ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

In today's edition of whataboutism: Suddenly Dems are shouting about slippery slopes?

---

Its less of a slippery slope and more of a water slide that Alito is attempting to construct with big flashing signs pointing to it. In terms of overturning Lawrence and Obergefell and generally allowing for legal persecution of/discrimination against LGBT folks.

---

Let's wait on the final opinion.

AgBQ-00 said:

---

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

In today's edition of whataboutism: Suddenly Dems are shouting about slippery slopes?

---

Its less of a slippery slope and more of a water slide that Alito is attempting to construct with big flashing signs pointing to it. In terms of overturning Lawrence and Obergefell and generally allowing for legal persecution of/discrimination against LGBT folks.

---

Considering the opinion specifically states this decision holds no precedence or connection to rulings not associated with abortion, I am going to guess you have not read it or consumed any info outside of the radical left's propaganda of it.

---

Well of course it doesn't, those issues aren't before the court in this case. I read the whole opinion and Alito goes out of his way to throw a lot of doubt on the reasoning of Lawrence and Obergefell and really Griswold too. Yes there's that contradictory section where it gets halfway walked back but not really. It's definitely an invitation to test the limits of what can be done in a framework without the whole penumbra right to personal/sexual/bodily autonomy and privacy.

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

AgBQ-00 said:

---

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

In today's edition of whataboutism: Suddenly Dems are shouting about slippery slopes?

---

Its less of a slippery slope and more of a water slide that Alito is attempting to construct with big flashing signs pointing to it. In terms of overturning Lawrence and Obergefell and generally allowing for legal persecution of/discrimination against LGBT folks.

---

Considering the opinion specifically states this decision holds no precedence or connection to rulings not associated with abortion, I am going to guess you have not read it or consumed any info outside of the radical left's propaganda of it.

---

Well of course it doesn't, those issues aren't before the court in this case. I read the whole opinion and Alito goes out of his way to throw a lot of doubt on the reasoning of Lawrence and Obergefell and really Griswold too. Yes there's that contradictory section where it gets halfway walked back but not really. It's definitely an invitation to test the limits of what can be done in a framework without the whole penumbra right to personal/sexual/bodily autonomy and privacy.

---

You have read the final opinion? Because this is not the final opinion.

Why not wait and see the final opinion?

Obviously I have not read the final opinion which does not exist. And yes it's entirely possible that there are 5 votes in favor of Mississippi and Alito went further in writing the draft than all 4 of the others would go, and this opinion will be or would have been tempered before being finalized. We'll see.

The Debt said:

---

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

Obviously I have not read the final opinion which does not exist. And yes it's entirely possible that there are 5 votes in favor of Mississippi and Alito went further in writing the draft than all 4 of the others would go, and this opinion will be or would have been tempered before being finalized. We'll see.

---

Doubtful that Alito would write 98 pages of hypothetical opinion.

---

He would have absolutely circulated his version and allowed the other 4 who have agreed in principle to voting together to weigh in and say what they will and won't endorse, which could result in edits including softening certain language. That's how these things work.

No one relies on talking coffee containers to understand how things work.

You also do not write 98 page drafts and this was prepared 2 months ago and not one thing has been done to call into question the contents.

Any attempt to extend this ruling beyond RvW and pushing it back to the States (as it always should have been) is nothing but leftist talking points.

LGBTQ issues and "normal" birth control are long been deemed privacy issues. When you harm another or bring your nastiness out of the bedroom then you no longer get the right to privacy.

The commie socialists want privacy to extend to teaching your kids to cut their weenies off and that pedophilia is love, just in a different way, and that pedos privacy is a "right".

There is NO legal or rational argument for RvW to have ever existed. It was born of pure propaganda and a case "born" of aggressive hunting and manipulation of the plaintiff.

Someone should have made a sign that points an arrow to her and says "you make a compelling case, but I'm still against murder"

. . . said:

---

Damn…
pic.twitter.com/65iOFaYbPt

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) May 4, 2022

Regretting being born to own the cons pic.twitter.com/MTZZHEWp1x

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) May 4, 2022

---

I agree with her

Can't tell if that's tongue in cheek

Quote:

---

Roe out, question is who leaked???

---

If this was on the SAT the answer would be a fish.

Seeing a lot of "you'll only ban legal abortions" statements.


Seems familiar. Where have I heard that???

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

The Debt said:

---

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

Obviously I have not read the final opinion which does not exist. And yes it's entirely possible that there are 5 votes in favor of Mississippi and Alito went further in writing the draft than all 4 of the others would go, and this opinion will be or would have been tempered before being finalized. We'll see.

---

Doubtful that Alito would write 98 pages of hypothetical opinion.

---

He would have absolutely circulated his version and allowed the other 4 who have agreed in principle to voting together to weigh in and say what they will and won't endorse, which could result in edits including softening certain language. That's how these things work.

---

If you click the link in the OP you can see on page one he sent it to all 8 other justices.

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

AgBQ-00 said:

---

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

In today's edition of whataboutism: Suddenly Dems are shouting about slippery slopes?

---

Its less of a slippery slope and more of a water slide that Alito is attempting to construct with big flashing signs pointing to it. In terms of overturning Lawrence and Obergefell and generally allowing for legal persecution of/discrimination against LGBT folks.

---

Considering the opinion specifically states this decision holds no precedence or connection to rulings not associated with abortion, I am going to guess you have not read it or consumed any info outside of the radical left's propaganda of it.

---

Well of course it doesn't, those issues aren't before the court in this case. I read the whole opinion and Alito goes out of his way to throw a lot of doubt on the reasoning of Lawrence and Obergefell and really Griswold too. Yes there's that contradictory section where it gets halfway walked back but not really. It's definitely an invitation to test the limits of what can be done in a framework without the whole penumbra right to personal/sexual/bodily autonomy and privacy.

---

You obviously don't understand the term "precedence". Your statement about those issues not being before the court is utterly stupid, given the meaning of that term.

Keegan99 said:

---

This is a nonsense reply. The poster provided a pretty detailed explanation of controls that, if in place, would largely prevent "not following the rules they don't like".

How would you suggest the leak circumvented those controls?

---

By violating one of the "rules." The same as violating election laws. To some degree, the rules/laws are dependent on people being ethical or having integrity. That is not who we're dealing with.

If someone violated the rules by stuffing papers in their pants and no one checked them? Same with a thumb drive. We don't know what the actual controls are.

As someone who is heavily involved in the administration of elections, I can tell you that it would be simple to vote in multiple states if I chose to do so. I would just have to have a total lack of integrity. Integrity isn't stopping many leftists these days.

See: Adam Schiff's repeated brazen lies about Devin Nunes.

Agthatbuilds said:

---

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

This is a nonsense reply. The poster provided a pretty detailed explanation of controls that, if in place, would largely prevent "not following the rules they don't like".

How would you suggest the leak circumvented those controls?

---

I don't think anything would stop somebody from stuffing a printout down their shorts instead of putting it in the burn bag.

---

One page sure, 99 pages though?

---

How often does that person have access to the document?

Marcus Brutus said:

---

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

AgBQ-00 said:

---

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

In today's edition of whataboutism: Suddenly Dems are shouting about slippery slopes?

---

Its less of a slippery slope and more of a water slide that Alito is attempting to construct with big flashing signs pointing to it. In terms of overturning Lawrence and Obergefell and generally allowing for legal persecution of/discrimination against LGBT folks.

---

Considering the opinion specifically states this decision holds no precedence or connection to rulings not associated with abortion, I am going to guess you have not read it or consumed any info outside of the radical left's propaganda of it.

---

Well of course it doesn't, those issues aren't before the court in this case. I read the whole opinion and Alito goes out of his way to throw a lot of doubt on the reasoning of Lawrence and Obergefell and really Griswold too. Yes there's that contradictory section where it gets halfway walked back but not really. It's definitely an invitation to test the limits of what can be done in a framework without the whole penumbra right to personal/sexual/bodily autonomy and privacy.

---

You obviously don't understand the term "precedence". Your statement about those issues not being before the court is utterly stupid, given the meaning of that term.

---

You're not a lawyer

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

Marcus Brutus said:

---

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

AgBQ-00 said:

---

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

In today's edition of whataboutism: Suddenly Dems are shouting about slippery slopes?

---

Its less of a slippery slope and more of a water slide that Alito is attempting to construct with big flashing signs pointing to it. In terms of overturning Lawrence and Obergefell and generally allowing for legal persecution of/discrimination against LGBT folks.

---

Considering the opinion specifically states this decision holds no precedence or connection to rulings not associated with abortion, I am going to guess you have not read it or consumed any info outside of the radical left's propaganda of it.

---

Well of course it doesn't, those issues aren't before the court in this case. I read the whole opinion and Alito goes out of his way to throw a lot of doubt on the reasoning of Lawrence and Obergefell and really Griswold too. Yes there's that contradictory section where it gets halfway walked back but not really. It's definitely an invitation to test the limits of what can be done in a framework without the whole penumbra right to personal/sexual/bodily autonomy and privacy.

---

You obviously don't understand the term "precedence". Your statement about those issues not being before the court is utterly stupid, given the meaning of that term.

---

You're not a lawyer

---

neither are you. Obviously.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

Marcus Brutus said:

---

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

AgBQ-00 said:

---

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

In today's edition of whataboutism: Suddenly Dems are shouting about slippery slopes?

---

Its less of a slippery slope and more of a water slide that Alito is attempting to construct with big flashing signs pointing to it. In terms of overturning Lawrence and Obergefell and generally allowing for legal persecution of/discrimination against LGBT folks.

---

Considering the opinion specifically states this decision holds no precedence or connection to rulings not associated with abortion, I am going to guess you have not read it or consumed any info outside of the radical left's propaganda of it.

---

Well of course it doesn't, those issues aren't before the court in this case. I read the whole opinion and Alito goes out of his way to throw a lot of doubt on the reasoning of Lawrence and Obergefell and really Griswold too. Yes there's that contradictory section where it gets halfway walked back but not really. It's definitely an invitation to test the limits of what can be done in a framework without the whole penumbra right to personal/sexual/bodily autonomy and privacy.

---

You obviously don't understand the term "precedence". Your statement about those issues not being before the court is utterly stupid, given the meaning of that term.

---

You're not a lawyer

---

neither are you. Obviously.

---

I literally am