Leaked Supreme Court opinion shows conservative majority set to overturn Roe v Wade

In theory the state can't charge someone if they didn't break the law in their jurisdiction. Jurisdiction matters in law but I'm sure some Cons would try to work around it.

You do understand that the founders who wrote the constitution also explained that the militia is the whole of the citizenry, right? Of course you did, I've explained it to you many of times.

Abortion isn't a right, so by law that falls to the states to determine how to regulate. It's not surprising you don't realize it, given you probably also think you have a right to many things you don't. Like a free college education.

Yup, they're okay with people threatening SCOTUS in an attempt to coerce them into giving them the ruling they want. Absolutely no respect for any kind of democratic process when they can just use a hate mob of an extremely loud minority to threaten people doing their jobs.

False. The militia was well regulated and trained. Also those SPECIFIC words were put in the Constitution. It would have been very easy to say the right to own firearms. They did not word it that way.

I disagree, the White House should be firm in declaring how grossly inappropriate it is to harass members of our highest court and stalk their private residences.

Nah, cops in Louisiana make 1/3 of what I make. That ain't covering no pool costs. Lmao

Ah, we've reframed the actions from those of the question.

Do you disagree? Or are there alternatives to the reasoning behind doxxing, sending personal threats, and protesting in front of a private residence?

@Stevo_the_gamer: Protesting in front of a private residence is generally legal, your odd inclusion of threats aside which is not covered by the definition or protection of protesting.

I don't recall asking you if it's legal.

@Stevo_the_gamer: It's hard to tell because you keep slipping in illegal terms like stalking, harassing, and threatening when you describe it.

If your question is do I think it's fine to legally protest near a residence, then "yes."

You know damn well the founders were asked questions about it, and reaffirmed the position held by the court. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington are better authorities on the documents they created than your "Moms Demand Action" Karens. But it doesn't surprise me the person who thinks self defense is murder would get this one wrong too.

What do these people think they're going to achieve going to the homes of SCOTUS and making threats? Lmfao, do they think SCOTUS will change their mind? And what if they did cave into the threats of a mob? Do you think the response to that isn't going to be even more severe? You don't think that's going to have some very long reaching repercussions?

And you're ignoring their words.

Do you think it's fine to dox a sitting Supreme Court Justice and then protest in front of their private residence in an attempt to coerce said justice to change their opinion?

No, I'm not. I'm ignoring your attempt to redefine them as something other than what they stated them to be several times in several different publications while they were alive.

Given judges are not elected officials, and are life time appointees, what other reason would they protest in front of their homes for if not to attempt to coerce the US Supreme Court?

Were you able to ever find counter-data to all of my evidence directly proving my claim?

Well yeah, some of those are opinions, key word "may" means it's not proven. The rest of your links show the same things, predictions, speculation. SCOTUS hasn't even eliminated Roe v Wade yet, anyone telling you what will happen when they do is operating on speculation and personal beliefs and opinions. One of those articles even states the total overall maternal mortality rate goes up with more abortion restrictions, but doesn't say the actual rate goes up, just that the rate in the US is already higher based on past data. That's not even a study that speculates an increase in rate post Roe V Wade, just states the US rate is higher over all.

You've posted a lot of garbage. When someone tells you what MAY happen, guess what? That's speculative. It's a joke to claim any of that bull crap is any kind of actual evidence, especially basing it on an event that hasn't actually even happened yet.

You have no legal argument, you have no moral one, you have no emotional one, and your hail mary attempt at a science one being based on speculations and projections has fallen flat. ROFLMAO, I bet you believe it's going to end interracial marriage too.

Imagine thinking it's okay to try to harass and coerce federal judges into giving you the ruling you want? Clarence Thomas has already responded to this and said the court cannot be bullied or coerced by any group. I wonder what these nutjobs outside their homes are going to try to do next since it's obvious trying to intimidate them isn't going to work?

BTW....

18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading U.S. Code Notes

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.

(Added Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, § 31(a), 64 Stat. 1018; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

The same Clarence Thomas that refuses to recuse himself from cases about overturning the last US president election?

Recuse himself? Now why should he do a thing like that?

I have seen both good and bad reasons to be seemingly pro-choice. On this board.

Good: Utilitarian reasons, emphasizing women's bodily autonomy, as well as anti-abortion laws not really getting the results people want.

Bad: Let the women be childless. Less people who have different political leanings than me in 18 years time.

His wife is involved and that is a conflict of interest. Not that I think you care about truth.

I think it's fine to legally protest within the bounds of the law, yes. I'm a strong proponent of the first amendment.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/after-abortion-leak-justice-thomas-warns-supreme-court-cant-be-bullied-2022-05-06/

Following protests sparked by the leak of a draft U.S. Supreme Court decision indicating the justices are poised to overturn the constitutional right to abortion, Justice Clarence Thomas said on Friday that the court cannot be "bullied."

...

As a society, "we are becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don't like," Thomas said.

"We can't be an institution that can be bullied into giving you just the outcomes you want. The events from earlier this week are a symptom of that."

It is very unfortunate how damaging this is to the Supreme Court, especially trust among colleagues and staff. Not to mention from a first draft before negotiations and discussions are had among justices where opinions are routinely evolving. Supreme Court used to be above the rage-driven minute to minute referendum found in DC, but still good to see strong language from Thomas fighting the reeeeee mantra.

Or how damaging it is for the SC itself.

I don't know why you disparaged that response so I'll ignore it, but I want to address the Clarence quote which I can't believe someone posted u ironically.

The man's wife attempted to organize an insurrection. I agree that the court shouldn't allow itself to be pressured into decisions (they all but can't alter the Roe decision), but Clarence is slinging bombs from a glass house, and he's completely shameless about it.

Because you're sidestepping the point. Lol

@Stevo_the_gamer: Which is?

No one is arguing the legality of protesting. I am discussing how the White House should be firm in denouncing the doxxing, the harassment and threats being levied at the Supreme Court justices, especially be firm in denouncing how grossly inappropriate it is to protest in front of the private residence of a sitting SC Justice as a form of intimidation to coerce a change of opinion.

You disagree which tells me you are either indifferent to the conduct or condone the conduct. Both are inappropriate.

I think I've been quite clear that I condone their protests as long as they do so legally. I was on this same island with the Canadian convoy protesters.

Again, that is not the point. lol

@Stevo_the_gamer: Then what IS your point? You've stated it's been legal, but you have a problem with it even though it's legal. I've stated that as long as it stays legal, I condone it based on first amendment principles. I don't know how to be clearer.

The point is about White House messaging. Hell, I broke it down in the previous reply piece by piece. At this point, I am not sure how much further hand holding I can do. Lol

@Stevo_the_gamer: Lol, yes, I support the White House vocalizing support for first amendment rights.

Who wouldn't?

And that is where I disagree amidst all your sidestepping, you can still vocalize support for the freedom of assembly while at the same time clearly denounce inappropriate behavior. For example, while it's legal to protest the funeral of a fallen soldier, it is equally inappropriate behavior. The White House should be firm to denouncing any attempts of coercion towards the US Supreme Court and that includes the harassment at their private residence, doxxing, and personal safety threats. Messaging should be clear and forthright--you will not coerce our highest court, harass them, or threaten them.

and again, the legal language injection. Let's look at that reply again from your own post:

Psaki coolly acknowledged, "We obviously want peoples’ privacy to be respected. We want people to protest peacefully if they want to protest. That is certainly what the president’s view would be."

Doocy pressed her once more, "So he doesn’t care if they’re protesting outside the Supreme Court or outside someone’s private residence?"

"I don’t have an official U.S. government position on where people protest," she said, adding, "We want it, of course, to be peaceful" and Biden "would want people’s privacy to be respected."

Confidence is at low for the court.

I'm aware of the press secretary's comments, and my point of discussion is that the White House needs to be firm and forthright in addressing the harassment, doxxing, and personal safety threats.

In fact, she uses the term "horror" to describe the response to the draft opinion by pro-choice advocates, yet no such term is used to describe the doxxing, personal safety threats, and harassment.

When Doocey brought up the doxxing, the response was "I think the president’s view is there’s a lot of passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness from many, many people across the country about what they saw in that document."

Yikes.

Which nowhere says doxxing is okay.

So you're fine with the comments about the protests, but are upset that the White House didn't say, "don't post residence locations to protest at?"

None of those are opinions, wtf? 🤣

"Its results have been described in 50 scientific papers, almost all of which were published in peer-reviewed journals from 2012 to 2020. And to date, the study is one of the most comprehensive in the field."

The largest link, which is 55 page study, is not a projection. A majority of my links are not. Only one is primarily a projection, another other uses it sparingly.

In regards to the one projection. Tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies do this. Climate studies. Economic studies. Virology studies. This is a regular thing......you subjectively are saying such a data type does not matter.

This is not a rebuttal to my studies, this is you going full Q-Anon. Find me counter-citation in your next post so we can start a debate on my factual claim which has not been refuted.

It's not an article, it's a study (they link to it). And yes, based off of areas that had increased restrictions over the last few decades, the rate DID go up. It completely meshed with the 55+ page global study (which includes US data). Areas with more restrictions have worse maternal mortality rates. Same goes for countries, not just states.

You typing wrong opinions is not a rebuttal to a study a poster just linked. A rebuttal would require counter-citation at this stage.

Most of my links are based off of real word data, and not projections. Even the few that are projections or predictions, you would have to refute them. This kind of study is not abnormal. By your twisted on-the-spot made up Breitbart logic, tens of thousands of climate, virology, and economical would be automatically nullified.

You're so bad at debating. Please start providing counter-citation so we can actually start debating real things and not your opinions.

@Stevo_the_gamer: I think you're reading way more into what wasn't said than is actually there, as demonstrated by your continued injection of loaded language.

Yes, in one sense but it misses the other parts about the harassment and personal safety threats. The White House obviously has to be tactful not to upset their pro-choice base, but they equally need to be firm and forthright in addressing (CONDEMNING) the harassment, doxxing, and personal safety threats. And yes, the protesting in front of a judge's private residence where (s)he and their family resides to coerce them to change a landmark decision is harassment.

It's a sidestep. For example, asking someone: Do you believe Judge Thomas should recuse himself from the Jan 6th related cases? And the response to that being, "judges should be mindful and consider whether their personal or professional conduct influences may be enough to warrant recusal." That's not an answer, it's a sidestep. Or another example, "Are you okay with judges being lenient in sentencing with sexual predators who get off on the sexual exploitation and abuse of babies, infants, and juveniles?" And the response to that being, "the sentencing isn't abnormal." Side. Step. Avoidance to answer the question.

No water shortages though, could save you money on the pool fill up. Plus you'll probably jive better with the local politics. Lower tax rates since they won't bother supporting all of those new babies being born due to a lack of abortion rights, which would lead to more teen pregnancies, abortions (illegal), and miscarriage, then you arrest them on your part. Rinse and repeat. What a cycle to behold!

Lower tax rates AND job security. Seems like a win-win.

Stevo, quit with your fake outrage over nothing. If it was Trump WH and it directly encouraged doxxing of a dem scotus, you would sit here saying "it's a nothing burger" and you know it.

Right wingers love feigning outrage.

Back on topic. What this clearly shows us is that none of our constitutional rights are inalienable. I can't think of a more important right that deciding what happens to your own body, but Republicans made that go away with the stroke of a pen. I only hope that in my lifetime Democrats are able to make the individual right interpretation, which has not been the interpretation of the supreme court for 250+ years, go away for the second amendment, in favor of the proper militia right interpretation.

Don't doubt that it could happen. Anything you do, the other team can do, as well.

Swamp water doesn't that sound that appealing though, plus that humidity. Gross! Hard weighing though, state burning up versus state drowning... Decisions decisions.

Lol

It's called "critical thinking" and analyzing a poor response to a simple (albeit typical loaded) questions from Peter.