Re: Supreme Court
Posted: May 3rd, '22, 12:54
Collins and Murkowski really in a corner.
Welcome to the Killington Zone Message Board
https://www.killingtonzone.com/forums/
He and Gorsuch, in their confirmation hearings, said something along the lines of Roe being 'settled law'. Not like it matters now of course.easyrider16 wrote: ↑May 3rd, '22, 12:56I have to admit that if Kavanaugh supports this decision, I was wrong about him, too. I didn't think he'd vote to overturn Roe/Casey.
easyrider16 wrote: ↑May 3rd, '22, 17:00 The irony of it is that Republicans don't appoint judges that protect conservative values. They appoint judges that empower the state. Liberals actually appoint judges that protect conservative values, like individual rights and limiting police power.
Allowing the states to outlaw abortion is not a conservative decision. It is allowing states to interfere in the intimate affairs of individuals' reproductive choices. Whether you think that is right or wrong, you can't deny that it's an increase in governmental power and control over its people. Therefore, it is inherently not conservative.
Republicans are not conservatives. They used to be fiscally conservative, but that has long since gone out the window. They are now basically the party of nativism, evangelicals, and "don't change things I like them how they are"
you seem to forget the SCOTUS decision that will be remembered as leading to the downfall of the republic: bush v gore. take a look at the brooks brothers riot for a whos who of behind the scenes GOP snakes. one of whom is a facebook executive.deadheadskier wrote: ↑May 3rd, '22, 14:09 Just another example of GOP accusations really being confessions.
"The Democrats will appoint activist judges! "
J/k that's what we do
Second time in the past 15 years a major court decision will be utilized for political gain. The first being citizens united vs FEC.
But hey, under oath in front of Congress recent conservative appointments claimed Roe v Wade is settled law. Basically they lied under oath. NBD
yeah, lets just VOTE HARDER!!!! that will show them!!!Dickc wrote: ↑May 3rd, '22, 07:13 Early reports are claiming a leaked opinion from the court is overturning Row V Wade.
I really think that Republicans should be careful what they wish for as this might be a step too far. While I have always questioned the logic behind the original decision, its been law for 49 years. The fallout will be big and loud, and might be the spark the
Democrats need to hold onto the house and senate.
Thanks for the good laugh, I needed that!asher2789 wrote: ↑May 3rd, '22, 19:02yeah, lets just VOTE HARDER!!!! that will show them!!!Dickc wrote: ↑May 3rd, '22, 07:13 Early reports are claiming a leaked opinion from the court is overturning Row V Wade.
I really think that Republicans should be careful what they wish for as this might be a step too far. While I have always questioned the logic behind the original decision, its been law for 49 years. The fallout will be big and loud, and might be the spark the
Democrats need to hold onto the house and senate.
the democrats had FOUR f*** DECADES to codify the right to abortion (or more generally, the right to privacy) but instead thought it would be better to use it as a fundraising call.
f*** the democrats. i and most people my age are completely done with so called "democracy" and are prepping for revolution. the government is not by us, it is not for us, it is merely a vehicle of gaslighting and manufactured consent.
thank god i am not a straight woman.
I think it is likely that the decision was leaked at the direction of a judge. The judges are the only ones besides staffers that have access to draft decisions, and the judges are the only ones who can't be fired for leaking it.
Sotoymayor, Kagan, Breyer? Probably not, the rat in the cage is Chief Justice Roberts.easyrider16 wrote: ↑May 3rd, '22, 21:07I think it is likely that the decision was leaked at the direction of a judge. The judges are the only ones besides staffers that have access to draft decisions, and the judges are the only ones who can't be fired for leaking it.
<cough> SCOTUS Judges can be impeached. Is it worth a judge's career to maybe affect the outcome? Doubt it.easyrider16 wrote: ↑May 3rd, '22, 21:07I think it is likely that the decision was leaked at the direction of a judge. The judges are the only ones besides staffers that have access to draft decisions, and the judges are the only ones who can't be fired for leaking it.
If you subscribe to any conspiracy theories, which most the GOP does these days, perhaps it's not just the judge's career on the lineMister Moose wrote: ↑May 3rd, '22, 22:51<cough> SCOTUS Judges can be impeached. Is it worth a judge's career to maybe affect the outcome? Doubt it.easyrider16 wrote: ↑May 3rd, '22, 21:07I think it is likely that the decision was leaked at the direction of a judge. The judges are the only ones besides staffers that have access to draft decisions, and the judges are the only ones who can't be fired for leaking it.
In theory, true. In practice? It's only happened once in 200+ years. In the present day I think impeaching a Supreme Court judge would work about as well as impeaching a president.Mister Moose wrote: ↑May 3rd, '22, 22:51 <cough> SCOTUS Judges can be impeached. Is it worth a judge's career to maybe affect the outcome? Doubt it.
Here's a conspiracy theory - maybe Thomas' wife found a printout of it somewhere in his home study and ran to the press with it. Or maybe Breyer, who is retiring anyway, decided to do it because he sees little risk and wants to help democrats.Fancypants wrote: ↑May 3rd, '22, 21:53 Sotoymayor, Kagan, Breyer? Probably not, the rat in the cage is Chief Justice Roberts.