Roe v Wade overturned ?

[Brian4Liberty]

...
an official ruling in the case could come any time over the next two months.
...

Great, two months of agitprop.

[Brian4Liberty]

Does this $#@!nut even grasp the fact that, under the 9th and 10th amendments in the Bill of Rights, this is exactly how it is supposed to work?
...

This "$#@!nut" spends most of his time pandering and virtue signaling to the far left, while behind the scenes, he does the bidding of powerful crony interests.

[DamianTV]

It wasn't "accidentally" released. This is done with PURPOSE AND INTENT. It has all the classic markings of the Hegalian Dialectic written all over it.

Problem Reaction Solution

They WANT people to protest so they can use the IMAGE of the protest as a reason to SHUT DOWN FREE SPEECH. Just watch. They will fault FREE SPEECH as the CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. They are trying to instigate VIOLENCE. The more violent people become, the better for them. They will claim that the "Problem" comes from "violent conservatives" protesting a "legitimate Supreme Court ruling".

It is the LEFTISTS that are already KNOWN TO BE VIOLENT. When they do protest violently, then they BLAME CONSERVATIVES for instigating the "justified extreme reactions" of the LEFT.

They will BLAME CONSERVATIVES, but their real target is EVERYONE.

[Anti Globalist]

It's hilarious watching these people chant my body my choice when they want to cut people out of society for not wanting to take an unsafe and ineffective experimental vaccine.

[RonWrightor]

People keep talking about how overturning Roe and Casey would leave abortion laws up to the states, as if federal abortion laws would no longer be possible. I don't think that's true. It doesn't follow from SCOTUS overturning Roe and Casey that they would also overturn federal abortion laws that are enacted by a legislative process as opposed to a judicial one. Alito's opinion repeatedly complains that Roe and Casey were instances of the court taking on legislative powers and says that overturning them would return the issue of abortion laws to its proper place of legislatures. It doesn't say that these have to be state legislatures and not federal.

What? Use the commerce clause? Spending power? what? how? Using the already stretched commerce clause might break it and your house of cards will come tumbling down.

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/st...39090923016205

[Occam's Banana]

[Invisible Man]

What? Use the commerce clause? Spending power? what? how? Using the already stretched commerce clause might break it and your house of cards will come tumbling down.

First of all, since when do they have to "use" something from the Constitution? Where have you been for the past century that you think they need to do that?

Second, yes, this would be just as easily covered by the prevailing legal force of the Commerce clause as any number of other existing laws. Federal abortion legislation (of which much already exists) wouldn't stretch the Commerce clause any more than countless laws already do. If they didn't "break it and your house of cards" (not sure what that even means), then neither would making either the essential principles of Roe and Casey federal law via legislation, nor would federal restrictions of abortion.

[Occam's Banana]

People keep talking about how overturning Roe and Casey would leave abortion laws up to the states, as if federal abortion laws would no longer be possible. I don't think that's true. It doesn't follow from SCOTUS overturning Roe and Casey that they would also overturn federal abortion laws that are enacted by a legislative process as opposed to a judicial one. Alito's opinion repeatedly complains that Roe and Casey were instances of the court taking on legislative powers and says that overturning them would return the issue of abortion laws to its proper place of legislatures. It doesn't say that these have to be state legislatures and not federal.

They're already on it ...

https://twitter.com/JohnFetterman/st...99340169560065


... and the sniping and backbiting has already begun ...

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1521530328397099008

[Ender]

It's hilarious watching these people chant my body my choice when they want to cut people out of society for not wanting to take an unsafe and ineffective experimental vaccine.

My thoughts exactly!

HYP. O. CRITES.

[RJB]

They're already on it ...

https://twitter.com/JohnFetterman/st...99340169560065


... and the sniping and backbiting has already begun ...

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1521530328397099008

I'm not arguing against you, but my first reaction was: Why now after 50 years? What are they hiding? What do they want to stir up? This may be the start to end the filibuster and pack the court.

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/jeremykauffman/s...64298966880256

[Occam's Banana]

I'm not arguing against you, but [...]

I'm not sure what that means. Why would I think you are arguing against me?

[...] my first reaction was: Why now after 50 years? What are they hiding? What do they want to stir up? This may be the start to end the filibuster and pack the court.

Ending the filibuster is definitely on their agenda.

Those tweets I posted from AOC and John Fetterman (Lt. Gov. of Pennsylvania & 2022 US Senate candidate) confirm that.

And Ed Markey (US Senator for Massachusetts) has confirmed their court-packing ambitions:

https://twitter.com/SenMarkey/status...04604625059841

I don't know whether this is just "seize the moment" gamesmanship or the leak was planned or intended to set all this up. I'm not sure it really matters. In either case, they'll certainly exploit the opportunity to the fullest.

[Pauls' Revere]

You might have confused their opinions. They would probably say it is your choice to wear masks or get the vaccine but if you do not get the vaccine you should not be allowed in public. Just an FYI the science is in on this and it is not up for discussion or debate.

sigh...and yeah I can choose not to do anything but try and keep your job if you don't and subsequently everything that comes with it like trying to maintain a mortage.

[tod evans]

[devil21]

Roe v Wade has been effectively nullified for years (2018) already, thanks to the Murphy/NJ vs. NCAA ruling, which legalized sports betting outside of a handful of states.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ports-gambling

[ClaytonB]

This is why I occasionally take a look at the MSMBS propaganda reel:



Let's unpack it. "November Is Coming", meaning, "When the election comes, the party that was responsible for de-federalizing abortion is going to get slaughtered at the polls." Here are some of the hidden assumptions:

1) Abortion is popular. This is not true and it is a heavily distorted "factoid". The "popularity" of abortion does not have to do with the procedure itself but, rather, with the feeling of sympathy that many have for those who are caught in some kind of tragic life-circumstance that will be compounded by a birth. That could be rape, incest or even an unintended pregnancy in an otherwise ordinary situation. Being poor is bad enough but bringing a child to life in a situation of poverty (which may be completely out of your control) could feel like cruelty. Anyone with a functioning empathy muscle can resonate with the sentiments underlying these arguments for abortion (and there are many more besides). Rationally, they are fallacious arguments, but they are designed to tug on the heart-strings. The mistake, here, is confusing polls that ask "should abortion be permitted (at all, under any circumstance)" with asking whether abortion should be treated as a routine procedure or even as some kind of "right". These are two very different monsters and de-federalization, if it happens, would simply return the complexity of that problem back to the individual States.

2) De-federalization will cause many women who want to get an abortion to be unable to. In fact, a post-Roe US will not be a nation where you can't get an abortion. California and other frostbitten-blue states are not going to thaw any time soon. Round-trip plane tickets from/to most parts of the US are still under $1,000 last I checked. So, what we're really arguing about is $1,000.

3) The mid-terms were a dead-heat, but now that us Democrats are pulling this stunt to try to blame Republicans for the end of Roe, public opinion is going to sway to the left as angry Americans realize that the conservatives have gotten out-of-control and need to be put in check. Once again, this is a false perception. Like many of the Left's political strategies in the last decade, it's a paper-tiger... it's only true if you believe it. The Left is becoming increasingly desperate and demonstrative, like a mental patient whose tantrums are no longer being believed by the other patients. Instead of reacting with the "sympathy" that we're "supposed to" have as they writhe on the ground foaming at the mouth, we're just stepping over them, taking care not to tip our lunch trays lest our peas get mixed in with our mashed-potatoes. Welcome to the Hotel California.

4) Elections are primarily about machinations and they have the well-oiled machine. While this has likely been true at the Federal level for a long time (especially the Prez election), the fact is that most elections are local and the outcomes represent that fact. No matter how much the MAGA/Trumpers believe that the 2020 election was stolen, the fact remains that there are many deep-red counties all around the US, something that could not happen if the national fraud had fully penetrated to all local elections. Instead, it appears that the fraud hinges on reducing the national race to key precincts in key counties of key states. By laser-focusing the corruption in this way, the corrupt Deep State is able to amplify a tiny number of horrifically corrupt local polities with consequences at the national level. So, no, despite the frauds and machinations of the past, we don't fear November.

[Anti Federalist]

[Anti Federalist]

My thoughts exactly!

HYP. O. CRITES.

Meanwhile over at imgur.com

AntiFederalist • 5m ago

Good post. That list includes being inoculated with an ineffective and dangerous "vaccine" against my will, right?

[RJB]

I'm not sure what that means. Why would I think you are arguing against me?

I have had a rough time recently on the internet with being misunderstood and I guess I was a bit overly cautious. I also went off on someone recently. Hell. I'm just fed up with the internet. I may take some time off and hug a tree or something.

[Occam's Banana]

I have had a rough time recently on the internet with being misunderstood and I guess I was a bit overly cautious. I also went off on someone recently. Hell. I'm just fed up with the internet. I may take some time off and hug a tree or something.

Been there, done that.

[Pauls' Revere]

It's hilarious watching these people chant my body my choice when they want to cut people out of society for not wanting to take an unsafe and ineffective experimental vaccine.

Yep, I why I couldn't give a dam if its overturned. Where were peoples rights when they have to choose between a vax or your job.

[Swordsmyth]

Meanwhile over at imgur.com

So women have no right to destroy the body of the child for their own benefit?

[Swordsmyth]

Good start, but not good enough. Next overturn the gay marriage ruling. Overturn the anti-sodomy ruling. Overturn the school prayer ruling. Never stop. The left doesn't.

[acptulsa]

So women have no right to destroy the body of the child for their own benefit?

You don't understand.



It's not for her benefit. Her fetus just self-identified as a quadriplegic zombie.

[devil21]

They're already on it ...

https://twitter.com/JohnFetterman/st...99340169560065


... and the sniping and backbiting has already begun ...

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1521530328397099008

Congress can't codify Roe v Wade as it would be a gross violation of the 10th Amendment, especially given the Murphy vs NCAA ruling I referenced earlier in the thread. SCOTUS' original Roe ruling was contrary to the 10th and they knew it but didn't care at that time, for whatever reason. If Congress attempted to codify Roe v Wade, and if this ruling is issued substantially the same as the draft, SCOTUS would just strike down the federal codification of Roe.

I know there's lots of people who would respond that SCOTUS pretty much ignores the Constitution already, but from what I've seen, outside of a handful of limited scope rulings, they actually do follow the Constitution way more than most people realize. They may not directly reference the Constitution in rulings but their rulings usually follow it (see: OSHA vax mandate which violated the 10th, even though SCOTUS never mentioned the 10th). The problem is that most people have no clue about legal issues and the reality of the legal framework we currently live under.

[Philhelm]

Women like this are outraged and foaming at the mouth right now.

jmdrake's wife (except none of the aborted children were his).

[Occam's Banana]

:ded:

https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/st...87149468020736

[acptulsa]

[acptulsa]