Isnt merely introducing such a bill blatantly tossing aside everything this country is based on? I thought the whole lifetime appointment thing was in the Consitution, which is something run-of-the-mill legislation cannot override? Please tell me that they know full well it isnt remotely possible, and are just introducting it to rile up their stupid followers who actually believe all their crap?
1 Like
Those idiots do realize that there is a pretty big difference between being “health risks” and “life threatening”, right? Ok, yes, I’m pretty sure they dont…
Since when are Supreme Court decisions “negotiated”? I’m pretty sure the correct word they were meaning to use was “bribed” or “bullied”.
1 Like
3-D chess analysis of the possible leaker. The author’s conclusion is that it was one of the three leftist “justices.” Roberts decided to shut down the investigation since that would make the court appear even worse than it does already.
He (Roberts) may be right. But still, as Chief Justice, isn’t part of his job description to be the chief of justice?
One last morsel for thought: If the leaker was indeed a Justice, the liberal reporter at Politico who broke the story and published the draft opinion now has kompromat on her.
2 Likes
Not precisely. But close.
The Constitution declares Supreme Court Justices may hold their high offices in “good behaviour”. This is generally taken to mean they have the job for life provided only that they behave properly.
As you likely already have guessed, “good behaviour” is not further elucidated in the Constitution.
1 Like
Democrats pass SCOTUS term limits.
Republicans argue the law is unconstitutional.
SCOTUS takes the case and decides whether or not they will lose their jobs.
Sounds like a great way to shore up support for government institutions. 
2 Likes
It would be transphobic to point out the SCOTUS would-be assassin is a crazy trans person, which is why we haven’t heard much about it. Also, he/it planned to kill 3 justices in all to secure the future Liberal World Order. Lots more coverage of recent illegal protests and such below.
before traveling 3,000 miles across the U.S. to kill Kavanaugh… excerpts from Discord conversations in which Roske revealed his intent to kill three members of the Supreme Court… On Sunday, the New York Post reported that Roske had conducted research on the “most effective place to stab someone” before showing up at Kavanaugh’s home, newly released details revealed.
I need psychiatric help,” he told the operator, while also saying he had been ”hospitalized multiple times” for mental health reasons.
I am not surprised.
2 Likes
Paging Nurse Ratched.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/08/23/teen-sex-education-roe/
WTF? Since when does the difference between medical and surgical abortions constitute sex ed?
1 Like
Serious question to anyone reading this who went to public school in the past 40 or so years - was abortion an educational topic in your health/sex ed class in high school? I went to a Catholic high school, so no surprise I never learned about it. I did go to a public middle school and had a more run-of-the-mill sex ed class, but what I remember was that it was mostly learning about puberty. The most startling thing was the video we watched that was produced by tampax.
2 Likes
South Carolina Republican fools form circular firing squad
And the Democrats are only too happy to witness the inevitable outcome!
South Carolina Republicans - WABOA
1 Like
The way I read that article is that the democrats successfully played republicans against each other in the committee based on procedural rules, but it is very likely that they will fix the bill when it hits the floor. The law in SC will change from 20 weeks to 12 weeks, and if they can fix the issue democrats just pushed forward, it will continue to have exceptions for the life of the mother through all of pregnancy and exceptions for rape and incest through 12 weeks. I bet there is only a slim chance it passes without the rape and incest exceptions.
2 Likes
I do not think the Scotus will take the case. To be consistent with Dobbs, the court will simply say that it’s up to the states. P.S. I tried to find an article with more evenhanded language but a quick search did not turn up any.
Anti-abortion activists have filed a novel petition with the Supreme Court asking it to rule that fetuses have legal standing to file law suits in courts.
1 Like
Ms Integrity herself casts doubt on one of the inconvenient Institutions of Our Democracy.
2 Likes
“They didn’t do what I want so they must be corrupt” is always a winning argument… 
2 Likes
Attacks pro life centers number nearly 100 and Biden’s DOJ is doing as little as you’d expect.
4 Likes
The Democrats keep trying to turn the election to a referendum on abortion but it’s not working. So they are becoming increasingly more desperate. Here in California, they’re running ads against the popular Republican candidate for controller, Lanhee Chen, based on abortion. The controller position is a bean counter, accountant for the state. Nothing to do with abortion.
1 Like
Aside from that ad being despicable in the sense that there isn’t a single proposal in any state legislature that would make a criminal out of a mother that got an abortion, the ad is actually an accurate depiction of what the FBI is CURRENTLY DOING to any pro-life activist it can possibly charge with a federal crime, no matter how flimsy.
3 Likes
Not yet, but let’s not kid ourselves:
- Trump was roundly mocked by pro-choice activists for suggesting punishments for women who obtain abortions in 2016
- PA GOP candidate Doug Mastriano suggested woman be charged with murder for getting illegal abortions in 2019.
I remember this vividly. This is when thoughtful pro-life conservatives who doubted Trump’s pro-life bonafides had their doubts confirmed. (That was the case for me - 100%.) He was so new to the pro-life position at that time that he actually didn’t realize that the pro-life movement has never called for mothers that had abortions to be punished. Anyone on the right that didn’t notice or care when Trump said that was just as new to or weak on pro-life beliefs as he was. Trump got a lot of people like that to vote for him in 2016. I know there is a lot of them, so I’m not discounting them or claiming all republican voters disagreed with Trump
I don’t know much about him, but from what I hear, he’s a terrible ultra-maga candidate (like he actually fits the definition of ultra-maga, not the mainstream media’s definition that includes people like Mike Lee) that shouldn’t hold political office. Since that is what I’ve heard, I believe you that he said that. He probably said it for the same reason as Trump. He’s not really pro-life. He just know he has to be to win. This isn’t that different than when Trump tries to talk about anything from the Bible to evangelicals. Anyone that attends a church that regularly studies the bible can tell he’s faking it.
All that to say, Swalwell is actually trying to kid people when he claims this is where we are headed. Serious pro-life legislators aren’t trying to do this. There are fewer republican politicians calling for this than there are democrat politicians that support Farrakhan. I’m sure you wouldn’t defend a republican ad claiming all democrats think Jews are termites. Defending Swalwell’s is doing the same thing.
If you want to see where Democrats are on abortion, study California’s proposition one on the November ballot. It places absolutely no restrictions on abortion up to the time of birth. Here’s what the Libertarian website Reason says. By the way, libertarians are in general supportive of abortion.
Of particular concern to these pragmatic opponents of Prop. 1 is the very simple wording of the amendment, which some fear could be interpreted by California’s courts as enshrining a broader right to abortion than California, as well as now-overturned precedent in Roe v. Wade , allow. California’s current law places limits on abortion at the point of fetal viability, whereas the wording of the proposed amendment simply refers to the “fundamental right to choose to have an abortion.”
If state courts were to hear a case and rule that the new amendment enshrines a right to all abortions, late-term abortions could be legalized in California. This could be of concern to generally pro-choice California voters, opponents of the amendment argue, for several reasons. First, many who support abortion rights generally may not support late-term abortions. In a San Francisco Chronicle column, Joe Matthew notes recent polling indicating that 70 percent of Californians oppose late-term abortion, numbers almost as high as Californians’ supporting abortion rights earlier in a woman’s pregnancy.