fat free gallon, $3.39 for 2%, $3.59 for whole milk. Maybe you were looking at the organic by mistake.

https://shop.wegmans.com/shop/categories/231

[jhu72]

Here in MD at Wegmans, milk went up from $2.89/Gallon last week to $4.89.
Time for the kids to stop drinking milk/eating cereal.

Are the dairy farmers reaping the benefits of that increase?? My guess is that price controls from the federal government are still not paying them jack chit.

6DD3785B-0BB9-42A3-9EC5-529C01812BEB.jpeg


8EB2EFA8-B107-42AB-90EC-2D759E2E80DA.jpeg


No sane person objects to this boss move.

.... second degree misdemeanor What a tough guy.

[NattyBohChamps04]

What cut-rate authoritarian doesn't like taking away the rights and free speech of peaceful, lawful protestors?

Harassment is a different story obviously. But of course we didn't hear a peep about the decades of harassment outside doctors' homes, or a "Freedom Convoy" clogging the road and using loud horns and bullhorns outside of a lawmaker's home over an abortion rights bill just three weeks ago.

[SCLaxAttack]

Here in MD at Wegmans, milk went up from $2.89/Gallon last week to $4.89.
Time for the kids to stop drinking milk/eating cereal.

Are the dairy farmers reaping the benefits of that increase?? My guess is that price controls from the federal government are still not paying them jack chit.

6DD3785B-0BB9-42A3-9EC5-529C01812BEB.jpeg


8EB2EFA8-B107-42AB-90EC-2D759E2E80DA.jpeg


No sane person objects to this boss move.

The only part our troll got right is that DeSantis wants to be a boss.

[RedFromMI]

What cut-rate authoritarian doesn't like taking away the rights and free speech of peaceful, lawful protestors?

Harassment is a different story obviously. But of course we didn't hear a peep about the decades of harassment outside doctors' homes, or a "Freedom Convoy" clogging the road and using loud horns and bullhorns outside of a lawmaker's home over an abortion rights bill just three weeks ago.

And sticking the state budget with the attorney's fees to defend a law that almost certainly violates the first amendment. But full speed ahead with something designed solely to anger the base and get them out to vote given that the other side should be pretty riled over the Roe decision by election time...

[Seacoaster(1)]

What cut-rate authoritarian doesn't like taking away the rights and free speech of peaceful, lawful protestors?

Harassment is a different story obviously. But of course we didn't hear a peep about the decades of harassment outside doctors' homes, or a "Freedom Convoy" clogging the road and using loud horns and bullhorns outside of a lawmaker's home over an abortion rights bill just three weeks ago.

And sticking the state budget with the attorney's fees to defend a law that almost certainly violates the first amendment. But full speed ahead with something designed solely to anger the base and get them out to vote given that the other side should be pretty riled over the Roe decision by election time...

Primer:

https://reason.com/volokh/2020/08/15/pr ... amendment/

[ggait]

No sane person objects to this boss move.

Chief Justice Rhenquist does. And so does RBG. See Madsen (1994).

Which says, subject to certain reasonable limits, it is unconstitutional to ban pro-lifers from protesting outside (i) an abortion clinic and (ii) the residences of the clinic employees.

Nice twist -- the clinic and the residences in question were located in Melbourne FLORIDA!

Is troll boy ignorant of his own state's history? Or is he just a troll being a troll?

[CU88]

Stephen Colbert,

“They knew that if they were honest (about Roe) they wouldn’t get the job.

So they lied, which I think is perjury.

But what do I know? I’m no Supreme Court Justice.

I’m not a good enough liar.”

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/wh ... 16db853776

How do you determine if the defense counsel was "ineffective" ?? The fact the defense lost the case was because the defendant was proven guilty because of the evidence. How is the defense counsel, in the real world, chase down everything the suspect tells him?? I guessing the defense counsel doesn't have a bunch of PIs at their disposal. The fact the defendant was convicted does not correlate directly to his/her defense being ineffective.

[jhu72]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/wh ... 16db853776

How do you determine if the defense counsel was "ineffective" ?? The fact the defense lost the case was because the defendant was proven guilty because of the evidence. How is the defense counsel, in the real world, chase down everything the suspect tells him?? I guessing the defense counsel doesn't have a bunch of PIs at their disposal. The fact the defendant was convicted does not correlate directly to his/her defense being ineffective.

... other defense lawyers and jurists can look at the handling of the case (the court record) and find that there were tactics and strategies that should have been used - that any competent defense lawyer should have been aware of.

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/wh ... 16db853776

How do you determine if the defense counsel was "ineffective" ?? The fact the defense lost the case was because the defendant was proven guilty because of the evidence. How is the defense counsel, in the real world, chase down everything the suspect tells him?? I guessing the defense counsel doesn't have a bunch of PIs at their disposal. The fact the defendant was convicted does not correlate directly to his/her defense being ineffective.

... other defense lawyers and jurists can look at the handling of the case (the court record) and find that there were tactics and strategies that should have been used - that any competent defense lawyer should have been aware of.

So then it turns into Monday morning quarterbacking. A new improved version of the woulda, coulda, shoulda game. How is it known the defense lawyer is not comptetent? If you passed the bar exam that says you are competent.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Opinion by the Times's long time Court correspondent:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/24/opin ... court.html

"Now that the Oklahoma State Legislature has voted to ban abortion from the moment of conception, I have a few questions for Justice Samuel Alito and any others who would join him in overturning Roe v. Wade:

What is your reaction to the news from Oklahoma? The State Legislature gave final approval last Thursday to a bill that would prohibit nearly all abortions, starting at fertilization. It now awaits the signature of the governor, who has pledged to make Oklahoma “the most pro-life state in the country.”

Does it thrill you to see the project of your judicial lifetime about to come to fruition?

Or does it trouble you, even just a bit, to see what your judicial activism has unleashed?

I suppose we’ll be able to infer the answers to my questions once Justice Alito’s leaked draft opinion in the Mississippi abortion case is tidied up and properly released. The opinion will, no doubt, contain some language about abortion restrictions requiring at least a rational basis. While such language might appear to offer an opening to attack an irrational law like Oklahoma’s, remember that the court refused to meaningfully intervene when it came to the only slightly less categorical “heartbeat” law in Texas that is driving women to flee the state in search of reproductive health care.

And that’s the future that Oklahoma shows us — no longer an abstraction but an actual fact, on the ground of 21st-century America. Sure, the Oklahoma law provides exceptions for abortions needed to save a pregnant woman’s life or to terminate pregnancies resulting from rape or incest if the crimes were previously reported to the police; good luck to the 13-year-old raped by a male relative.

If Justice Alito and his allies care to look, they will see a future in which American women, traveling to states where abortions are still readily available, are pursued by vigilantes seeking bounties.

Justice Alito likes to invoke history — although many of the historical references in his draft opinion were misleading or downright bizarre. Has he ever heard, for instance, of the Fugitive Slave Act?

In 13 states, post-Roe anti-abortion laws will spring to life when the 1973 decision is overturned or soon after, and states are, like Oklahoma, passing new laws designed to take advantage of the opening the court is likely about to provide. Does Justice Alito know who said, “I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free”? It was Abraham Lincoln, in his “House Divided” speech of 1858.

I hope my law school friends and colleagues will forgive me, but I am tired of talking about the right to abortion in terms of constitutional doctrine. I have spent years, as they have, in urgent conversation about due process and undue burdens, extrapolating from the opacities of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that against all odds reaffirmed the essence of Roe v. Wade, thanks to three Republican-appointed justices who were supposed to do the opposite.

It hasn’t worked. The current Supreme Court majority will do what it will do, which is to say what it was put there to do. There is no burden from an undesired pregnancy that is undue, or at least one that can’t be alleviated by putting the baby in a basket and leaving it somewhere safe, as Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested during the oral argument in December — an idea that Justice Alito incorporated in his draft opinion.

Would the right to abortion have been on firmer footing had it been based on the Constitution’s explicit guarantee of equal protection, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously argued, rather than the implicit right to privacy? Who cares? After all, as Maureen Dowd reminds us, the doctrine to which the justices in the court’s conservative majority, all of whom were raised Catholic, is responsive may not be the framers’ but the bishops’. And what about the doctrine of stare decisis, which calls on judges to stand by precedents? Justice Clarence Thomas, speaking this month at a judicial conference in Atlanta, let us know what to think about that. “We use stare decisis as a mantra when we don’t want to think,” he said.

Whether out of habit or simple nostalgia for a time when the Constitution mattered to the court, I will end this essay with a constitutional proposition, one fit for a future in which women experience reproductive freedom in roughly half of these United States. Since nothing else seems to be working, I’ll swing for the fences. The 13th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, prohibits both slavery and “involuntary servitude.” What is forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term if not involuntary servitude?

I claim no credit for this idea. Feminists invoked the 13th Amendment in a brief to the court during Roe v. Wade. And Andrew Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern University, has been making the 13th Amendment argument as an originalist matter for years, drawing in part on the long history of enslaved women’s involuntary childbearing. Irin Carmon’s graphic description in New York magazine of the burdens of pregnancy, aimed at the Alito draft opinion’s obliviousness to women’s interests, has been making the rounds in feminist circles. While her essay, “I, Too, Have a Human Form,” does not make an explicit 13th Amendment argument, it could serve as Exhibit A in such a case.

Anyone who offers a serious 13th Amendment argument risks being dismissed as a chaser of “fool’s gold,” as Professor Jamal Greene of Columbia Law School put it in a 2012 journal article, “Thirteenth Amendment Optimism.” So, yes, it’s a fantasy. But maybe the moment has come for fantasy, the reality of a modern nation without legal abortion having failed to move the current majority.

The message of the Alito draft is that the age of constitutional argument is over. There’s a case to be made that it died a long time ago, but in any event, here is my final question to the justices: What, other than raw power, will take its place?"

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/wh ... 16db853776

How do you determine if the defense counsel was "ineffective" ?? The fact the defense lost the case was because the defendant was proven guilty because of the evidence. How is the defense counsel, in the real world, chase down everything the suspect tells him?? I guessing the defense counsel doesn't have a bunch of PIs at their disposal. The fact the defendant was convicted does not correlate directly to his/her defense being ineffective.

... other defense lawyers and jurists can look at the handling of the case (the court record) and find that there were tactics and strategies that should have been used - that any competent defense lawyer should have been aware of.

So then it turns into Monday morning quarterbacking. A new improved version of the woulda, coulda, shoulda game. How is it known the defense lawyer is not comptetent? If you passed the bar exam that says you are competent.

No it doesn't.
It simply means that at that point in time that the lawyer knew enough of that jurisdiction's laws as to be licensed.

It is not a guarantee of competency, then or at any point in the future.

[dislaxxic]

5 Supreme Court decisions from this term that are terrifyingly radical — and not about abortion

Ohio v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration "COVID 19 vaxx/testing mandates struck down for some private businesses"

Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services "Eviction moratorium overturned"

Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate "Politicians can pay back their own loans from campaign funds"

United States v. Vaello-Madero "Puerto Rican natinals out of luck on SSI benefits"

Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez "...no constitutional right to bring new evidence to court indicating that they were not provided with ample counsel"

..