Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Some Republican politicians immediately blamed Democrats, as usual without any evidence, for the leak when the news broke last night. ONE lone Republican senator, as of last night, actually said we should have an investigation first before making any assumptions about the initiator of the leak. Duh!
That said, if the leaked draft is accurate, it likely represents the opinions and intentions and the will of the majority of conservative justices so even a nuanced opinion later will not actually substantially change what you see in the draft...
On edit: "The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that while the document is “authentic,” it does not reflect the final decision from the bench."
https://thehill.com/news/house/3475945-pelosi-targets-trump-mcconnell-in-statement-slamming-draft-opinion-overturning-roe/

"Chief" justice Roberts is calling the outing of the draft opinions a "betrayal" and is, with righteous indignation, vowing to press forward with an investigation to get to the bottom of it. Frankly, I think it's the Karma effect that I'm seeing here. I mean I think the fact that the same enforceable ethical standards that federal and other judges are required to adhere to that the supreme's are not is finally catching up to Roberts and biting him and the others in the butt. You've got Clarence Thomas refusing to recuse himself on Jan 6th cases when his own wife was actively engaged in the behind the scenes messaging about it with Meadows is about as bad as it gets and Roberts hasn't done squat about it. He needs to get off his high horse and clean his own shop first before crying victim here. I think someone who leaked the draft is probably pissed about it and doesn't feel remorse in outing the supremes, given what he or she sees that is going on around them with the Roberts court...
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/03/politics/supreme-court-john-roberts-roe-v-wade/index.html

Trae Crowder weighs in on behalf of poor people:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=404lKddM65E

As Amy Coney Barrett pointed out during the abortions arguments she was overhearing, since states have "safe-harbor laws', all ya gotta do after carrying one for nine months and deciding you don't want 'em is to "drop 'em off at the local fire station." So, in her mind, what's the big deal? 
That's pretty much in line with the arguments I've seen presented here...

The Republicans outrage over the leak duly noted:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/opinions/2022/05/04/mississippi-v-dobbs-abortion-leak-republican-se-cupp-orig-vf.cnn

The leak notwithstanding, why does the position of the conservative members on Rove Vs Wade of the court come as a surprise to anyone? 
I mean everybody knew they lied about it during their confirmation hearings and in their so-called private confirmation meetings with the senators. I've already posted a link to what this bunch said during their hearings which is pretty much diametrically opposed to what they're saying in their draft opinion. The senators are shocked by what they're reading now and what the justice-nominees told them during their meetings. Are you kidding me? You don't have ethical standards reigning in the supreme court as you do with virtually any other court in the land and the conservatives do whatever they want, when they want, and Roberts hasn't done squat about it. Do I have to restate all the crap Clarence has pulled over the years and now, somehow, Roberts is shocked that the court protocols have been breached? 
We know McConnell called trump at midnight to tell him to nominate Barrett on the day Ginsburg died  and he denied a sitting president the right to nominate a candidate for the court during his speakership but stated publicly that he would have no qualms in permitting the process to occur if the same circumstances happened under a Republican president. If there are any ethics to complain about here, it is the lack of any in the Republican party and in the Roberts court...

Originally Posted by Mel Maki

I suppose the more conservative judicial could be the only ones playing it straight. Of course they would lose doing that.
Are you pretending the liberals have been playing it straight?

What I heard at the confirmation hearings of the liberal judges was a lot more up front and honest than from the two-faced HS coming from the cons and that's why you see the disdain and shock from some of the senators who voted to confirm them...

Roberts hasn't suddenly appeared "ineffectual" to me. I think he's always been that way:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/06/politics/chief-justice-john-roberts-lost-the-court/index.html 

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Roberts hasn't suddenly appeared "ineffectual" to me. I think he's always been that way:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/06/politics/chief-justice-john-roberts-lost-the-court/index.html 

More on Robert's failed leadership from The Hill:
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3480152-supreme-court-fallout-casts-harsh-light-on-roberts-leadership/
I think this excerpt is particularily telling: 
"The three Trump-appointed justices were accused of lying to the American public during their confirmation hearings by indicating they viewed Roe as settled law, only to endorse striking down the landmark 1973 decision soon after joining the bench." Of course they lied, just like Trump.
Then there's Thomas who already publicly made up his mind of Roe Vs Wade in 2020 before he ever heard the case. Aren't judges supposed to be open-minded and unbiased in order to hear a case?

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

How unbiased do you have to be to overturn an unconstitutional law? Bias really isnt a factor, it is either constitutional or not.....and in this case it is not and never was.

Lol! It's the duty of a judge to hear a case, any case, in an objective and unbiased manner, In the case of Clarence, he clearly advocated for overturning Roe Vs Wade in a presentation in 2020 and obviously before hearing this one. In the case of the three other liars on the court, as you can see from the article in The Hill, all had essentially considered and previously stated during their nomination process that the precedents behind Roe Vs Wade constituted "settled law"...