ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

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

---

What states are you licensed in? What year? What courts are you admitted in?

BREAKING REPORT: Leftwing Group 'Ruth Sent Us' DOXXES HOME ADDRESS of 6 Conservative Supreme Court Justices...

— Chuck Callesto (@ChuckCallesto) May 5, 2022

I love it when lawyers fight.

Quote:

---

Well that's terrifying. Isn't logic supposed to be a big part of being a lawyer?

---

/insert haha_no.gif

wbt5845 said:

---

I love it when lawyers fight.

---

Bro thats called trial

wbt5845 said:

---

I love it when lawyers fight.

---

Well, at their very core, they're professional debaters.

fasthorse05 said:

---

wbt5845 said:

---

I love it when lawyers fight.

---

Well, at their very core, they're professional debaters.

---

That's debatable.

fasthorse05 said:

---

wbt5845 said:

---

I love it when lawyers fight.

---

Well, at their very core, they're professional debaters.

---

we prefer master debaters

Sea Speed said:

---

wbt5845 said:

---

I love it when lawyers fight.

---

Bro thats called trial

---

or an oxford comma

BMX Bandit said:

---

fasthorse05 said:

---

wbt5845 said:

---

I love it when lawyers fight.

---

Well, at their very core, they're professional debaters.

---

we prefer master debaters

---

Or cunning linguists.

BREAKING: Sen. Schumer says Senate will vote next week on bill to codify right to abortion into federal law.pic.twitter.com/bzBemJSJTL

— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) May 5, 2022

will25u said:

---

BREAKING REPORT: Leftwing Group 'Ruth Sent Us' DOXXES HOME ADDRESS of 6 Conservative Supreme Court Justices...

— Chuck Callesto (@ChuckCallesto) May 5, 2022

---

Never let a good crisis go to waste. Crazy is as crazy does.

I just had to post to get this thread to 1000.

BMX Bandit said:

---

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

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

---

then you clearly understand when a judge says the ruling deals strictly only with abortion and is not to be used as precedent, that his comments on Lawrence and Obergfell are dicta.

---

Of course I do. I never suggested that this ruling would somehow overturn Lawrence/Obergefell/Griswold in and of itself. The fact that dicta has no precedential value doesn't mean the justices don't use it to signal how they feel about other issues and how they would vote if it came up. They do that all the time and have forever.

That's what I said. It's not a slippery slope, it's a water slide Alito is building and pointing to. He's saying here's the path, I've put it together for you just come slide down it. And if 4 justices do join him in that opinion, that is very instructive about how things are likely to go.

Go back and read the whole exchange you quoted, it's right there.

Alito "signaled" how he felt about those cases long before his leak.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Alito "signaled" how he felt about those cases long before his leak.

---

He sure did. And if he now has 4 others signing off on it with him, do you see how that's different?

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Alito "signaled" how he felt about those cases long before his leak.

---

He sure did. And if he now has 4 others signing off on it with him, do you see how that's different?

---

how is it different? we already knew how several of them felt. would it make you feel better if the others wrote a concurrence in a different case last month "signaling" how they felt?

Some of the same people upset about this were all in on the vaccine mandate. Wow.

Quote:

---

Among the debates generated by the leak of Justice Samuel Alito's opinion in Dobbs is whether the leaker was conservative or liberal. The leak will ultimately pale in importance to the court's decision once it is issued; the ruling will directly affect the lives and rights of tens of millions of people. But in the meantime, the motives of the leaker are an important topic because they help explain why an institution that zealously guards its secrets suddenly seems porous.

Start from the premise that there were actually (at least) two leakers, and three leaks. The first leak was to the Wall Street Journal editorial board last week. In substance, it was that the court had voted to overrule Roe v. Wade, but that the precise outcome remains in doubt because Chief Justice John Roberts is trying to persuade either Justice Brett Kavanaugh or Justice Amy Coney Barrett to a more moderate position that would uphold the Mississippi abortion restriction without formally overturning Roe.

While not formally presented as relying on a leak, the editorial transparently does. The most obvious example is that it predicts that Alito is drafting a majority opinion to overrule Roe, but gives no explanation for that prediction and none is apparent. We now know that Alito did draft that opinion.

The second leak was to Politico. Likely within the past few days, a person familiar with the court's deliberations told them that five members of the court Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch originally voted to overturn Roe and that remains the current vote. In addition, the position of the chief justice is unclear. The remaining justices are dissenting.

The third leak was also to Politico. It was presumably but not certainly by the same person. Someone provided them with Alito's Feb. 10 draft opinion.

<snip>

ere is what you would conclude is the state of play if you took all the leaks as both accurate and pretty complete (assumptions that, admittedly, are by no means certain). Alito's opinion probably has been joined by Thomas and Gorsuch. Kavanaugh and Barrett have yet to join most likely because they are waiting to consider an alternative opinion from the chief justice.

In these circumstances, which ideological side would think it benefits from leaking the opinion? It seems to me, that is the left. I can see conservatives believing that they would gain from leaking the fact that Kavanaugh had originally voted to strike down Roe. They might believe it would tend to lock him into that position. But that was accomplished by leaking that fact to both The Wall Street Journal and Politico.

<snip>

One small note about the identity of the leaker. There has been some speculation that turns on a supposed relationship with Josh Gerstein, the Politico legal affairs reporter who is the lead author on their story. It seems to me that the leak very likely runs instead through the other reporter with a byline on the story: Alexander Ward, who is a national security reporter. In response to questions from The Washington Post, Politico confirmed that the story was very tightly held from even its own staff. Almost surely, the leaker would have insisted on that confidentiality. I cannot think of a reason that Ward would have been on the story other than that the leaker communicated through him, not Gerstein. And Politico would have felt compelled to give Ward a byline on such a historic scoop.

---

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/how-the-leak-might-have-happened/

Wonder what RINO Romney will do? He'll be like the super hero Gif picking the button.

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

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

---

Well that's terrifying. Isn't logic supposed to be a big part of being a lawyer?

---

Not as big as charging super high rates rounded up to the nearest half hour...

BigRobSA said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

then you clearly understand when a judge says the ruling deals strictly only with abortion and is not to be used as precedent, that his comments on Lawrence and Obergfell are dicta.

---

Dicta?

Best NFL coach, ever!!

---

You could have also ran with...

"Dicta? I hardly even met her!"

There is no follow up to that tweet. He's a political strategist. I mean, who is he and how does he know?

Thread. He keeps going.

2. It would strike down almost all state laws on abortion, including parental-consent laws supported by 70% of Americans: https://t.co/fav7X8zf06 pic.twitter.com/pw0uW6diJy

— John McCormack (@McCormackJohn) May 5, 2022

4. It would create a right for non-doctors to perform abortions: pic.twitter.com/lLbrhZK6r8

— John McCormack (@McCormackJohn) May 5, 2022