SCOTUS

[youthathletics]

Regular people all agree on allowing abortion during the first trimester and a few weeks into the second trimester. Which is when 95+% of abortions occur anyway. Which is where most of our developed nation peers are.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CdGYdmDLGcN/

Let me grab some popcorn. This factual post is gonna trigger some folks.

So you and YA are both going to pretend that you're both too dumb to know that that chart doesn't tell the whole story, and is intentionally misleading?

I'm gonna give YA the benefit of the doubt that he'll be willing to learn it was wrong...Petey, well...

You beat me to it. I posted it after I read ggaits post and seeing this on a feed. I did read the comments in the feed and they were all over the place.

[a fan]

Regular people all agree on allowing abortion during the first trimester and a few weeks into the second trimester. Which is when 95+% of abortions occur anyway. Which is where most of our developed nation peers are.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CdGYdmDLGcN/

Let me grab some popcorn. This factual post is gonna trigger some folks.

So you and YA are both going to pretend that you're both too dumb to know that that chart doesn't tell the whole story, and is intentionally misleading?

I'm gonna give YA the benefit of the doubt....

YA gets the benefit of the doubt from me, anytime......

[Seacoaster(1)]

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/how- ... -happened/

[jhu72]

Yeah the thing I’ve noticed anecdotally is that people don’t even check to see fo their pregnant until 3-4 weeks in so 6 weeks is crazy. You basically have to make a spot decision more or less as to what to do. That’s so dumb.

Of course it is. It is really about control over Women’s behavior than a real concern about life.

A hundred and fifty years ago there were no restrictions on a woman creating the conditions for a miscarriage before the ‘quickening’ and not even the Catholic Church objected to this then.

... sh*t before the late 70s not many evangelicals cared or objected. It is not about abortion per se.

I think Florida changed to 15 weeks this past year, at DeSantis' urging...but now he's gonna be under pressure to outlaw entirely...he'll probably try to land on 6 weeks. Which is essentially outlawing. But all these candidates for POTUS are gonna get pushed hard in their primaries...DeSantis will try to delay it until after this election cycle, but I suspect he'll get pushed..

... you are correct, went to 15 weeks 3 weeks ago (effective July 1). This likely will make it even tougher for Ronnie to back track, get aligned with the majority of Floridians. Recent (February) polling in Florida has 57% opposed to abortion ban / RvW repeal, 34% support ban / repeal. Bet these numbers will grow in favor of no repeal over the coming weeks. This is a big problem for republiCONs everywhere this cycle.

Rick Scott started back tracking today.

[old salt]

After 15 wks = partial ban. Kinda like partial birth.

[jhu72]

What will KellyAnne say when it is announced that the SCOTUS leaker is a republiCON??

[Farfromgeneva]

The amount fo false flag stuff utilized by Fox News and this right wing mess of inhumanity is so disgusting.

[Peter Brown]

The amount fo false flag stuff utilized by Fox News and this right wing mess of inhumanity is so disgusting.

Are you aware that the left is organizing massive protests at the homes of the justices on Wednesday?

[Farfromgeneva]

I’m aware of dishonest brokers who waste time and make everyone disgusted with them around here.

[Peter Brown]

I’m aware of dishonest brokers who waste time and make everyone disgusted with them around here.

So that’s a ‘yes but I’m unwilling to criticize the FLP even if they endanger the lives of SCOTUS justices and their families’?

[MDlaxfan76]

Is anyone on here applauding any threats, much less acts, of violence? If so, I haven't heard them.

I DO hear people applauding Justices who lied about what they would do once in their lifetime jobs and had a majority.

[Peter Brown]

Is anyone on here applauding any threats, much less acts, of violence? If so, I haven't heard them.

I DO hear people applauding Justices who lied about what they would do once in their lifetime jobs and had a majority.

I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word ‘lie’. You use it often, incorrectly, and dishonestly.

“As nominees, those justices consistently avoided direct statements about Roe, including whether they'd vote to overturn it. Instead, they often commented on the importance of precedent and constitutional guarantees to privacy.”

Absolutely No one said they’d vote to affirm Roe.

You do a good job, however, of identically imitating Pelosi and Schumer, so congrats?

[MDlaxfan76]

Is anyone on here applauding any threats, much less acts, of violence? If so, I haven't heard them.

I DO hear people applauding Justices who lied about what they would do once in their lifetime jobs and had a majority.

I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word ‘lie’. You use it often, incorrectly, and dishonestly.

“As nominees, those justices consistently avoided direct statements about Roe, including whether they'd vote to overturn it. Instead, they often commented on the importance of precedent and constitutional guarantees to privacy.”

Absolutely No one said they’d vote to affirm Roe.

You do a good job, however, of identically imitating Pelosi and Schumer, so congrats?

and Collins and Murkowski.

Yes, in public they also made clear that they would honor longstanding precedents upon which people rely in direct reference to this situation. And that was a lie. Pure and simple, assuming they sign onto this opinion as written....and as reported they have done.

Yes, they avoided a flat out promise, under oath, that they would vote to uphold Roe 100%. So, expectations were for a modification, but not a wholesale repudiation of the precedents, including a repudiation of "privacy", upon which so many cases have been decided.

And that repudiation is the basis for saying they lied, as they'd been clear that would not be consistent with their 'philosophy'. Total misrepresentation of what they would do, intended to obfuscate to deceive.

Collins and Murkowski were fooled by that lie.

and yeah, we've caught you many dozens of times lying blatantly. Total misrepresentations of truth.

a fan is relentless in this regard...I tend to ignore you more.

[Peter Brown]

Is anyone on here applauding any threats, much less acts, of violence? If so, I haven't heard them.

I DO hear people applauding Justices who lied about what they would do once in their lifetime jobs and had a majority.

I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word ‘lie’. You use it often, incorrectly, and dishonestly.

“As nominees, those justices consistently avoided direct statements about Roe, including whether they'd vote to overturn it. Instead, they often commented on the importance of precedent and constitutional guarantees to privacy.”

Absolutely No one said they’d vote to affirm Roe.

You do a good job, however, of identically imitating Pelosi and Schumer, so congrats?

and Collins and Murkowski.

Yes, in public they also made clear that they would honor longstanding precedents upon which people rely in direct reference to this situation. And that was a lie. Pure and simple, assuming they sign onto this opinion as written....and as reported they have done.

Yes, they avoided a flat out promise, under oath, that they would vote to uphold Roe 100%. So, expectations were for a modification, but not a wholesale repudiation of the precedents, including a repudiation of "privacy", upon which so many cases have been decided.

and yeah, we've caught you many dozens of times lying blatantly. Total misrepresentations of truth.

a fan is relentless in this regard...I tend to ignore you more.

You understand those people (Schumer and Collins etc) are politicians? You are as well? Because the standard to accuse someone of lying shouldn’t be trying to appeal to others like a politician, you hopefully would be more precise. But alas.

And I tend to ignore others here as well. The level of honest dialogue isn’t worth one’s time, unless it’s fun which it is for me. Joe Mauer has stated this best by remarking how absolutely no one on the lefts echo chamber here has once paused to reflect ‘hey maybe you’re correct and I’m wrong’. Very good observation tbh.

[MDlaxfan76]

Is anyone on here applauding any threats, much less acts, of violence? If so, I haven't heard them.

I DO hear people applauding Justices who lied about what they would do once in their lifetime jobs and had a majority.

I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word ‘lie’. You use it often, incorrectly, and dishonestly.

“As nominees, those justices consistently avoided direct statements about Roe, including whether they'd vote to overturn it. Instead, they often commented on the importance of precedent and constitutional guarantees to privacy.”

Absolutely No one said they’d vote to affirm Roe.

You do a good job, however, of identically imitating Pelosi and Schumer, so congrats?

and Collins and Murkowski.

Yes, in public they also made clear that they would honor longstanding precedents upon which people rely in direct reference to this situation. And that was a lie. Pure and simple, assuming they sign onto this opinion as written....and as reported they have done.

Yes, they avoided a flat out promise, under oath, that they would vote to uphold Roe 100%. So, expectations were for a modification, but not a wholesale repudiation of the precedents, including a repudiation of "privacy", upon which so many cases have been decided.

and yeah, we've caught you many dozens of times lying blatantly. Total misrepresentations of truth.

a fan is relentless in this regard...I tend to ignore you more.

You understand those people (Schumer and Collins etc) are politicians? You are as well? Because the standard to accuse someone of lying shouldn’t be trying to appeal to others like a politician, you hopefully would be more precise. But alas.

And I tend to ignore others here as well. The level of honest dialogue isn’t worth one’s time, unless it’s fun which it is for me. Joe Mauer has stated this best by remarking how absolutely no one on the lefts echo chamber here has once paused to reflect ‘hey maybe you’re correct and I’m wrong’. Very good observation tbh.

Collins and Murkowski are politicians too. Not sure of the relevance.

Yes, lied. Misrepresented, obfuscated to deceive.

Now, I'd agree that many weren't fooled by these lies, but I tend to give folks the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise.

And if they sign on to this opinion they will definitely have deceived those willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, including Collins and Murkowski.

I've explained the lie, and you have no response.

which is typical, as your sole purpose on here is to troll..."for "fun"...

[cradleandshoot]

Is anyone on here applauding any threats, much less acts, of violence? If so, I haven't heard them.

I DO hear people applauding Justices who lied about what they would do once in their lifetime jobs and had a majority.

I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word ‘lie’. You use it often, incorrectly, and dishonestly.

“As nominees, those justices consistently avoided direct statements about Roe, including whether they'd vote to overturn it. Instead, they often commented on the importance of precedent and constitutional guarantees to privacy.”

Absolutely No one said they’d vote to affirm Roe.

You do a good job, however, of identically imitating Pelosi and Schumer, so congrats?

and Collins and Murkowski.

Yes, in public they also made clear that they would honor longstanding precedents upon which people rely in direct reference to this situation. And that was a lie. Pure and simple, assuming they sign onto this opinion as written....and as reported they have done.

Yes, they avoided a flat out promise, under oath, that they would vote to uphold Roe 100%. So, expectations were for a modification, but not a wholesale repudiation of the precedents, including a repudiation of "privacy", upon which so many cases have been decided.

and yeah, we've caught you many dozens of times lying blatantly. Total misrepresentations of truth.

a fan is relentless in this regard...I tend to ignore you more.

You understand those people (Schumer and Collins etc) are politicians? You are as well? Because the standard to accuse someone of lying shouldn’t be trying to appeal to others like a politician, you hopefully would be more precise. But alas.

And I tend to ignore others here as well. The level of honest dialogue isn’t worth one’s time, unless it’s fun which it is for me. Joe Mauer has stated this best by remarking how absolutely no one on the lefts echo chamber here has once paused to reflect ‘hey maybe you’re correct and I’m wrong’. Very good observation tbh.

Collins and Murkowski are politicians too. Not sure of the relevance.

Yes, lied. Misrepresented, obfuscated to deceive.

Now, I'd agree that many weren't fooled by these lies, but I tend to give folks the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise.

And if they sign on to this opinion they will definitely have deceived those willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, including Collins and Murkowski.

I've explained the lie, and you have no response.

which is typical, as your sole purpose on here is to troll..."for "fun"...

"Yes, lied. Misrepresented, obfuscated to deceive."

You forgot to add the disclaimer... "in my opinion" Because your not proving any facts, your just expressing an opinion. In your world, the only opinion that matters is yours... Nobody knows what the final decision will be. If it is overturned and sent back to the states that is not rolling back abortion. It verifies the opinion Justice Rehnquist had in his original dissent. In case you have not paid attention, a number of states are already ahead of the game making the right to an abortion a STATES RIGHT!!

[MDlaxfan76]

Is anyone on here applauding any threats, much less acts, of violence? If so, I haven't heard them.

I DO hear people applauding Justices who lied about what they would do once in their lifetime jobs and had a majority.

I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word ‘lie’. You use it often, incorrectly, and dishonestly.

“As nominees, those justices consistently avoided direct statements about Roe, including whether they'd vote to overturn it. Instead, they often commented on the importance of precedent and constitutional guarantees to privacy.”

Absolutely No one said they’d vote to affirm Roe.

You do a good job, however, of identically imitating Pelosi and Schumer, so congrats?

and Collins and Murkowski.

Yes, in public they also made clear that they would honor longstanding precedents upon which people rely in direct reference to this situation. And that was a lie. Pure and simple, assuming they sign onto this opinion as written....and as reported they have done.

Yes, they avoided a flat out promise, under oath, that they would vote to uphold Roe 100%. So, expectations were for a modification, but not a wholesale repudiation of the precedents, including a repudiation of "privacy", upon which so many cases have been decided.

and yeah, we've caught you many dozens of times lying blatantly. Total misrepresentations of truth.

a fan is relentless in this regard...I tend to ignore you more.

You understand those people (Schumer and Collins etc) are politicians? You are as well? Because the standard to accuse someone of lying shouldn’t be trying to appeal to others like a politician, you hopefully would be more precise. But alas.

And I tend to ignore others here as well. The level of honest dialogue isn’t worth one’s time, unless it’s fun which it is for me. Joe Mauer has stated this best by remarking how absolutely no one on the lefts echo chamber here has once paused to reflect ‘hey maybe you’re correct and I’m wrong’. Very good observation tbh.

Collins and Murkowski are politicians too. Not sure of the relevance.

Yes, lied. Misrepresented, obfuscated to deceive.

Now, I'd agree that many weren't fooled by these lies, but I tend to give folks the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise.

And if they sign on to this opinion they will definitely have deceived those willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, including Collins and Murkowski.

I've explained the lie, and you have no response.

which is typical, as your sole purpose on here is to troll..."for "fun"...

"Yes, lied. Misrepresented, obfuscated to deceive."

You forgot to add the disclaimer... "in my opinion" Because your not proving any facts, your just expressing an opinion. In your world, the only opinion that matters is yours... Nobody knows what the final decision will be. If it is overturned and sent back to the states that is not rolling back abortion. It verifies the opinion Justice Rehnquist had in his original dissent. In case you have not paid attention, a number of states are already ahead of the game making the right to an abortion a STATES RIGHT!!

I've explained why it was a lie to claim they'd respect and uphold the precedents. This decision, if they sign onto it as reported, expressly repudiates the precedents. It is not merely a clarification, a narrowing, a modification, but rather a wholesale rejection of the precedents based on privacy...and that will impact all sorts of rights and other case precedents based on that right.

If you want to address that explanation directly, go for it.

It's a separate, though certainly important, discussion to address the practical implications of states deciding to criminalize these choices, even so far as criminalizing the actions of someone in another state. But that's not the "lie", that's the huge can of worms that this opens up. Different issue than the lying.

[jhu72]

The amount fo false flag stuff utilized by Fox News and this right wing mess of inhumanity is so disgusting.

... its what they do

[jhu72]

The amount fo false flag stuff utilized by Fox News and this right wing mess of inhumanity is so disgusting.

Are you aware that the left is organizing massive protests at the homes of the justices on Wednesday?

... if true exactly what is wrong with a peaceful protest? When the right doxes someone, it usually results in a drive by shooting.

[jhu72]

Is anyone on here applauding any threats, much less acts, of violence? If so, I haven't heard them.

I DO hear people applauding Justices who lied about what they would do once in their lifetime jobs and had a majority.

I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word ‘lie’. You use it often, incorrectly, and dishonestly.

“As nominees, those justices consistently avoided direct statements about Roe, including whether they'd vote to overturn it. Instead, they often commented on the importance of precedent and constitutional guarantees to privacy.”

Absolutely No one said they’d vote to affirm Roe.

You do a good job, however, of identically imitating Pelosi and Schumer, so congrats?

and Collins and Murkowski.

Yes, in public they also made clear that they would honor longstanding precedents upon which people rely in direct reference to this situation. And that was a lie. Pure and simple, assuming they sign onto this opinion as written....and as reported they have done.

Yes, they avoided a flat out promise, under oath, that they would vote to uphold Roe 100%. So, expectations were for a modification, but not a wholesale repudiation of the precedents, including a repudiation of "privacy", upon which so many cases have been decided.

And that repudiation is the basis for saying they lied, as they'd been clear that would not be consistent with their 'philosophy'. Total misrepresentation of what they would do, intended to obfuscate to deceive.

Collins and Murkowski were fooled by that lie.

and yeah, we've caught you many dozens of times lying blatantly. Total misrepresentations of truth.

a fan is relentless in this regard...I tend to ignore you more.

... many dozens ?