Search:

Exactly...they'll face the same amount of public scrutiny if the decision was released in June vs. leaked in May, so it makes little sense for opponents of the decision to leak it.

Here's what you said, fuckface:



And I'd ask how a leak would do that since this court has made clear it doesn't bow to public pressure and isn't bound to public opinion?

Also, when has...

Again, READ THE DECISION, Flash.

NO!

The only way the Constitution can be changed is through the amendment process.

What the courts do is set precedent based on Constitutionality.

But precedent, as we know, is fungible.

No, determines the Constitutionality of laws.

SCOTUS doesn't determine law, they determine whether or not the law is Constitutional.




In this context, there is no law that SCOTUS writes or...

Right, but that doesn't magically turn it into a law.

It sets precedent.

Precedent is not law.

Only Congress can write laws.

Which is why she had her husband vote against making those communications available to the Jan 6 committee...so since she was a political operative then, why wouldn't she also be one now?

Who,...

The job of a SCOTUS justice is to determine the Constitutionality of laws, not the personal belief in the morality of them.

Your thinking is really fucking juvenile and wrong.




Have you...

Therefore, if the right to privacy no longer is precedent for abortion, then it isn't for Griswold and birth control either.

Alito trying to Bush v. Gore this decision isn't going to stand to...

Look at that parenthetical...that's a goalpost shift.

And no, the Constitution was not changed...it can only be changed by amendment, not by SCOTUS decisions.

What SCOTUS decided in 1970 set...

Flash, does the Constitution grant the Supreme Court the power to write and enact laws?

No, they become precedent.

Only Congress can write laws.




But you don't know that because you think SCOTUS wrote Roe into law, when it merely set precedent.

The Nazi judges didn't erase...

It's not a leap of logic when I'm quoting your own words.




Correction: you don't believe it NOW, after I pointed out your ignorance around her.

Secondly, she was stupid enough to converse...

You can't help but blame the ambiguous "left" for everything because admitting the right has gone full fascist would completely and totally undermine this phoney baloney BoTHSiDeS bullshit you've...

What makes you think this?

The more time, the worse because it moves out of the news cycle.

It's not going to be news in June when they release the formal decision, so electorally, how does...

OK, let's go check the record:

[/QUOTE]

Sure seems like you thought Ginni Thomas was pro-women's rights, and that she leaked it because she was pro-women's rights...so you're trying to pin it...

You should.

No, of course I don't...but you don't have any evidence that it was anyone on "the left", yet you believe it for some dumb reason that you haven't been able to articulate.

I can articulate a list...

Because you said she was pro-women's rights when she has spent her entire life fighting against them.




What advantage for the left is there to leak something to influence the election in May...

Yep...exactly.

You now have no legal right to privacy, which means I can doxx you if I wanted.

Who said I wanted to murder little kitties?

I love cats more than people.

NO, it isn't.

The system has never, until the Roberts Court, worked in this context where the personal beliefs of the justices form as the basis of their decisions.




You would need to...

UGH...the decision was based on Constitutional Law...there was no "Roe" Law.




What the fuck are you talking about?

The Constitution was not amended or changed at all to include abortion...

Ginni Thomas is not pro-women's rights.

Do you know anything about her, or did you just pop off without doing any research?

Wouldn't that be the GOP's motive? Stirring up shit about a phony leak to distract from the unsound decision the Nazi judges just made, after lying about it in their confirmation hearings?

You...