1. What case would allow this Court to overturn an earlier Court? On what basis? Is there a case the court accepted to which this decision is attached? (I have not looked.)
2. Since there is a long draft (about 100 pages), does that mean the members of the Court have already voted?
3. The release of this draft will almost certainly result in stopping such a decision, as it is so unpopular among women.
4. Were a decision to overturn Roe v Wade to be announced, that would shift many millions of votes in the midterm from Republicans to Democrats. It could allow the Dems to retain control of both houses of Congress.
5. Is the Supreme Court review of Roe v Wade then in fact a Deep State operation to maintain legislative power with the Dems to more easily allow the Great Reset to go forward?
I am wondering what others think?
7 comments:
Seems to be yet another tizzy-inducing psy-op of mass distraction. The irony and hypocrisy in all this, those most vocal champions of "my body my choice" are exactly those most shrill supporters of government edicts enforcing the jab -- without regard to personal choice -- without regard to the parental perogative of protecting their children.
Dr. Nass, in your travels and through your networking, are you aware of any countries in the world that might yet be sane and rational and free and healthy enough to consider a relocation? Thinking it may be time for a post-retirement transition, while there's still a chance...
I think you are spot-on, Meryl. This was leaked to prevent the massive hemorrhaging of voters who have left the Dem party over the last couple years in particular, myself included. I hope it doesn’t work, but people are passionate about this issue on both sides. I’ve never had a problem with first trimester abortion. After that, the medical, legal, and deterministic issues come into play much more sharply. One thing I know for sure is that abortions will always happen, whether they are safe and legal or not. Many moons ago, I was an L and D nurse in a busy inner city hospital, delivering 800+ babies a month. Most lay people have no clue at all of the many medical issues that can occur during a second or third trimester loss. It’s a complex issue and doesn’t comport with an easy answer.
Answering question: who leaked it is of a different caliber from consequences of leak, and those motives -- keeping in mind CIA admits to spying on Congress; Obama's NSA got caught spying on Merkel; Durham has shown same spied on Trump, et. al. and Snowden showed everything is captured and we're all spied on, all our emails, phone messages, everything online, recorded by US Government.
Thus, a large pool [more than a million] of potential 'who dunnit' 'suspects' have access to and perform this work capturing stuff.
According to Politico, May 2: [POLITICO received a copy of the draft opinion from a person familiar with the court’s proceedings in the Mississippi case along with other details supporting the authenticity of the document.]
If true, assuming it actually came from 'a person familiar' -- and this, a very big if -- this is saying pool is:
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr
and by order of seniority:
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas, 1991
Stephen Breyer, 1994
Samuel Alito, 2006
Sonia Sotomayor, 2009
Elena Kagan, 2010
Neil Gorsuch, 2017
Brett Kavanaugh, 2018
Amy Coney Barrett, 2020.
This nine and their aids and clerks, anyone inside.
And outside the Court 'familiar with the court’s proceedings in the Mississippi case.' This include aforementioned large pool [more than a million] of potential 'who dunnit' 'suspects' that perform work capturing stuff and are 'familiar with the court’s proceedings in the Mississippi case', at least, this is Politico's narrative.
This brings us to two possibilities:
1] someone inside court system leaked it, the smaller pool; or 2] someone outside court system, the larger pool.
Irrespective of 1] or 2], it can be argued, to put it stark and clearly: this event destroyed whatever legitimacy Supreme Court as an institution may still have 'enjoyed'.
Which, by definition, lead to greater tyranny, therefore.
However, official response of Supreme Court, via Roberts, for reasons others may comment on: completely fails to recognize this consequence, destruction of the court, and all courts, as an institution in US.
Roberts, in fact, pretends that there is no damage, saying: "the Court will not be affected in any way."
Why sputter such nonsense, as the Titanic is sinking, as it were?
His response, this lie, implicates him, as I see it.
Roberts' decision directing "the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak" adds more sick humor.
Framing this as merely "a singular and egregious breach" is either being in La La Land, or a statement of a cover up of the actual consequences of this event.
What we are seeing, on the third day on this THIRD RAIL: scant to non-existent conversations among our "lords and masters" and their agents in big tech and big media and big government that go to the heart of matter: destruction, the breaking of the courts legitimacy.
This 'looking the other way' has to be on purpose.
Others should comment on why 'looking the other way' on purpose.
In other words: Titanic is sinking -- and yet we won't 'be affected in any way'!
Instead of working together to save ourselves from inevitable doom, this wonderfully orchestrated Cover Story has us, in this sinking ship: fighting each other -- over Roe v. Wade, among most divisive political issues in modern America. Big Tech and Big Media, agents of our lords and masters, are making hay out of fact we're fighting each other, instead of working together to save ourselves from drowning in more tyranny.
The 'beauty' of all this: there is nothing illegal about leaking that document.
Irrespective of who is 'right' / 'wrong' here, principle of bodily autonomy enshrined in Roe decision already Gone With The Wind: with Covid-19 forced vaccine mandates for people to keep their jobs, go to college, be in public, imposition of slave passports, etc.
-30-
Disappointing take, I would say. And don't underestimate the ability of the left to further turn off relatively normal people by their extreme protests cum riot. Also consider the arguments here: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/04/abortion-wedge-issue-partisan-democrats-turnout-00030129
I think there is a strong case that the Roe v. Wade was a bad decision to begin with. I am increasingly coming around to that view. Turning the contentious issue of abortion over to the states seems like a reasonable approach in our federalist system, in the light of a Constitution which doesn't come close to explicitly commenting on it. I was impressed with Greenwald's initial take on the leak: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-irrational-misguided-discourse?s=r.
As for the Supreme Court, unfortunately it has already cast doubt on its own independence. Refusing to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania on the basis of standing, and then refusing to hear it again as moot, when it was again submitted by someone representing Trump (I think it was) was a big slap in the face. If the Supreme Court is not the place to raise questions of the constitutionality of an election, where should it be heard? And if a state doesn't have an interest in not having the results of its constitutionally conducted election diluted by the votes of an unconstitutionally run election in another state, and therefore does not have standing, who does have standing in such situations?
To add further to my previous anonymous comment: due to refusing a Covid-19 vaccine, I lost my job at a, typically, leftist-dominated university, where I had worked for over a decade. Based on internal surveys, my colleagues apparently overwhelmingly supported the vaccine mandate, as did faculty in a larger university-wide survey. If overturning Roe v. Wade makes it harder for them to abort their fetuses whenever they want (which it won't anyway, since this was in a very pro-choice state), then fuck those people. I identified as somewhere on the left for most of my life, but not any more, something which started several years before the "pandemic."
You nailed it, Dr. Nass. This is one of the U.S. prongs of the huge multipronged money-saturated globalist totalitarian agenda, pulled out to keep the U.S. "Democrats" in power. When it comes to their con games, they found a good'un this time.
No one in '''Liberal''' DOJ/FBI-OccupiedNYTimes or any other of that clack wanted to listen to Ruth Bader Ginsburg on this topic.
They pretended she wasn't important. [We hear nothing about her on this matter now, for obvious reasons; as she was not a partisan hack; ditto MLK on race relations, as his ideas don’t comport with the race-dividing and people-dividing agenda of the CIA/OBAMA wing of National Democrats and their Useful Idiots.]
Although RBG agreed with 1973 Roe v Wade, she said cardinal sin was not sticking to the case at hand, which allowed supreme court to become a target.
She understood US politics, saying abortion restrictions should have gradually been dismantled.
She actually addressed this matter over the years, including during her Oct. 2019 visit to Amherst College
RBG said the court struck down a state law in Texas that permitted abortion only when a woman’s life was in danger – and in its sweeping ruling, struck down other prohibitions, and allowed access to abortion without need of justification.
The Supreme Court, in Roe v Wade, deemed that life did not begin until after the first trimester of pregnancy – a judicial decree that was controversial then as now.
RBG said one consequence of Roe legalizing abortion is the court itself became target for abortion opponents.
It didn’t have to be that way, had a different road been taken, she said.
Speaking about how opposition to the ruling crystallized, Ginsburg said at Amherst: “I think the development might have been different” if “building blocks” consisting of a series of incremental decisions to expand abortion rights had happened over time, instead.
Had there never been Roe, according to RBG, abortion laws, already being "liberalized" would have continued so, that was obvious.
As things stand now, in general, '''blue''' states will pass legislation creating abortion on demand, with some no doubt going all the way to allow this up to 40+ weeks of gestation.
In general, '''red''' states will perhaps do what Texas did, allow abortion through 6 or 8 weeks of gestation.
This is already happening and has been happening.
I wish I could say with a straight face this "fight" is about women's right to choose and by extension, a person's right to bodily autonomy.
For some it is -- but not among those in big media and big teach and big government taking sides. [In particular, viz. oligarchs actually in charge. Pushing division and hatred among us, and now pushing their WWWIII agenda against Russian Federation, aided and abetted by a US administration led by Biden – these beasts, these Armageddon Boys.]
Just one more big partisan plastic spectacle: for big ratings, big egos and bigger confusion of population.
Fact of the matter is, abortions are not being outlawed.
Abortion as a rational form of birth control is what it is; it is not going away in the country, period, end of story, no matter what I think, or whatever the broken, fragmented, and criminal supreme court does or does not do. John Roberts is a very sick man.
A year ago it should have been clear to even the most obtuse that: the principals on which Roe stood -- the right to be let alone -- was already dead, and, therefore, so wasn't Roe, with bodily autonomy eviscerated, along with first amendment and free expression and human rights.
In Marbury v. Madiso, 5 US 137, Supreme Court, February 24, 1803, struck down – on its own -- an act of Congress, as unconstitutional.
On its own, Supreme Court was supposed strike down Covid-19 forced vaccine mandates [for people to keep their jobs, go to college, etc.; and imposition of what euphemistically call Vaccine Passports – aka Slave Passports], mask mandates, attacks on religious freedom, freedom to attend school, etc.
It did none of that. FAILED! Supreme Court RIP
-30-
Post a Comment