SCOTUS and whatnot

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, buddha said:

alito's opinion distinguishes griswold et al from roe, but i realize that may not be any comfort.  and, just a reminder, this is a draft brief from february which will be changed and may not end up being the opinion at all.  if you recall, in 1992 kennedy changed his mind at the last second or else roe would have been overturned then.

the "right to privacy" can be quite vague and hard to pin down.

IDK, I think it comes down to whether you can show the state has any rational basis for being interested in a particular behavior beyond arguing that it "contributes to immorality" by some religious sects definition of same. Gay Marriage and sexual activity between consenting adults fail that test, Predatory sexual behavior toward children does not. Reproductive choices by a woman does. That is the basis for my launching point. There are always questions at the margins and we have courts and legislature to help define those to acceptable civic agreement  - when they work. But I don't think it's that hard to figure out  - the 1st big clue is when the argument is that it's the tenets of someone's religion that have to be protected. The second is when some business cries they have some information interest they must protect. I'm pretty confident those simple criteria can get you to the right answer on most privacy issues. Or, if you can't make the argument without invoking God or money, i'm gonna be real sceptical.

Edited May 3, 2022 by gehringer_2

[oblong]

9 minutes ago, pfife said:

Corney Barret?

 

I think he's referring to the colored broad (since we're going back to the 50's) but he doesn't realize she's not yet part of the court in that regard.

 

[oblong]

I can't wait to find out it was one of the R justices or people who did it then see all the inevitable back tracking from Cruz, Hume, Hannity, Huckabee, Graham, Mitch, etc.

Perhaps it's strategic that such immense pressure will cause a justice to switch then the GOP can claim once again to be victims to a leak and they need your support now more than ever.

 

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, oblong said:

I think he's referring to the colored broad (since we're going back to the 50's) but he doesn't realize she's not yet part of the court in that regard.

 

Interesting how his money is on the two female justices of color as the leakers. 

[oblong]

45 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

IUD's illegal?

That's pretty extreme.

but fits in logically with their position.  ANY destruction of an embryo is wrong since it's a "person".

 

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, oblong said:

I can't wait to find out it was one of the R justices or people who did it then see all the inevitable back tracking from Cruz, Hume, Hannity, Huckabee, Graham, Mitch, etc.

Perhaps it's strategic that such immense pressure will cause a justice to switch then the GOP can claim once again to be victims to a leak and they need your support now more than ever.

 

I've learned over the past 6 years in regards to the GOP that there is more than what appears on the surface. I do not doubt this was a deliberate and coordinated effort to leak this. 

[mtutiger]

7 minutes ago, oblong said:

but fits in logically with their position.  ANY destruction of an embryo is wrong since it's a "person".

 

When I hear that, I just can imagine there's gonna be a ton of shock for a lot of women when they go to their OB appts.

Maybe I'm ignorant (I am a man after all), but I don't know that everyone associates IUDs with abortion. And that form of birth control is pretty popular to my knowledge.

Edited May 3, 2022 by mtutiger

[Motown Bombers]

 

[gehringer_2]

14 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Interesting how his money is on the two female justices of color as the leakers. 

there are a lot of ways to spin this. If the hard core right guys thought they had the win and then Roberts and Kavanaugh or Barrett started acting like they were going to peel away, maybe you leak this to try to force them back, or so that even if it does goes against them in the end, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch can plead their purity and argue the perfidy the conservative turncoats. That would be big for GOP fundraising. It's probably also a way over optimistic reading of the possible outcome, but the point being that there can be a lot of angles to this particular leak. Getting a jump start on the 2022 fundraising effort for the Dems is still the more straightforward take.

Edited May 3, 2022 by gehringer_2

[buddha]

14 minutes ago, oblong said:

I can't wait to find out it was one of the R justices or people who did it then see all the inevitable back tracking from Cruz, Hume, Hannity, Huckabee, Graham, Mitch, etc.

Perhaps it's strategic that such immense pressure will cause a justice to switch then the GOP can claim once again to be victims to a leak and they need your support now more than ever.

 

it could have been released by a conservative justices' clerk who heard that kavanaugh was backsliding and having second thoughts.

nobody knows nothin.

[RatkoVarda]

if you have some $, you can see who visited abortion clinics carrying their phone

 

[oblong]

Same with period tracking apps.  Big data has that. “So we notice you didn’t have your period for 3 months then went to this doctor that you never saw before… what’s up with that?”

[oblong]

14 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

When I hear that, I just can imagine there's gonna be a ton of shock for a lot of women when they go to their OB appts.

Maybe I'm ignorant (I am a man after all), but I don't know that everyone associates IUDs with abortion. And that form of birth control is pretty popular to my knowledge.

Ties in to what I did earlier. All hyperbole aside I know most pro lifers don’t think these things through.  They just say they are pro life because they don’t think casual abortion is good. They don’t fully grasp the ramifications.  

[RatkoVarda]

this is dedicated to the "they would never do that" crowd

 

[Tigeraholic1]

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

This is a serious question. What do we do with all the additional babies and their mothers, especially the underage girls?

I here planned parenthood does good things no? 

Edited May 3, 2022 by Tigeraholic1

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

do you think we need more people in america?  the entire developed world is having a baby shortage.  we'll either need more immigration or more kids.  preferably both.

 

the world does not have too few humans anywhere or under any economic conditions. "Baby Shortages" are nationalistic pearl clutching fantasies. There is no place on this planet that wouldn't be better off with a lower titer of Homo-Sapiens. 

Edited May 3, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Archie]

47 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Interesting how his money is on the two female justices of color as the leakers. 

Stop with the nonsense!  Race never entered my mind and never does. Thats a liberal thing and one thing you do know is I'm not a liberal.  I mentioned them because of their political affiliation. Shame on you for trying to inject race into something. 

It could be Breyer too because he has nothing to lose. 

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

Treat them like illegals and cage them is what I'm getting. 

So, a woman or a girl who might have had an abortion had it been available to them, but was forced to have the baby instead—and it's not as though we'd know one way or the other, since abortion would be illegal and thus outside the bounds of consideration—when these women or girls do have their baby, your approach would be to imprison them?

I don't know ... that doesn't sound like a serious solution to me, but I did say this was a serious question, so that means this is your serious answer. My serious reply is, I sure wouldn't do that, and I'm not sure even Republicans would do that. But who knows, maybe you're on to something.

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

IUD's illegal?

That's pretty extreme.

Not as extreme as Missouri checking off all known out-of-state visitors against a nationwide abortion database and arresting and imprisoning those tourists that appear on that list, for breaking Missouri law while in another state. If they can do it to their own citizens, they can do it to tourists stepping into Missouri for the first time.

Once they pass that law, the IUD thing will look downright reasonable.

😉

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, Archie said:

I was making the point that when these politicians say they care about women they are hypocrites.  It was an example of something they are doing to hurt women. Sometimes you folks here have a problem seeing the whole issue.

The point you appeared to be making was that you want us to stop talking about the Republicans' off-the-deep-end abortion policy, which is a major issue for millions of people, and get us talking about some manufactured outrage that has happened maybe six times, tops.

The abortion issue is the only issue at issue at the moment. Attempting to whatabout a completely unrelated topic into the mix is, as the kids of 2007 say, weak sauce.

[mtutiger]

 

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, oblong said:

but fits in logically with their position.  ANY destruction of an embryo is wrong since it's a "person".

 

Coming to a newsstand near you ...

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, oblong said:

Ties in to what I did earlier. All hyperbole aside I know most pro lifers don’t think these things through.  They just say they are pro life because they don’t think casual abortion is good. They don’t fully grasp the ramifications.  

The only ramification they care about is that Jesus will send them to Hell if they think even for a fleeting second that abortion is not the worst sin that can be committed this side of running pizza parlors in D.C.

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

I here planned parenthood does good things no? 

Can you elaborate on this? What's your idea here?

[buddha]

8 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

 

theyre the dog that has caught the ambulance.  now what do i do?