Reason Roundup

Alito's Draft Opinion That Would Overturn Roe Is a Disaster of Legal Reasoning

Plus: How abortion used to be less partisan, NFT sales have plummeted, and more...


The leaked draft of a Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade continues to spawn confusion, anger, anxiety, and ample predictions. Today I'm going to hone in on some of these reactions to the draft opinion, starting with people questioning some key claims within it.

The February draft—published Monday by Politico and verified as authentic by Chief Justice John Roberts—concerns the case of a 15-week abortion ban in Mississippi (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization). It was penned by Justice Samuel Alito and is labeled as the opinion of the Court. In it, Alito writes that the Court must overturn both Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the main legal precedents upon which abortion rights in America are based.

Alito's logic in the draft opinion is raising many an eyebrow. Among his reasons for rejecting Roe and Casey, Alito notes that "the Constitution makes no reference to abortion." And while the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause has been held to enshrine rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, such rights must be "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," writes Alito, adding that "the right to an abortion does not fall within this category."

"But there is at least one big way in which the unenumerated right at issue in Dobbs may very well fall into this category," writes Reason's Damon Root:

Namely, the right to terminate a pregnancy may be justly seen as a subset of the right to bodily integrity. And the right of bodily integrity has a very impressive historical pedigree indeed. In fact, as the legal scholar Sheldon Gelman detailed in a 1994 Minnesota Law Review article, the right to bodily integrity may be traced back to the Magna Carta. That makes it one of the many rights "retained by the people" (in the words of the Ninth Amendment) that were imported from English law into the Constitution.

The constitutional right at issue in Dobbs only fails the "deeply rooted" in history and tradition test (a test wholly invented by the Supreme Court, by the way) when the Court defines the right narrowly. But when the right is defined broadly—defined as a subset of the venerable and longstanding right of bodily integrity, in other words—then the right passes the test.

University of Maryland history professor Holly Brewer points out that Alito derives support for his arguments from 17th century British common law, which sometimes made abortion a crime if it took place after the "quickening." But the quickening refers to the point in a pregnancy at which a mother can feel a fetus moving inside her—something that doesn't usually happen until around 16 weeks pregnancy at the earliest.

"This 17th-18th century understanding would mean upholding Roe, and disallowing Dobbs," notes Brewer. "So Alito then says the common law somehow must have made abortion illegal before quickening — without a shred of evidence."

Jason Kuznicki, editor in chief of the think tank TechFreedom, takes issue with the idea that rights must be "deeply rooted in history" in order to be valid. This concept "implies that the rights of some people will always be less important than the rights of others. It also raises the question: How far back do the roots of our rights really go?" Kuznicki tweeted, noting that some currently recognized rights—including the right to marry people of the same sex—are not deeply rooted.

"The more we privilege deep roots in history, the more weight we have to give to some terribly illiberal ideas," added Kuznicki. "Rights for white people have deeper roots than rights for black people, and no amount of time can change that."

Democratic politicians are angry, obviously. For instance: "I am angry. Angry and upset and determined," Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren told reporters (while trampling some plants). "The United States Congress can keep Roe v. Wade the law of the land, they just need to do it."

They're vowing to fight back, although what they can realistically do is limited.

Some Republicans are mad, too:

But Collins is in the minority among Republican legislators.

Some people are still lingering on how or why the draft was leaked and what it means. Some—including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.)—are even calling for the leaker to be criminally prosecuted.

But this obsession with process and punishment over the substance of the opinion is pretty weird. "The Court's credibility doesn't depend on ceremonies or secrets or mystique. It depends on it getting the answers right," notes Timothy Sandefur, an adjunct at Cato and vice president at Goldwater Institute. "If it gets the answers wrong; no amount of officialdom and ritual will save it. If it gets the answers right, none is necessary."

What happens next? We still don't know if the court's final opinion will resemble this leaked draft. But many are making predictions predicated on the idea that it is the final opinion. These predictions include dire scenarios of unsafe illegal abortions and widely disappeared access to abortion.

But Reason's Jacob Sullum suggests that the impact will be much more limited than many assume:

Last year, based on a scenario in which 22 states banned abortion, Middlebury College economist Caitlin Knowles Myers projected that the annual number of abortions in the U.S. would fall by about 14 percent. In Texas, which banned the vast majority of abortions last September and avoided early judicial intervention by restricting enforcement to private civil actions, the net impact seems to have been a drop of about 10 percent.

Americans should keep those surprisingly modest estimates in mind as they try to predict what will happen after the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, as a leaked draft of the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization suggests it will soon do. While many states are expected to respond by imposing severe restrictions on abortion, most probably will not. And even in states that ban elective abortions, workarounds will mitigate the impact of those laws.

It's not just the impact on abortion access that people are worried about, however. Many are concerned about the way the ruling could lead to a rethinking of other Supreme Court precedents.

"As we've warned, SCOTUS isn't just coming for abortion — they're coming for the right to privacy Roe rests on which includes gay marriage + civil rights," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) tweeted.

Some Republicans "want to take us back to a time before Roe v. Wade, back to a time before Obergefell v. Hodges, back to a time before Griswold v. Connecticut," suggested Vice President Kamala Harris said in a Tuesday speech.

Whoopi Goldberg suggested on The View that the Supreme Court "will go after gay marriage and maybe Brown v. Board of Education" next.

Reason's Scott Shackford suggests that such fears are largely unfounded.

What it would mean for electoral politics is anyone's guess. "It's not clear that it will give the party any significant boost in the upcoming midterm elections," writes Nicole Narea at Vox. Meanwhile, CNN suggests that "the Supreme Court may have just fundamentally altered the 2022 election."

Democrats are certainly already campaigning on this issue.

"If the Court does overturn Roe, it will fall on our nation's elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman's right to choose," President Joe Biden said in a Tuesday statement. "And it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this November."

"Women are going to go to vote in numbers we have never seen before," Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.) said on CBS.

They're also using it to push other reforms, like an end to the filibuster:

In the longer term, some see it invigorating Democratic support and/or intensifying culture wars.

"Americans are almost evenly divided on their personal views of abortion, according to years of Gallup polling, but only 19 percent think abortion should be illegal under all circumstances," notes Bret Stephens in The New York Times. "It shouldn't be hard to imagine how Americans will react to the court conspicuously providing aid and comfort to the 19 percent."


A reminder that abortion hasn't always been as neatly divided between left and right as it is today:

More on the history of the anti-abortion movement here.


Is the nonfungible token (NFT) bubble bursting? Daily average NFT sales are down 92 percent from their September 2021 high, the Wall Street Journal reports:

The number of active wallets in the NFT market fell 88% to about 14,000 last week from a high of 119,000 in November. NFTs are bitcoin-like digital tokens that act like a certificate of ownership that live on a blockchain. …

Many NFT owners are finding their investments are worth significantly less than when they bought them.

An NFT of the first tweet from Twitter Inc. co-founder Jack Dorsey sold in March 2021 for $2.9 million to Sina Estavi, the chief executive of Malaysia-based blockchain company Bridge Oracle.

Earlier this year, Mr. Estavi put the NFT up for auction. He didn't receive any bids above $14,000, which he didn't accept.


Hillbilly Elegy author and Donald Trump–backed candidate J.D. Vance has won the Ohio GOP Senate primary.

• "Vance's victory deals a body blow to a small but noticeable resurgence of anti-Trump—or post-Trump—sentiment in the GOP," suggest Jonathan Swan and Lachlan Markay at Axios.

• More Trump-backed candidate wins from Tuesday primaries.

Lab-grown "human milk" may be coming soon.

• The Disinformation Panic: "This 'unprecedented crisis for democracy' is neither unprecedented nor a crisis for democracy," writes Tiffany Donnelly at Reason.

NEXT: J.D. Vance Takes Victory in Ohio GOP Senate Primary

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Multiple violent protests erupted yesterday in cities like LA after the VP tweeted.

    Vice President Kamala Harris

    United States government official
    This is the time to fight for women and our country with everything we have. My statement on the Supreme Court decision draft on Roe v. Wade.

    A committee must be formed and impeachment started over this insurrection. Right?

    1. Only if there were boots on desks.

      1. A D.C. rally by abortion rights supporters who then mob the Capitol could be hilarious.

        1. Not enough FBI plants willing to egg them on.

          1. Those eggs were aborted anyways.

            1. Eggs are transphobic ropedoes.

              1. ‘Torpedoes’.

        2. I wouldn't dismiss the possibility. If there is one thing the last two years has proven it is that God has a very good sense of humor.

          We already have the spectacle of leftists who have spent the last two years demanding mandatory vaccination and saying there is no such thing as a "woman" suddenly chanting "my body my choice" and "a woman's right to choose". So, I don't think there is any set limit on the hilarity and insanity circumstances will illicit from these people.

          1. Case A: Experience a quick needle-stick, or get fired from your job, and go find another job. Maybe be unemployed for a tad.

            Case B: Lying Lothario knocked you up, after SWEARING up and down that you were His One And Only for LIFE! Now you find out that Lothario has 7 other pregnant lied-to babes! And you can no long opt OUT of Lothario's having won the genetic (harem) lottery! Here we go; we are on the way to evolving humans into elephant seals, where the biggest lying genetic-lottery-winner gets the loot, and meek and mild, honest could-have-been-fathers' interests are shoved aside!

            Which fucked-up case sounds more fucked up to you?

            1. No false scenarios there.

              1. Lying Lothario is FAR less mythical than unicorns or data-driven, benevolent, non-uber-tribalistic Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrers!

                1. ^ THIS is your best argument for unfettered abortin rights?

                  1. I treasure the human future, where good fathers win out over Lying Lothario's genetic, sociobiological, and cultural black hole. Lying Lothario doesn't deserve the genetic lottery winnings, nor a harem.

                    Do YOU want humans to evolve in the elephant seal direction?

                    1. Awwww…. SQRLSY is an incel! Probably coulda guessed that.

                    2. So only incels favor good fathers over Lying Lotharios in the evolutionary fight? Spoken like an elephant seal! Y'all's noses are GAWD-awfully UGLY, by the way!

                    3. Also, do you know what a lothario is, Sqrlsy?

                  2. If you want my VERY best argument... It is that we need religious freedom from (or alternatives to) the "shaming wand"!


                    1. Stay in Cali - you'll be able to child sacrifice all you want. Calm down and read the article, the sky is not falling but we understand that fear and lies are how you're contrilled.

            2. Yeah, losing your job for refusing to take medical treatment is just no big deal. You are such a totalitarian asshole, you don't even realize it. It is just the air your breath.

              1. My business, built by my labor and already-heavily-taxed money! I should get to "call the shots"! It is the totalitarians who say "You didn't build that, so WE will call the shots"!

                1. it is cute you think that anyone believes you have ever had a job much less have a business

                  And your can call the shots on your business? Oh really, unless it involves being a part of a gay wedding and that is different right?

                  And businesses were forced by the government to require vaccination. Stop lying. It is pathetic.

                  1. "And businesses were forced by the government to require vaccination." That was wrong, and I never said anything to the contrary. Ditto "gay wedding cake" mandates.

                    TX Governor Abbott, though, pretended to be the business owners, and FORBADE them from firing at will (for this one select reason)! WHO is the authoritarian / totalitarian HERE?

                    1. I’m sorry, but no, a business does not have a right to force me to take an experimental drug. Especially at the overt threat of an overreaching government.

                      And you try to call yourself a libertarian.

                    2. No business ever did that! They ALWAYS allowed you to QUIT your job, as an alternative!

                      If you think you have "rights" to your job, in violation of the wishes of your employer... Then WHO is the Marxist collectivist property-rights-grabber here?

                    3. Got it. At my business I'll fire you if you've had an abortion. Oh and I'll demand you show me your medical records. Cool with that?

                    4. Yes, I am cool with "hire and fire at will", so long as no voluntary contracts are broken.

                  2. He in business. The business of eating his own shit. And possibly the shit of others.

              2. Speaking of the air it breathes, all I see is a grey box that smells like the shit it eats.

                1. I, too, from My Lordly Perch on High, SNEER at the grey boxes! I refute ALL that they say, by ignoring them! Yea verily, I refute reality and the ENTIRE UNIVERSE, by ignoring them all! THIS is the Secret to My Vast Powers, and I now share it with ye lowly ones, for FREE!!!

                  (Bow LOW, peons, and express some GRATITUDE and OBEDIENCE!)

                  1. Lol, that really pissed him off R Mac. He literally posted a caps-lock "SNEER" just like Hihn used to.

                    1. Is it funny enough to unmute the shiteater?

                    2. No.

                    3. SQRLSY is a cannibal. A snot eater composed entirely of shit.

                    4. ‘Shit eater’

                  2. “They ALWAYS allowed you to QUIT your job, as an alternative!

                    Lol. “They” ALWAYS allowed the virgins to “JUMP” into the volcano, as an alternative!

                    1. Yeah, as if burning to death is just the same as needing to find a new job!

                    2. Yeah, as if burning to death is just the same as needing to find a new job!

                      Are you volunteering to find out?

              3. Or just take the f'ing swab test to reduce risk of harm to your co-workers during a pandemic, dial down the sociopathy, keep the job.

                Alright alright, yes the bit about dialing down the sociopathy wasn't part of the rule. My bad.

            3. We should have a law that forces dead beat dads to pay or go to prison. The women who sleep with these blokes shouldn't be rewarded for having unprotected sex with the worst possible males.

                1. So BillyG... Did you deliberately marry a woman with a "plus-sized" cohort, of already-made family? To reduce the incentives that women face (to abort, in case of falling for a "Lying Lothario"), in that (the smart ones at least) women generally know that a "ready-made family" does NOT help them to catch a good man? If you're NOT a hypocrite, you'd be doing this! And donating FREE childcare (baby-sitting services etc.), to women who've kept their babies in dicey situations!

                  I suspect a lot of these "helpers" help till the baby is born... And then they skee-daddle! Surely they (at BEST case) do NOT make a proper substitute for a good devoted father!

                2. Lol. Wow. Always projection from the left.

              1. That is racist as it would disparately affect mostly Democrat voting black fathers who by far have the highest rate of ditching pregnant women. Why are pro choice men so irresponsible?

            4. Fuck off with that shit. Unless I brought you into existence, I have no moral obligation to protect you from nature. I also don’t have the right to throw you to a bear in someone’s trunk.

            5. Case A: do as you’re told or lose your job.

              Case B: don’t sleep with a douchebag, and if you do, use protection. If that fails go to neighboring state to solve your little clump of a problem, then return to life as normal and use better judgment regarding sperm providers.

              What point were you trying to make, squirrel? That case A is way more fucked up?

              Good job!

              1. Where are the lied-to babes gonna go to get an abortion, after ye fascists outlaw it nation-wide or world-wide? Fascists gotta fascist, yes, but they should QUIT, and just mind their OWN business, is my point! We'd all be better off!

                1. What if she's pregnant with a girl?

                  Theres now two women in this "a women's right to choose" scenario. Who advocates for the choice of the one unable to talk yet?

                  Also, two weeks ago you libtards were cheering the fact that your Supreme Court Justice couldn't define a woman...SO HIW THE FUCK CAN WE DEFEND A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE IF WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE?! HMMMMMM?!

                  maybe everyone who wants an abortion is in alien from the Kepler 279b-34a system, and not a woman. Who are we to say, we're not biologists.

          2. If you refuse to wear a cloth face mask, you're a monster who wants to kill grandma and everyone else who comes near you.

            That eight and a half month old fetus on the other hand? Fuck that thing, it can't even speak yet!

            1. Or wear a mask yet.

              1. That’s the real reason it should be killed.

            2. If we can force masks on people why can't they force contraception or sterilization?

              Nazi squirrel wants to know

      2. We are talking about Harris here. I think you mean "boots in the air".

        1. Or head under the desk.

        2. I hear Harris wants American boots in the air in Ukraine.

      3. Kamala is only in if she can go under the desk.

    2. Well, she did use the word "fight," which I've been assured constitutes a clear incitement to insurrection.

      1. No, that's incitement to peaceful protest. Violent Insurrection is when you tweet something like "go home with peace and love".

    3. Picture with me what caused the committee for the first insurrection... A man with a pot belly, white as the underside of a fish, ratty hair and a hat with horns with paint all over him. Looking like a backwoods redneck or a child's failed art project. That is what they were scared of.
      This? There need to be officers arresting these morons. If they had shut the h*lol up and left it at a reasonable time frame instead of pushing for FULL TERM abortions and talking crap like 'if it can survive the original procedure, put it aside to die', there wouldn't be much of an issue. People are saying this is a health issue. No, it isn't. It's an excuse to do awful things to children. Just like a SCOTUS suggestion from Biden that has no problem letting child molesters and rapists walk around out here with us.
      They get more stupid every day. If a doctor said pregnancy was a health risk then is it any pregnancy ever or something specific about the individual pregnancy? If it's going to be a problem no matter what age or it's based on a physical reason that prevents a pregnancy ever, get some tubes tied. End of problem. If it was an accident, there's a time limit, just like with every other thing. Get it done within 8 weeks. If you're having sex, don't be stupid. Sex equals chance of pregnancy. Keep up with that stuff. Women are using abortion as a way to get out of responsibility for their actions. It isn't argument that leads into anything about 'well men don't blah-blah' because men don't want to go murder babies at nine months pregnant because THEY CAN NOT GET PREGNANT!!!!

  2. A reminder that abortion hasn't always been as neatly divided between left and right as it is today...

    As long as it wedged someone.

    1. Yeah, what good is a political issue unless it irreversibly divides Americans? And inspires party donations.

    2. Elizabeth Warren told reporters (while trampling some plants). "The United States Congress can keep Roe v. Wade the law of the land, they just need to do it."

      Liawatha showing her deep understanding of how our government works.... NOT

      1. She's the cunty mother in law no one ever wanted.

        She just proves the people of Massachusetts are as retarded as the ones in California.

  3. ...Alito notes that "the Constitution makes no reference to abortion."

    It does reference arms but fat lot of good that does people in New Jerksey.

    1. Ah yes, The People's Republic of NJ.

      Here in the People's Republic, our People's Duma is considering retroactive abortion do-over (aka: RAD, for short) legislation. Basically, you can 'off your kid and start over' up to the age of 3. No questions asked.

      How many parents of teenagers would like the 'retroactive abortion do-over' option? 🙂

      (PS: the 'retroactive abortion legislation 'RAD' was just satire!)

      1. ^ you joke but California has a bill in play that would essentially legalize murdering your newborn.

        1. Their working towards letting you test drive them for three years. But if you keep them you have to send them to the neighborhood grooming center.

        2. Nothing wrong with more and more Californians ending their gene pool.

          It's just more people who would grow up democrats but learn to hate California so they'd move out, but be too stupid to realize they hate California because it's full of democrats.

          And let's not forget. In the predominantly minority inner city neighborhoods in Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, etc post birth abortions are committed every day. They just use guns and opiates instead of the things doctors do.

    2. It references arms, but not the kind of arms we have today. Publicly funded abortion clinics for any abortive person, male, female, or other is in the emanations and penumbras.

      It really is astounding how the FF pulled such a cogent founding document out of all the nonsense and utter insanity stuffed into the emanations and penumbras attic.

    3. It does, though. Right there in the 10th Amendment:

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    4. Alito's opinion just confirms that conservatives don't care about individual rights but only traditional conservative rights

      1. Nope. That’s total bullshit. You don’t get to murder children. As they have individual rights too.

      2. At what point does a fetus become a child?

        1. At what point do you support free medical care for pregnancy and childbirth?

          1. Non responsive non sequitur. Stricken.

      3. And your opinion proves that liberals don't care about individual responsibility.

      4. Wear a condom or tell your partner to.

        Buy a box. Leave some in your house, some in your car console (hide them you fucking idiot), and if youre trying to get laid at night, throw one in your pocket.

        I've done that since I was sexually active and voila! No unintended pregnancies and no abortions required!

  4. Daily average NFT sales are down 92 percent from their September 2021 high...

    Still way up from where they were in the 90's.

    1. NFTs may be the dumbest swindle ever

      1. Wanna buy some tulips?

        1. I’ll trade you my pet rock.

        2. Tulips at least have a use in landscaping.

        3. I'm heavily invested in Beanie Babies.

      2. You too can win a hash tag that declares you the owner of a digital image anyone can download!

        1. It's not even that. You're the owner of a hyperlink to a file stored on a server that is both identical and infinitely copyable *and* the file the hyperlink points to can be changed by anyone with access to the server the file is stored on.

      3. The idea has merit, but only when used as a token for something like tangible property. The idea of "This is scarce so I'll buy it just for its scarcity" is the biggest con in the world.

        1. Even then it only has merit if the local authority that claims jurisdiction over the property recognizes the NFT as a deed.

      4. I hope a bunch of artists made off with vast riches and used that money on something worthwhile.

        1. Weed and booze? Wimmyns?

  5. ...Donald Trump–backed candidate J.D. Vance has won the Ohio GOP Senate primary.

    I'm told he's toxic.

    1. A goddamn authoritarian monster. I'm already readying my basement to resettle several refugee Ohioans.

      1. Hmm, does that include a basket with body lotion?

        1. Don't forget the garden hose.

          1. How precious

      2. Huh? Vance's authority as a U.S. Senator wouldn't be limited to Ohio, but would extend to any place where laws enacted by the U.S. Senate and House of Reps are in effect. But maybe your basement is in Canada?

        1. My basement is in Canada.

          1. My house is in WA, but the basement is in Upper Volta. Something… something… dimensionally transcendental.

        2. You better run far away then!

      3. I’m ready to accept several cheerleaders from their universities. As long as I get to select which ones.

    2. Do we need to fortify the elections to protect tim Ryan and institutional norms?

      1. Without question. After all the times I died of covid, and the 3 fire extinguishings I sustained on January 6, I'm barely holding on by a thread.

        1. Stop trying to identify as a Victim. That status is reserved for people who claim to have a uterus, feel oppressed by their genitalia, or are two shades darker than mocha.

          1. That status is reserved for people who claim to have a uterus, feel oppressed by their genitalia, or are two shades darker than mocha.

            Iron Eyes Cody sheds single tear.

          2. I've been oppressing my genitalia since I was a teen. Do I count?

  6. Vance's victory deals a body blow to a small but noticeable resurgence of anti-Trump—or post-Trump—sentiment in the GOP...

    Relax. It's Ohio.

    1. I've yet to notice this resurgence. Hoping is not reality.

      1. When you live on Twitter like ENB, you tend to get a really distorted sense of how regular people think, so things like Vance winning are a HUGE surprise.

        1. Notice how the headline is "It's a FUCKING DISASTER of legal reasoning" and evidence is that two people disagree with the historical record.


          1. Someone should inform enb that she, like 95% of the stoopid cunts protesting this outside the supreme court, are too fat, ugly, or old to worry about getting near a dick anyway.

            Notice the headline picture couldn't find any attractive women so they went for the cow with the biggest tits instead.

  7. I am unable to even at this point.

    Teen Reason fully on board with ends justifying means, while process, norms, and decorum were all that mattered from 2016-2020.

    1. It's Trump's fault, obviously.

    2. Why do you hate womyn?

  8. More Trump-backed candidate wins from Tuesday primaries.

    Or maybe not.

    1. All 55 won.

      1. Yep. Not a few, not most. ALL of them.

  9. The Department of Homeland Security is yet again extending the Real ID deadline for air travel.

    We're waiting to see if they can be fashioned into a mask. Or maybe a voter ID.

    1. I'm guessing the same thing that inhabited the Waukesha red suv inhabited that knife. Definitely the knife's fault.

      1. attempted suicide by security detail

    2. "Isaiah Lee, 23, was carrying a replica gun with a knife blade inside when he attacked Chappelle during the Hollywood Bowl, police say."

      What to bring when you are not sure if the invitation is for a knife fight or a gun fight.

      1. Leave Obama out of this.

      2. The best place to hide a knife is inside a fake gun..

        1. Do you work for the TSA?

        2. Damnit, this whole time I’ve been trying to hide my knife in my toothpaste.

    3. How many boyfriends does Jada Pinkett Smith have?

      1. At a time or overall?

        1. I’ve heard she’s airtight.

    4. Even jester's privilege is out these days.

    5. Lol. Someone tell tony that a “violent bigot” finally attacked someone over Dave chappelle’s “anti trans” comedy!

      “People will die!” Haha. Not yet, tony. But you can keep hoping!

  10. "Some Republicans "want to take us back to a time before Roe v. Wade, back to a time before Obergefell v. Hodges, back to a time before Griswold v. Connecticut," suggested Vice President Kamala Harris said in a Tuesday speech."

    I assume they mean the awful white nationalist Neil Gorsuch, who definitely wants to take us back before the Obergfell opinion (checks notes) that he authored.

    1. I think you mean Bostock.

      1. Details

        1. Obergefell was penned in 2015 by Kennedy well before Gorsuch was even on the SCOTUS. Bostock was the case in which Gorsuch joined with the liberal wing to conclude that "sex" discrimination didn't mean only gender but also sexual orientation discrimination. It's a completely different analysis than Alito's unenumerated rights discourse, but is being cited by some as an indication Gorsuch isn't interested in reversing Obergefell and Alito lacks the votes to make Dobbs the precursor (he would like it to be) to dismantling all kinds of precedent that secures rights in conflict with the good book and not widely accepted hundreds of years ago.

    2. This kind of rehtoric is not hyperbolic in anyway and gets a tacit wink and a nod from Reason. Calling out the Biden admin for creating the Ministry of Truth on the other hand....

      1. It turns out that the Ministry of Truth is actually there to tell Spanish speakers that the border is closed. I'm sure they are ignoring reality just like all the MSM.

      2. When do put all the black people back in chains? I was assured this was going to happen. Is that before or after we round up all the handmaids and put them into sexual slavery?

        1. You mean we're not allowed to do that already?
          Maybe I should stop.

          1. I didn't know you were a jeweler.

            1. The sexual slavery bit. We don't have many blacks up here and the ones that are are usually lawyers and doctors.

              We do however have tons of uppity women who don't know that they should be barefoot in the kitchen bearing children, or whatever that stupid book warns about.

              1. I don't know how you do it, or how Canada stays like that.

                Literally every Canadian I know hates Canada right now. Even the ones who like Trudeau say Canada sucks. But like Californians, they're too dumb to realize it's their fault.

        2. Just perform a Google search for ‘hot mulatto teens’ to see a preliminary selection of available talent.

      3. "This kind of rehtoric is not hyperbolic in anyway and gets a tacit wink and a nod from Reason."

        Not just a Wink and a nod, but holding hands. That rhetoric isn't substantially different than "disaster of legal reasoning". The idea that ENB has anywhere near the qualifications necessary to question the legal reasoning of someone like Alito, let alone declare it a disaster is one of the biggest absurdities of 2022. (so far)

        1. ENB perhaps has a colicky baby and doesn't get enough sleep; that could explain some of the truly bizarre reasoning she employs....

          1. She's had a colicky baby since her days as a hard-hitting Bustle reporter then.

            1. When did she start dating her husband?

              1. When he needed a beard.

          2. And what excuse would she have for the years before the baby?

          3. ‘ENB perhaps IS a colicky baby’


    3. Harris never needs a morning after abortion pill. Listerine does the job.

      1. Or an enema.

      2. And sometimes she does need a morning after pill, taken simultaneously with listening, and an enema.

  11. Lab-grown "human milk" may be coming soon.

    Robotiddies. They're trying to get our unaborted children weaned on Skynet!

    1. It's okay skynet is a private company

    2. I take my coffee black.

      1. Is that like: "I take my coffee like I take my men...strong & black"?

      2. I like my coffee like I like my chicks... Ground up and in the fridge

        1. Lol!

          Q: What's the difference between a gay guy and a fridge?

          A: The fridge doesn't fart when you pull your meat out!

        2. Are you channeling Krusty?

    3. This is why we need genetically engineered semi-human milk cows, to compete with the robots! An udderly delicious idea, MeThinks!

      Me, I LoOoOove MILK!!! As fresh as possible, straight-from-the-teat-raw is best…
      Also I like my cows that look like this... GMOoOoOoOoOo cows! (Scroll down a TINY bit when opening the link)

      1. Sort of like Hitcher's Guide To The Galaxy where the cows ask to be eaten, or, in this case milked.

        1. SQRLSY prefers the flops.

          1. Red-Rocks-for-"Brains" prefers the flops also... Mad cow flops, topped with mercury! To make Red-Rocks-for-"Brains" even madder than a hatter!

  12. Poor proggy twat ENB is about to have her right to murder infringed and she can't even.

    1. It makes it hard to rent out your vigina if you cant evict the squatters.

      1. Just ask the CDC. Nine months to flatten the curve.

        1. Observing most of the people involved in the irrational freak-out about the Alito opinion, it looks like there needs to be a fitness regimen, a managed diet, as well as nine months to handle the 'curve.'

          1. Yeah, the only way most of those women might get pregnant, besides with the ol' turkey baster, requires a lot of beer. Thus, we could try Prohibition again, and make Roe moot.

            1. Not even beer can save them when bandana, overalls, armpit hair is their uniform.

              And if you don't have that then you need to be fat enough that your legs do that thing where your knees touch but your feet spread out when you walk to join their protest.

    2. Thing is...where she lives, it won't be. At all.

  13. This 'unprecedented crisis for democracy' is neither unprecedented nor a crisis for democracy...

    Of course libertarians want us to drop our guard.

  14. The left continues to prove their own racism.

    “I do wonder how these white supremacist lawmakers would feel if their little white daughters were raped and impregnated by black men,” she posted Monday.

    1. Nobody knows more about everything than actors.

    2. Ah, "black people." The Left loves them - they can be a political prop or a boogeyman, whatever the situation requires.

      What a sick fuck.

    3. Somebody has a recurring rape fantasy.

      1. I have no idea who the fuck Amanda Duarte is, but most of the far left feel the way she does. It's great to watch the racists out themselves by accusing normal people of being racist.

        1. George Takei 's response is equally silly, first they came after blacks now women and lgbqt next. Haven't seen anyone go after blacks and not allowing child grooming is not anti lgb.. whatever, these people are stupid

          1. They are brainwashed fanatic drones who are a clear and present danger

            1. So does this mean youre going to acknowledge the whole story in Ukraine? Or are you sticking to the talking points from RT and veterans today?

        2. It doesn’t matter. The left can get away with any amount of racism they want. They could start calling people like Clarence Thomas a House Nigger, and it simply won’t matter.

          1. There was an article the other day explaining how Tim Scott became an oppressor. You can't make this shit up. The left really has no morals.


        3. Most people may not know this, but she happens to be quite famous.

          1. Oxymoron on display

            1. That’s the joke.

    4. She's a special lady. Check out her tweets on white children.

    5. She's getting a bit infected with the weird fixations online these days. I don't get what's up with all this weird race-play shit going on these days.

      1. I sometimes feel like maybe I'm the asshole by not really having any broad, open feelings about an entire race of people. I may have some kneejerk stuff, but it doesn't really factor into my life that much best I can tell.

        1. Being race blind is racist.

  15. Same ol' Reason dribble...but with boobs and a megaphone.

    1. Two megaphones.

    2. I'm not a biologist, but I'm pretty sure that's a WOMAN!

  16. Namely, the right to terminate a pregnancy may be justly seen as a subset of the right to bodily integrity.


    1. bodily integrity.

      Mask and vaccine mandates, anyone?

      1. That's different!!!

        (It only kills some, not all)

      2. Your abortion protects me, my abortion protects you.

        1. Also, my upcoming vacation and plan to eventually ditch my lame boyfriend.

      3. "Mask and vaccine mandates, anyone?"

        Case A: Wear a mask (99.999999% of the time, mandated NOT on YOUR property) when you step on someone else's property.

        Case B: Experience a quick needle-stick, or get fired from your job, and go find another job. Maybe be unemployed for a tad.

        Case C: Lying Lothario knocked you up, after SWEARING up and down that you were His One And Only for LIFE! Now you find out that Lothario has 7 other pregnant lied-to babes! And you can no long opt OUT of Lothario's having won the genetic (harem) lottery! Here we go; we are on the way to evolving humans into elephant seals, where the biggest lying genetic-lottery-winner gets the loot, and meek and mild, honest could-have-been-fathers' interests are shoved aside!

        Which fucked-up case sounds more fucked up to you?

        1. The one that's contrived... oh wait, they all are.

          1. Lying Lothario is FAR less mythical than unicorns or data-driven, benevolent, non-uber-tribalistic Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrers!

            (In terms of ugliness, though, Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrers do take the 1st-place honors.)

            1. Nobody's more tribal than Sqrlsy.

        2. Do you think those are actual representations of the facts at hand?

          1. Lying Lothario is VERY real, yes! It IS a root cause of a LOT of abortions today! Outlawing abortions IS "pro-Lying-Lothario", and, genetically, sociobiologically, and culturally, empowering Lying Lothario to increase his winnings in the genetic (and cultural) lotteries, is NOT a good idea, at ALL! (I have known some Lying Lotharios.)

          2. Young scum-buckets also start dating earlier, and getting teen girls pregnant! The young ladies aren't yet good at judging character, and the scum have "bad boy allure". This is another spin on why we need legal abortion... To stop the scum from taking over! (With the consent of the pregnant ladies, of course, always.)

            Here is a data point to consider:

   Secondary psychopathy in high school boys positively predicts future dating involvement, study finds

            1. Flawed study. You're a psychopath and yet women wouldn't go near you.

              1. TOTAL failure of Your Perfect mind-reading tinfoil hate-hat, Mammary-Fuhrer!

    2. "Namely, the right to terminate a pregnancy may be justly seen as a subset of the right to bodily integrity."

      Sounds great when talking about terminating a pregnancy. Now explain how the right of bodily integrity also includes the right to invade the bodily integrity of an unborn child.

      I'm 100% behind the idea that a woman's right to "bodily integrity" means she can terminate a pregnancy. Unfortunately, her right to bodily integrity does not give her also the right to kill a baby, and since terminating a pregnancy today necessarily means killing the baby, the baby's right to bodily integrity also comes to play. Maybe what we should be doing is figuring out how to solve for that.

      1. It's a point so ground into the dirt that it feels almost pointless to mention it, but I hate that this argument really doesn't ever extend to anything else. Abortion is such a weird and complicated grey-zone, and gets this full throated autonomy argument. Yet the more clear delineations are often regulated quite heavily.

      2. the baby's right to bodily integrity also comes to play

        The baby doesn't have bodily integrity until it's born. Definitionally.

        1. The baby of the pair (i.e. the unborn infant, not the mother) does indeed have bodily integrity, and if the mother has a right to bodily integrity, so does the child.

        2. Says the murderous sociopath.

        3. The baby doesn't have bodily integrity until it's born. Definitionally

          in·teg·ri·ty (in-teg'ri-tē)
          Soundness or completeness of structure; a sound or unimpaired condition.

          Do you think the fetus is merely a bunch of unattached parts floating around in the amniotic fluid that suddenly come together at birth?

        4. If the baby is part of the woman's body until birth, then a right to abortion would be a right to bodily disintegration, not bodily integrity because you're dividing the woman's body into two or more parts and the remaining woman is something less than she was immediately before the procedure. It's therefore the opposite of ENB's proposed long-standing right to "bodily integrity" that somehow Harry Blackmun didn't know about in 1973.

  17. Congress must pass legislation that codifies Roe v. Wade as the law of the land in this country NOW.

    We haven't forgotten your toxic Bernie Bros, Senator. This can't make up for that.

    Also, wake me when there's a socialist not for eugenics.

    1. Democrats did have, what, 50 years to do it?

      1. Such a law would run afoul of that Old Parchment thing, just as Roe vs Wade is about to.

      2. Democrats had unified government a few times during the past 50 years and didn't make the effort (in fairness, they had to pretend to be moderate on the issue via "safe, legal, and rare" into the early 2000s). Cynically, they've relied upon a joint disinformation campaign with the Press to get lots of the electorate to believe that Roe is zero sum - viz, if it's overruled, abortion immediately becomes illegal nationwide. This has helped them gin up electoral turnout in the past.

        Sorry women, Democrats were just playing you for votes "against your economic best interests."

  18. "Americans are almost evenly divided on their personal views of abortion, according to years of Gallup polling, but only 19 percent think abortion should be illegal under all circumstances," notes Bret Stephens in The New York Times. "It shouldn't be hard to imagine how Americans will react to the court conspicuously providing aid and comfort to the 19 percent."

    I was unaware that the draft decision made abortion illegal in all circumstances. Good thing we have super intelligent honest brokers like MrStephens and the NYT to explain these things.

    anyone know where I can get some of those Handmaid Tale getups? I'd like to start impregnating some of the neighborhood girls

    1. Do you get to pick your own handmaids or are they issued? I already see handmaids being inequitably distributed, with rich, white men getting all the good ones and the poors getting stuck with the blue-haired fatties.

      1. Join the metaverse.

      2. The Elite get to pick and choose. The rest of us get the leftovers.

    2. I really do wonder if they state it incorrectly on purpose or if they're just in the thralls of a panic, or if they just don't know.
      A lot of people don't know. It's like how when folks are interviewed and ask if they "approve of Roe vs. Wade" many folks do. But when they're asked their preferred abortion regime, it's quite a bit more restrictive than Roe and Casey allow.

      This is not a super well understood issue.

      1. It's on purpose by whoever originates the narrative. The propagandists go along with the narrative.

        1. Precisely. It's the Donkeys most frequent tactic - change the language. "Don't say gay law" for example. Diversity, 'equity,' and inclusion, no longer Equality. They have a huge lead on the Heffalumps at this game.

  19. Democrats still don't understand the constitution.

    Ben Rhodes
    George W. Bush and Donald Trump both lost the popular vote and appointed five of these judges who will shape American life (and, on climate, life on Earth) for decades. Some democracy.

    1. Morons for the popular vote.

    2. Robert's was appointed in 2005 and Alito in 2006. Bush won the 2004 election with 50.7% of the popular vote. It is not even an honest assertion on it's own terms.

    3. Ah, yes.

      The popular vote that doesn’t exist except as a tool by the media to make people believe something that isn’t true. That should have a name. Something like misinformation. Maybe disinformation. Malinformation?

      It’s like they’re trying to convince me Santa Clause exists because NOAA has a Santa tracker on Xmas Eve.

      1. Like the popular vote wouldn't change if there 40% of the electoral votes weren't guaranteed to go Democrat. If a Republican spent time campaigning in OR, WA, IL, NY, and CA, popular vote totals would surge their way.

    4. Man, reading that shit from Rhodes makes me feel really, really shitty.

      It makes me feel really shitty because deep in my heart, I chuckle every day thinking that Obama had EIGHT fucking years to replace his liberal justices, and RGB decided to wait for Hillary. It's the sort of guilty little pleasure that makes life worth living.

    1. Safe and 90% effective, no downsides.

      1. Mostly peaceful.

        1. Joe Friday reminded us countless times that they are absolutely 100% safe and like 300% effective. You better pull this link to misinformation before you kill us all.

    2. Mostly safe vaccine

      1. We obviously need a new vaccine against heart problems.

        1. A treadmill? 🙂

    3. Could be the vaccine, could be that so many people spent 2 years sitting on their asses, ordering takeout, and avoiding doctors / hospitals. Could be a combination.

      1. Well, do we see a correlating increase in the unvaxxed?

      2. The DMED database showed the same issue. They were required to maintain physical maintenance routines from being in the armed forces.

    4. Is this still disinformation or is it now malinformation?

      1. Damn it! What information color code are we at today?

  20. So if the quickening standard allows for abortion before the 16th week, then restrictions on abortion after the 16th week are acceptable?

    Also if only 19% favor a near complete ban on abortion and the Court giving them what they want is dubious on that basis, then that a similar percentage of the population favoring nearly no restrictions on abortion should not be given what they want by the Court either, correct?

    This is something ENB constantly does, refusing to acknowledge that the current SCOTUS abortion regime is both radical and unpopular while arguing as if the only alternative regine is equally radical and unpopular.

    1. If abortion after 16 weeks is prohibited under Roe, then the Mississippi law at issue moved that date by exactly 1 week.

      But we all know that ENB is not being honest on this issue. It's not a "up to and maybe after birth" -vs- "life begins at conception" question. There's infinitely many other options. And most people agree that abortion in some form should be allowed, but she doesn't bother asking what the outer limits of that are. It's rarely beyond the first trimester.

    2. Has Enb even thought through her claims of bodily autonomy giving people the right to harm others? The same theory can apply to an environmentalist claiming they have a right over their bodies to not breathe in pollution in order to shut down various industrial plants. Is that truly the legal reasoning reason wants to impart?

      For the vast majority of pregnancy cases the person took a positive action that resulted in pregnancy. But because they have bodily autonomy they can choose to kill someone who has a different DNA than them?

      This reasoning can be extended to full authoritarian control by saying any harm to an individual can cause a restriction on another. This can be applied to vaccine and mask mandates as well. This is a terrible legal theory.

    3. The quickening standard is very weird too. I don't know why, as technology and our information increases, that we feel the need to rely on medieval understanding of things. It's a bizarre thing in the abortion debate where those who regularly claim to be the party of science revert to tea leaves and medieval quackery.

    4. It's not like "The Quickening" was also a scientifically verifiable standard that we have to maintain. It's based on older concepts about when the soul enters the body. And beyond that, medically assisted abortions just didn't exist, in large part. They were chemically induced, things women were drinking. There's definitely more of a case for early-term chemically induced abortions than there are for going up in there and chopping up the fetus.

      1. Alito brings up the quickening standard to show that there were historical restrictions on abortion. The basic problem with unenumerated rights is proving that they are, in fact, rights which are worthy of protection beyond one.persin's mere assertion. ENB jumps to point out that quickening as a standard allows abortions early on while ignoring that it does not support the current SCOTUS regime as defined by Roe and Casey of very few restrictions up until and perhaps past birth.

    5. Look, the quickening standard allows abortion for hundreds of years as long as you're sure to remove the head from the body, preferably with a sword.


  21. The DoJ assault against project Veritas continues, showing a massive overreach of actions against a journalist company.

    1. Not relevant to a publication of libertarian opinion. Obviously.

      1. They’re icky.

      2. You don't understand, Mickey, they're on the wrong side so it's okay.

  22. Marc Elias files lawsuit in GA alleging black and brown voters don't know how to sign their name.

    1. To nutshell their argument: Black and brown people are incapable of making a squiggly line on paper with a pen. Totally not racist!

    2. First some weird racist rape fantasies and now this. What's going on today?

  23. Official reason scordboard:
    Articles about a fist draft leaked Supreme Court opinion on abortion :7
    Arrocles about the oden administration literally implimenting ministry of truth:2.5
    Sullum mentioned it passingly yesterday

    1. Fucking Oden administration!

      1. Loki 2024!

        1. Self-aware AI is a better candidate, and gets the irrational fear reaction from left/right.

      2. My autocompleate only tells me I talk about Norse mythology way too much

        1. Arrocles sounds Greco-Roman.

      3. Had Japanese food lately, eh?

    2. I think it's noteworthy that Reason Editors spewed more outrage in 24 hours over the possibility that abortion might become a state issue than they were able to muster in a whole week over the federal government illegally creating an agency to regulate speech.

  24. "Many NFT owners are finding their investments are worth significantly less than when they bought them."

    P.T. Barnum approves.

    1. I put all my money into tulip bulbs.

      1. Hey, you should talk with Skynet up-thread.

  25. Democrat senators are pressuring Facebook to censor Spanish language campaign ads. Why does this sound familiar? This is one of the claims Mayorkas made on the need for the ministry of truth.

    1. Their color war didn't work to cause permanent democratic rule, so now they need to give the right kind of information to their diverse base. You don't want those poor hispanics accidentally voting for Hitler.

  26. "If the Court does overturn Roe, it will fall on our nation's elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman's right to choose," President Joe Biden said in a Tuesday statement.

    As a transgender (nonbinary they / them) person, it's a little upsetting to see Biden use the outdated expression "a woman's right to choose" to describe access to abortion care. He should have gone with the more trans-inclusive and scientifically accurate "a uterus owner's right to choose."


    1. Unwilling birthing person.

      1. I did see a state-level Democrat use the expression "birthing bodies" which is also acceptable.

        1. "Birthing bodies" is the only acceptable term. "Birthing person" is exclusionary toward those of use who identify as Lygers.

        2. I believe it's bodies capable of abortion

          1. Does the ladydick get in the way of the doc chopping up the clump of cells?

            1. Ladydick wouldn't be an issue if evil Rethuglikkkans would just let us castrate children.

          2. chicken dinner

    2. Since a uterus, like all biology, is a social construct, I assume your reference to "owners" includes anyone who feels uteri-burdened.

      1. "Owners" is a problematic microaggression toward POCs.

        1. "Uterus transportation device?"

      2. Rental is the least burdensome option. Depreciation's a bitch.

    3. What if I don't have a uterus, but I feel like I'm supposed to have a uterus?

      1. Vote progressive?

      2. Become an adjunct professor teaching a critical theory based class centering around your 'fight' to overcome the many obstacles to be recognized? Stunning and brave.

  27. Headline: Alito's Draft Opinion That Would Overturn Roe Is a Disaster of Legal Reasoning

    Writeup: no real examples aside from one mention of common law and the quickening.

    What astute legal reasoning by ENB.

    1. one mention of common law and the quickening

      There can be only one.

      1. But those who went through the quickening in the highlander can't have kids... so confused.

      2. By the way, if anyone wants to know what it would look like to watch Neo from the Matrix fighting (or, you know, playing basketball), check out Ja Morant of the Memphis Grizzlies.

        1. Highlights from last night's game is a good start

          1. Been watching him since he was Murray State. Freak of fucking nature.

            1. At Murray State.

    2. Yeah, I caught that as well. No evidence of Disaster of legal reasoning. Jesus.

      1. Reasoning is sexist, you brute!

    3. The disaster was that there was legal reasoning behind the opinion. Abortion, like all womens issues, is supposed to be decided by FEELINGS.

      1. I think it's more accurate to say that womyn's issues and left wing social policy are deemed to be a class marker, while not adhering to these views or worse being vociferously opposed to them is a mark of low class. So ENB isn't really writing "this is a disaster of legal reasoning (due to something legal-ish I've just heard about for the first time three days ago)" so much as "Alito and the Court's crew of mackerel-snappers are elevating low status views that should be dismissed out of hand." She's bright enough - having made it through both a post-secondary theater program and a certificate program in nutrition - to know that you have to disguise the class injury in terms of a nonsense about the majority Justices' intellectual deficiencies.

    4. I had no idea that Ditzbrain Brown was such a legal luminary...

    5. It’s the Roundup, just some light reading why we drink our morning coffee, not an actual article.


      1. Where's that retard hiding lately anyway?

        1. Finally flew off?

          1. Jealous of sarc and Jeff's blossoming relationship.

  28. ENB may not be a biologist, but she plays a learned jurist on the interwebz.

    This is comedy gold.

    1. Maybe she should cross post this on the VC page.

    2. This is comedy gold.

      Greenwald has ENB pegged. Alito is explicitly guiding the court back towards actual democracy, and nobody on the inside wants that to happen.

      The Irrational, Misguided Discourse Surrounding Supreme Court Controversies Such as Roe v. Wade

      1. Yep. Just like the other day where some of the posters here were trying to argue that this decision was statist.

        Except I really do not thin them irrational, or even illogical. Mostly they are just being intellectually dishonest.

        They think themselves clever.

      2. Progressives are deeply freaked out by most people in this country. They assume most of us are basically like the degenerates in the Purge movies, only stupider and more violent. Of course actual democracy terrifies them.

        1. From my experience, more of them fit the mold of stupider than non-proggies.

      3. You people have proven time and time again you can’t be trusted to vote.

        1. Hey, have you killed any rednecks lately?

          1. Too chickenshit.

            1. Too busy getting his ass banned for doxxing widows.

          2. My name was a joke. I’m against violence except in self defense.

            1. Everything about you is a joke.

        2. " can’t be trusted to vote."

          Look, let you can your control freak flag fly all you want, just don't pretend you have any say in the matter.

        3. You people have proven time and time again you can’t be trusted to vote.

          Repurposing the vile rhetoric of an Reconstruction era Democrat. Keep it up, kid. I couldn't ever embarrass you more than you embarrass yourself...

          1. Look what you fascists voting has turned Utah into.

            I’m not embarrassed at all if the fascists on here don’t like me.

            1. You appear to do just fine with Tony, Jeffy, Shitlunches etc..

      4. Greenwald is turning.

        1. The Gleens is, and always has been an opportunist.

          1. He is obviously a real journalist of the highest integrity. For the Snowden work alone he deserves a lifetime recognition as one of the all time greats.

        2. Is he? My impression is that he's pretty much the meme Elon Musk posted some days ago.

  29. Ok. So we've got these angry chicks with such touchable titties saying "keep your hands off my body," but they're not referring to the hands attached to the guy who will be putting his hands on those titties while he pokes her with his penis. No, they mean the politician who aims to criminalize ending the pregnancy resulting from the guy with his hands on those touchable titties.

    Seems like "Hands off" is a mixed message.

    Or is it just me.

    1. It sure looks like melons are in season.

    2. I get the feeling you like big boobs.

      1. A handful, handful and a mouthful, two handfuls, two handfuls and a mouthful...

        I like them all.

        1. I’m not muted anymore?

          1. What?

            1. Do you even have a list anymore!?

              1. Nope. But you're on it.

                1. I'm at the top, right? Not Jesse who secretly says nice things about you behind your back.

                  1. I don't rank shit. It all smells bad.

                  2. I swear that I once saw ML praise him for honest discourse, whereas I can't even respond to him directly because I currently have him muted.

                    Again, there can be only one.

                    1. Chunk's full of lies. He often quotes you fondly on other forums. Don't believe him.

                    2. I overheard both of you talking about what a great husband he was.

            2. LOL

          2. He craves attention.

      2. Remember kids - always hold the camera at chest height.

        1. With a wide angle lens.

        2. Hey! My eyes are up here!

          1. If ENB picked out the picture, she did something right on this writeup.

  30. "If it gets the answers wrong; no amount of officialdom and ritual will save it. If it gets the answers right, none is necessary."

    Well, they definitely are/were wrong.
    But was it then, or now?

    1. The process is set up as it is, so the justices can have a reasoned discussion to come to a decision. You can argue whether the way they have it set up accomplishes that goal. It is arguing that a member of Congress should be able to unilaterally discard the rules of parliamentary process because they think that Congress is coming to the wrong conclusion.

      It is an argument in a similar vein to that which said Pence had the authority to not accept the election results. What matters the rituals if you think the substance is wrong?

  31. I wonder if ENB even cares that one of the 63 million babies killed could have grown up to be the first sex worker elected president?

    1. Awesome.

    2. Freakonomics makes an argument (that I found to be persuasive) that a good number of those "babies killed" would have become criminals due to being raised by parents who didn't want them.

      1. Thus we should extend abortion rights to at least the 33rd trimester to weed out even more unwanted future criminals.

        1. I figured give them a trial period between trimesters 4 and 33. Then make a decision as to abort or not.

          1. So, something 'RAD'? [Retroactive Abortion Do-over]

            I see you've had a teenager as well, sarcasmic? 🙂

            1. Almost. She's 12.

              1. You have my sympathies. Your fun is just beginning. Best of luck.

      2. And The Bell Curve?

        1. You go fishing for red herrings. In the mean time I hope some adults want to have a conversation.

          1. You are using a correlation study as defense of your apriori belief system. But seemingly are dismissing a different correlation study that goes against your apriori belief.

            They have a term for this. This isn't the first time you brought up the well used defense of abortion as a means to mitigate crime from that book. There have been many counters to it since it was published 20 years ago that you seemingly have no interest in.

            You claim you are consistent, but this shows you are not.

            1. I thought the conversation was about abortion, Freakonomics and boobs.

              You're making it about me as a person. Sorry, not interested.

              But if you want to talk about topics instead of people, go for it.

              1. I'm making it about your terrible argument of justifying beliefs based on an old study that has been nearly as racist as the bell curve which you seemingly protest against. It is ironic how inconsistent you are while claiming principles.

                That study has been stated to be racist as it implies killing black children through abortion reduces crime. The same racist style arguments used against The Bell Curve.

                Yet you see no problem repeating the first but feel the need to push away the latter.

                It is amusing.

                But beyond that, correlation studies are generally terrible. There was a reduction in crime from the 60s to the 80s also based on the growth of police forces and crime enforcement, especially in big cities. Yet freakonomics chose their preferred correlation term to make the primary cause.

                Freakonomics is a very over hyped book. I'm not shocked you reference it.

                1. You could have said "I believe Freakonomics is wrong, and this is why."

                  Instead you launched into a tirade about me as a person.

                2. I may have been interested in what you had to say. But I'm not going to ask for clarification on anything. Why bother? So you can continue to tell me what I think, believe, feel, do and why? Sure I have things to learn from you, everyone knows more about something than I do, but it's not worth the insults. Fuck that, and fuck you. Grow up.

                  1. You just got your ass handed to you for specious reasoning, but your response is to start swearing and then tell him to grow up?

                    You're the gift that keeps on giving.

                    1. Lol.

                      This happens a lot.

                      Basically he can't refute anything I said so he lashes out then pretends he is curious for me to expand the argument. If he does, I willingly do then he claims it is incoherent.

                      An amusing cycle.

                      And freakonimics is one of those books dumb people were told to read to feel smart.

                    2. Let's say my reasoning was wrong. A normal person would say "Hey, your reasoning is wrong. This is why." In response I might say something. A conversation might happen.

                      You're not normal people.

                    3. I have no incentive to engage in an honest conversation with people who are going to call me names.

                      With that said, your insistence upon calling me names says you don't want an honest conversation.

                      Then you object to me questioning your maturity.

                      Shoor dood. Whatevz.

                    4. "A normal person would say "Hey, your reasoning is wrong. This is why." In response I might say something. A conversation might happen."

                      Not after 50, 100, 200 times. Your penchant for trolling and shitposting over the last three years long since burned out any tolerance from most of us.

                      If you were the least bit introspective you'd ask yourself why so many people here dislike you, and whether you deserve it or if everyone else is wrong.

                  2. “everyone knows more about something than I do”

                    Like the wide variety of sandwiches.

          2. Yeah, let’s talk about boobs.

      3. Conviction for precrime and the sentence is the death penalty. Amazing argument.


        It is bunk. The idea that "Unwanted" babies being murdered in the womb somehow outweighed the millions of unwanted babies who have been brought to term is silly nonsense. But he sure got some fun talk show gigs.

    3. Is it ironic that B v E overturned please v ferguson?

    4. Would it be considered a conflict of interest if they continued their sex work while President?

      1. Politics is the continuation of prostitution by other means.

        1. Sell your body, sell your vote.
          Two great business models; "you sell it, you still got it"

    5. So are you forgetting about kamala?

  32. "...Whoopi Goldberg suggested on The View that the Supreme Court "will go after gay marriage and maybe Brown v. Board of Education" next..."

    Certainly my choice for authoritative and accurate predictions!

    1. What about the Joooz?

  33. Cope and seethe, Reason.

  34. Shouldn't we want legislation on abortion to be done at the lowest possible level (state or municipal), to best reflect the views of the people? Just from a 'take power and control away from Washington DC' perspective, moving the entire abortion question to the people themselves seems like a much more stability enhancing way forward.

    The protestors can now petition 50 state legislatures.

    1. The "views" of the people that matter are the views of the progressives. That is underlying assumption upon which leftist twits like ENB operate. Leftism is the baseline.

    2. *Lowest level possible

      That would be the individual level.

      1. Ultimately, it always comes down to the individual, LoS.

        I think a woman choosing abortion has to be in a terrible circumstance, generally speaking. I don't believe that abortion is being casually used as a means of birth control, generally speaking. Are there extreme instances of serial abortions....yes, but they are a truly rare exception. I don't pretend to comprehend the emotions a woman who chooses abortion experiences.

        I do know that diffusing abortion legislation downward to the states is the better way to go, long term. We the People can address the question of abortion, acting through our state legislatures.

        Sullum posits that ditching Roe and Casey will result in little change, overall. I tend to think he is right, for once.

        1. I have a psycho cousin that got off birth control, then got pregnant to brag about having an abortion. There are psycho sub humans out there

      2. Do you have any suggestions on how you would get the opinion from the individual babies if they want to be aborted?

      3. ROFLMAO! I bet you do pass laws in your own (Mom's) house.

    3. Yes, though I support continuing to limit it further on moral grounds. I believe I would reject a national ban on prudence grounds.

    4. "Shouldn't we want legislation on abortion to be done at the lowest possible level (state or municipal), to best reflect the views of the people?"

      This was Harry Browne's position when he was running for president as a libertarian.

      It is hilarious how libertarians were themselves captured by the Kulture Warz.

      1. What was old has become new again. LOL.

        You mean Reason isn't a libertarian publication? 🙂

    5. Shouldn't we want legislation on abortion to be done at the lowest possible level (state or municipal), to best reflect the views of the people?

      Libertarians might, but we're talking about Reason.

  35. Is it just my imagination or has Reason's leading economics expert Mr. Buttplug not commented much lately? With the Biden economy doing so well he's missing out on opportunities to gloat about rig count and the Warren Buffett Net Worth Index.


    1. Shrike's mostly sockpuppeting right now under other names, though less prolifically than usual.
      He and Jeffy seem to post in alternate waves. When one is spamming heavily here the other isn't.

      I think that they're both different people, and they probably work for different outfits, so I don't know why that is.

    2. I think Mr. Buttplug might be spending too much time at, OBL.


  36. Currently, at Teen Reason:

    Alito's Draft Opinion That Would Overturn Roe Is a Disaster of Legal Reasoning

    Meanwhile, over to the law professors at Reason's Volokh:

    I've Finished Reading The Apparent Dobbs Draft Opinion
    After my spate of blog posts from Monday evening (1, 2, 3, 4), I took the time to read the apparent Dobbs draft opinion. It is a tour de force. Justice Alito meticulously dissects, and forcefully responds to, every conceivable position in favor of retaining Roe and Casey. I could teach an entire law school seminar class on this opinion. It touches on nearly every facet of constitutional law. Moreover, the opinion carefully addresses the concerns of other members of the majority. Alito cites Justice Gorsuch's book. Alito discusses safe harbor laws, which seemed important to Justice Barrett. Alito repeatedly cites Justice Kavanaugh's Ramos concurrence, and calls on returning the issue to the democratic process. This is an opinion designed to hold five, as the saying goes.

      1. Did he vouch for some sex workers in the article?

    1. The progressives commenting at VC, I will say, dedicate most of their time mocking Prof Blackman for the school he teaches at, and to which he went, rather than debating his analyses. So, they are much like any left-leaning sort, risible, dishonest, and worthy of little more than dismissal until they address the argument in concrete terms. Much like most of the left-leaning types posting here, for that matter.

      1. VC picked up a lot of liberals at its stop at WaPo.

  37. It's an uncomfortable truth that some people just aren't cut out to be parents. It's a job that they don't want that they're going to fuck up. Sure everyone is an individual, and people raised in such an environment can over come and achieve. But that's not the norm.

    So what do you do as a society? Allowing abortion lets these losers engage in sex without consequence to the rest of us. But if abortion is murder, then what do you do? Adopt? Biologically the mother will not want to give up the kid that she doesn't want, and now we're in a new mess.

    No easy solution.

    1. Mississippi's law gives you 15 weeks to make that decision.

      1. And you generally get ~12-14 yrs. + 15 weeks to make the decision ahead of time.

      1. 2 million families are waiting to adopt a child the child they want.


        Not everyone is Angelina Jolie.

        1. You didnt fix shit. You attempted to dismiss the information without any evidence. You created a bald assertion.

          1. Then you explain why the waiting list is so long. Summarize and enlighten. You're presenting the argument.

            1. Because many families want to adopt and the process is long. It is im the article.

            2. ^government

          2. Based upon my limited anecdotal knowledge on the subject, most potential adoptive parents want young white babies without Downs, Fetal alcohol syndrome, or some other challenge.

            I could be wrong. Happens a lot.

            1. Yes, and they ALSO do NOT want an older child who has already become mind-fucked by having been abused! And SOME of them are even smart enough to NOT act up when they are foster children... And then, start acting up (even violently) the day after they are adopted, by deceived former-foster parents! Government Almighty has even been known to HIDE the known past abuse, to fool adopting parents!

              Biological parents are best for the child!

              1. Not all biological parents want their children. That's a sad fact of life.

              2. And if not raised by biological parents, then death?

              3. SQRLSY was adopted by a liberal arts major with a Masters in Poetry and a minor in Saurology.

                The influence has clearly warped the lad.

            2. More for those with time to read:

              I wanted to briefly mention “infanticide and sociobiology”. See for some basics. Male animals (lions, monkeys, etc.) will kill the youngest, when they take over a group (pride, troop, tribe, what have you), to make space for spreading THEIR genes, instead of the previous father(s)!

              Does this make it RIGHT that humans should behave similarly? The beasts do it, so we can (should), too? Clearly not! This is absurd! But here comes my fundamental point: To NOT discuss (to ignore) this (or any other) negative programmed behavioral tendency, is to lose an opportunity to be aware, and on guard! As Jesus said, “The truth will set you free”! Deliberate ignorance is (just about absolutely) ALWAYS a hazard!

              Let me quote from the above-cited Wikipedia link, “Humans and infanticide” section: “Family structure is the most important risk factor in child abuse and infanticide. Children who live with both their natural (biological) parents are at low risk for abuse. The risk increases greatly when children live with step-parents or with a single parent. Children living without either parent (foster children) are 10 times more likely to be abused than children who live with both biological parents. Children who live with a single parent that has a live-in partner are at the highest risk: they are 20 times more likely to be victims of child abuse than children living with both biological parents.”

              So there you have it! Whether we like to admit it or not, many of us DO act like beasts! ONE of the practical take-ways (in terms of public policy) is that we should only VERY reluctantly, in the WORST cases, take children away from both biological parents, and hand them over to foster parents. Hand them over to close biological relatives if possible. This makes sociobiological sense. And… Teach your youngsters to reproduce in a careful, responsible manner! Having 5 children by 4 different fathers is NOT a good choice! It is BEGGING for trouble! But yes, just as “wearing that dress” doesn’t excuse the rapist, having too many fathers for your children, doesn’t excuse infanticide, or child abuse, either!

              I’m not sure what other important policy take-aways are here on this topic… I hope that I have hit the most important ones. Here are some related side topics: “Exposing infants” (human infanticide) historically: And then there’s the fact that older cultures (WAY before modern sociobiology) intuitively understood these things. “Blood is thicker than water”. Witness the “evil stepmother” tales!

              1. Anecdotally my stepfather was a hell of a better father than the sperm doner on my birth certificate.

                1. A good man! (The stepfather of course.) They are out there!

                  1. He is a rare one. I'm fortunate to have him in my life.

                2. Is sperm doner like Rocky Mountain Oysters?

            3. Your bald assertion doesn't get better by admitting your are intellectually lazy.

              1. your are in thnead of premedial edumacation aboot spchelling und grammer!

    2. So what do you do as a society?

      There are wastes of skin that spend their lives parasitizing off of their parents, girlfriends, friends and the government, yet we don't kill them or put them in work camps. Society leaves the issue alone because it's actually the best option.

      1. I think you have the best solution. It is not our job as society to ensure that everyone has a wonderful life. "Our" job is to ensure that others are given the freedom to live, learn, make mistakes and triumphs as they see fit with the widest latitude necessary, just so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Murdering someone because you made a mistake and they are inconvenient falls into that camp of "protecting rights". *shrug*

    3. My cousin is adopted. Biologically, her birth mother wanted to give up the kid she didn't want.

      My aunt and uncle waited years for their turn on the list.

      1. I said "Biologically the mother will not want to give up the kid that she doesn't want, and now we're in a new mess."

        The point of that was that many, I want to say parents but in reality it's likely just mothers, who intend to give their kids up for adoption change their minds. Could be biology, family pressure, religion, promises of free government money.. whatever.

        They change their minds. That's why adoption is better in theory than in practice.

    4. You know what else lets these losers engage in sex without consequences to the rest of us? Birth control.

      1. Yet some aren't responsible even enough for that. Want them to be parents too?

        1. Because we allow them to be irresponsible to that extent by coddling them and making it easy and comfortable to be an irresponsible piece of shit.

          There should be a certain amount of embarrassment to being an irresponsible piece of shit and a burden on society, and a certain amount of social pressure not to be an irresponsible piece of shit and a burden on society. When you take away consequences for undesireable behavior, you get more undesireable behavior.

          1. While I agree 100%, that ship has sailed.

            1. Ships have rudders, they can change course.

              1. Ratchets only work in one direction.

                1. No they don't. See that switch on the back? Flip it the other way.

                  1. sarcasmic
                    May.4.2022 at 12:11 pm

                    … Sure I have things to learn from you, everyone knows more about something than I do…

                    We’re making progress here.

                  2. In the context of government, which was obvious with his ship analogy, they only work in one direction.

              2. Yes, ships can change course, for good or for bad! Like "R" party fanatics outlawing birth control, for example; it MAY yet happen! This is hardly a mainstream conservative opinion today... As SoldierMedic pointed out the other day.

                However, things can change fairly rapidly! 3 years ago, staunchly justifying trumpanzees gone apeshit, in an endeavor to replace democracy with mobocracy (backed up by the mandatory-for-Trump-cultists "Big Lie" beliefs, of course) was ALSO "hardly a mainstream conservative opinion"!

                1. That's not changing course. That's ramming speed.

                  Changing course means admitting to being wrong and changing course.

                  When does that ever happen?

                  1. Around here, just about never!

    5. One would think that putting the kid to death should be the least easy solution to such a problem.

    6. It might not be an easy solution that there is bad people in the world, but such a utilitarian view of things is not only awful, it makes a really strong assumption of knowing who will be bad parents, and more to the point, who will be bad kids.

      1. Easy, progressives make bad parents

        1. Don't be unfair, they also make bad kids.

    7. The decision should be the woman's. End of story.

      1. What if the father wants to keep the child, Joseph? No rights? Or really, no choice?

  38. ENB, you're lying. Alito most certainly provided evidence that mid 17th century common law often completely banned abortion. He also did not even come close to completely basing his reasoning on 17th century legal precedent. You either did not actually read the whole ruling, or are desperately hoping we won't. Reading tweets is not journalism. It isn't even opinion journalism. It is lazy and pathetic rabble rousing, but it is not journalism.

    1. ENB, you're lying.

      Do you expect someone to read past that?

      If someone is wrong, and they care about being correct, then you could have an opportunity to persuade them.

      But if you start off with an accusation, do you really think they're going to read on?

      Maybe next time start with "ENB, you're wrong. And I will explain why."

      Unless you're just here to score points without persuading anyone. In which case well done, carry on.

      1. He did explain why.

        We get it. You didnt read past the first sentence. Above is a link to volokh that explains it in more depth.

        Not everyone is as intellectually lazy as you.

        1. But enough are to keep electing democrats - - - - - - - -

        2. Talk about missing the point.

          You don't persuade someone by calling them names.

          Then again, I don't think you try to persuade anyone.

          You just like to call people names.

          1. Enb doesn't read this comment section dummy.

            You called him put for pointing out the flaw in her argument using any reason you could.

            1. No, I called him out for calling her a liar.

              She could be totally honest and working with bad information.

              1. Someone who intentionally avoids information that may discredit their argument is fundamentally a liar.

                1. Thank you for admitting to being a liar. It's a good start.

      2. If you read past the first sentence you'd get a damn good explanation of why he said it.
        ENB is deliberately and knowingly lying to us and deserves a bit of opprobrium for doing so.

        1. He also gave her a few ways out.
          Which goes back to my original response.

          To persuade you don't start off with "You're a liar! Liar liar! You lie!
          You have bad intentions, and here is why!" That puts someone on the defensive.

          A person trying to persuade may say "You said this, and I believe you are wrong. I'm sure you have good intentions, but these are the likely results of your good intentions. Maybe you should reevaluate."

          Are you here to persuade people, or to score points while being an unlikeable jerk?

          1. Someone who spent the last three years trolling and pissing off almost everyone here, probably shouldn't be talking about unlikable jerks.

            1. I see. I'm wrong because I'm a poopyhead who did it first. Is that ad hominem, tu quoque, both?

              1. You start shit by saying I'm an "unlikable jerk", and then you accuse me of going ad hominem when I give it back to you?

                Always the victim, huh? Never poor sarcasmic's fault that everyone can't stand him. Always someone else's.

                1. Hey, speaking of jerks!

                  Q: What is the difference between a woman who just can NOT find a man who treats her well (like Mammary-Fuhrer for example), and so, she is constantly shuttling between abusive men? And a man who abuses women, by, for example yanking on the gazongas too hard?

                  A: The first is a “jerks juggler”, and the second is a “jugs jerker”!

                  Can you say,
                  “Jerks-jugglers juggle jugs-jerking jerks”?

                  (Mammary-Fuhrer, treat others better, STOP being a "Perfect One", and maybe You can attract higher quality men.)

                  1. "Hey, speaking of jerks!"

                    That word is like a magical incantation summoning Sqrlsy from whatever circle of hell he dwells in.

        2. She may. There's a chance she chose the woman wif the big ole tiddies just to prove what a vile bunch of misogynists we all are, unable to curb our male gaze from the bewbz. What she didn't take into account is the fact that the large set of breasts is attached to a harridan w/ a megaphone who is a member of a group protesting, irrationally, and in some cases angrily if not violently. Sex may well sell, but since we are in the midst of a discussion on disinformation, this protest, and the cascading talking points and media coverage from the left-leaning emotional support groups have been dishonest at best.

      3. We are far past the point of persuasion.

        1. I've noticed that, Goldilicks GorillaShit! NO data, and NO logic will persuade Goldilicks GorillaShit of ANYTHING that Goldilicks GorillaShit does not WANT to believe!

          1. You are correct, and the walking dead.

            1. We are all dead in the long run! Given the chance, I'll take some totalitarians with me!

              1. Your terms are acceptable, faggot.

    2. ENB isn't the one lying. She merely cites (albeing approvingly) some specious argumentation by Holly Brewer of the University of Maryland. And Brewer may not be lying, but simply making egregious errors of logic, involving false premises and invalid argument.

      1. *albeit" (not "albeing")

      2. I would suggest that Brewer is aware of what she is saying, and believes it. I cannot say that I know this is fact, but looking at her other work, she does not seem stupid or ill-informed -unless her work is entirely falsified which seems unlikely. So, Brewer appears to be either lying, or purposefully presenting an invalid argument.

  39. So the draft opinion is a "disaster of legal reasoning" because (1) some legal commentators make the laughable argument that the right to bodily integrity includes the right to rip your unborn child out of your body, (2) other legal commentators argue that unenumerated rights that aren't deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions (e.g., rights that were thought up last week but that the judges really, really like) can nonetheless be protected by the 14th amendment's Due Process Clause, and (3) the portion of Alito's opinion where he calls attention the to errors Blackmun made in his opinion in Roe about the criminality of post-quickening abortion amounts to a claim that "the common law somehow must have made abortion illegal before quickening."

    If that's a "disaster," then the opinion in Roe itself is comparable to an extinction level meteorite strike.

    1. The actual law professors over at Reason's own Volokh said "It is a tour de force. Justice Alito meticulously dissects, and forcefully responds to, every conceivable position in favor of retaining Roe and Casey. I could teach an entire law school seminar class on this opinion."

      But ENB would rather follow the legal reasonings of Twitterati who will provide the opinion that matches her biases.

      1. I never got why the main page editors here refuse to cite the lawyers at volokh.

        1. Because they are not smart enough to understand what the lawyers at Volokh are saying?

          Just a guess.

          1. Also, Reason does present a very specific viewpoint and is not above cherrypicking. A lot of what they do here is of mixed intellectual rigor. Some are worse than others.

            Also, writing a daily letter like this is hard and the Reason one is not particularly good.

            1. “Also, Reason does present a very specific viewpoint and is not above cherrypicking.”

              Someone should tell them that this is, in fact, not good for their viewpoint. It’s quite obvious to most, who then instinctually discredit said viewpoint.

            2. Over the last 8 years reason has gone hard on cherrypicked stories and quotes, along with omission of topics that should be of interest to libritarian. They use to steel man libritarian views, but not anymore

        2. Probably because everybody thinks they are a lawyer.

        3. And not just not cite the lawyers at Volokh but snag rando ambulance chasers, ivory tower dwellers, and grief mongers with law degrees off of Twitter.

    2. I've seen fairly varied people of different political persuasions now have different opinions on the legal reasoning. I don't think I've seen any serious scholars call it a "disaster of legal reasoning."

      Shit, the main point about unenumerated rights still being rights is treated extensively by Alito in the opinion.

    3. Don't just take my word for it that Roe itself is a disaster of legal reasoning. Take that of "[l]egal scholars and political scientists":

  40. I don't recall the constitution saying anything about medical procedures and should keep out of that however the constitution does require protecting people from harm and that is where a child's right to bodily integrety can exceed that of the woman's since she gave that up when she had sex.

    1. Yes. Unless she was raped, she had a choice and made it.

      1. And if you only ban abortions after some reasonable line of viability, say 16 weeks or so, the woman still has four months of being pregnant where she can choose to have an abortion. It is pretty hard to say that a woman who has a four month window to get an abortion is being deprived of a choice in any meaningful way.

        Unless they ban the morning after pill, something that is very unlikely to happen, rape isn't an issue. If a woman is raped, she can and should take a morning after pill to ensure she doesn't get or stay pregnant.

  41. Overturning Roe, assuming that is what actually happens, will transform the debate over abortion in this country and not in a way that will be in any way good for Democrats. As long as Roe stands, Democrats are able to frame the debate over abortion as one of "rights". If something is a "right" in this country, objections to it, no matter how valid or practical, are generally considered morally illegitimate. One of the great principles that animates politics in this country and always has is the principle that rights always take precedent over other interests. So, thanks to Roe declaring abortion a right, Democrats haven't had to defend the merits of things like late term abortions and Planned Parenthood dismembering newborn children and selling their body parts for profit. Democrats are just able to declare abortion a right and any restriction on it, no matter how sensible, as moral illegitimate.

    Without Roe, Democrats will no longer be able to avoid debating the merits of various abortion policies. To some degree, the pro abortion side will have the merits. I don't think anyone outside the fringe really wants states to get into the business of banning morning after pills or investigating every miscarriage as a possible illegal abortion. At the same time, however, there is no reasonable moral or medical case for late term abortions. If the pregnancy has passed the point of viability and has become a threat to the mother's health, the medical answer is to induce labor. At that point, inducing labor is safer for the mother than an abortion. That fact is well established and the majority of people in this country are not going to buy the "what about the safety of the mother" BS that Democrats try and use to justify late term abortions. And no one outside to true fever swamps of the left supports partial birth abortions.

    At a moral level, everyone who has had a child has seen an ultrasound and watched the development of a child in the womb. Most people do not want to get into the debate over whether life truly begins at conception but they certainly know it begins sometime in the womb and not because of some magic trip down the birth canal that transforms a clump of cells into a full human being.

    So, my guess is that a large majority of voters in this country will support pretty serious restrictions if not outright banning of abortion post 15 or 16 weeks. Before that, they probably will just want the state out of it. As far as the right to choose, I don't think the claims that a woman who has three or four months of being pregnant to decide if she wants to have the child being deprived of her "right to choose" are very compelling.

    The problem for the Democrats is that they can't agree to the sort of sensible compromise of banning abortions past 16 weeks because their feminist and hard left base have basically turned into a death cult in their support of abortion. So, they are going to have to die on that hill. Abortion is going to become as big or even a bigger loser required position for them as gun control is now.

    1. Well said.

    2. This was my point when I was discussing how this would affect the midterms. Some of the left's worst, most amoral excesses involve abortion. If Roe goes down, they now have to defend those excesses against a majority of Americans that will find them reprehensible. They are now going to have to state exactly what their positions are in legislation, and then defend them, and they're indefensible.

      Also, look at the collection of hateful crazies currently gathered on the SCOTUS steps. They don't in any way represent mainstream America. They are repugnant to most normal people. The left is not pissed because of abortion. Most of them will still be able to get them because they live in blue states. They're pissed because they're losing the shield they've been hiding behind.

  42. Namely, the right to terminate a pregnancy may be justly seen as a subset of the right to bodily integrity.

    So Jacobson v. Massachussetts was wrongly decided?

  43. But this obsession with process and punishment over the substance of the opinion is pretty weird.

    “Obsessing” how the first ever leak of its kind of a highly sensitive, internal SCOTUS *DRAFT* that contain arguments that are not yet ready for public consumption and is bound to change drastically between the time it was written and when it’s released, and that was purposefully leaked as a political ploy is “weird”?


    It’s a fucking draft. There will almost certainly be holes and inconsistencies, because it’s a fucking draft. That’s how writing works.

    What’s weird is freaking out about a draft that is not yet law, and trying to gloss over how and why it was leaked in favor of treating the argument as if it were final.

    1. Justices must be able to deliberate and debate in private if there is to be any kind of honest intellectual inquiry done at the court. And they can't have honest debate if they are worried about some shithead clerk leaking their drafts for political ends. This leak goes to the heart of the ability of the court to function.

      That reason refuses to see that and is defending it shows how intellectually bankrupt they are. All reason cares about is whether the decision gives them what they want. They are incapable of seeing anything deeper or larger than that.

      1. In order for a libertarian society- or any free society at all- to work, people need to generally agree upon the rules, and generally agree to abide by them.

        This leak- which I believe was done by a leftist somewhere in the Court- is another declaration by the left that they refuse to play by the rules. They will violate every rule and every norm in order to burn it all down and rebuild it in their own image, which is in itself anti-democratic because the majority of Americans don't want a system built in the left's image.

        1. The other thing is that the left has been the biggest beneficiary of people's respect for the courts over the last 100 years. Time and again, courts have forced leftist positions on the country and the country has gone along with it out of respect for the courts. If the left destroys respect for the institution of the courts, then people will no longer just go along with whatever the courts degree. If that happens, it will be the left that is harmed a lot more than the right.

          1. I don't think the left has any interest in maintaining institutions as they currently stand. The calls for nuking the fillibuster and packing the court were coming less than a couple of hours after the leak.

            If they succeed in nuking the fillibuster and packing the court, we can all kiss traditional institutions as we know them goodbye. Any court that exists will just be a rubber stamp for whatever the leftists dream up. And they believe this will work because they've relied upon the right's general desire to play by the rules and respect institutions.

            1. You are exactly right. Being morons, they don't understand that the right's willingness to respect institutions will not outlast the left's destroying them.

          2. The left actively ignores the courts to no reprecussions

              1. Oberlin Collage not paying court ordered money to a business they declared as racist then that business got trashed by the pos Oberlin students

    2. Gotta love how Orange Hitler was so evil because he shredded our norms, but this gets a pass.

  44. Meanwhile, over in Ukraine....POTUS Biden is busy getting us involved more and more in that fight, and neglecting the danger to Taiwan (which actually is a US national interest because of semiconductors).

    Those poor bastards in that Steel mill are gonna get massacred.

    1. I am enjoying watching the Russians get their asses handed to them as much as anyone. That said, this war needs to end. It is a humanitarian disaster and is threatening world food supplies and every day it continues is another day we live under the threat of it escalating into a wider war or worse a nuclear war. Biden and those around him are so stupid they seem not to understand that and are unable to see anything beyond the daily news cycle or have any plan or viable path forward to end this war. It is just terrifying.

      1. To me, Ukraine is an EU problem. We back our NATO allies to the hilt. But do not get involved in Ukraine. The EU can do the heavy lifting there. It is not America's problem.

        OTOH, I suppose it is a virtue of sorts that Joe Biden is a politician who once bought (with millions from Ukrainian money), stays bought. At least we know what side Joe Biden is on....the one that pays him the most.

        1. George Washington's farewell address warns about getting involved with europ

      2. I'm not convinced the Russians are getting their asses handed to them. Many predictions from Western media were made, none of which have seemed to come to fruition. It's very frustrating because I don't know what to believe. I certainly can't believe anything coming out of Russian media, but increasingly, I have trouble believing anything out of our own. So all I can really do is listen to the predictions and statements made by western media, scribble a note down on a post-it, then revisit it a few weeks later to see if the prediction came true.

        Hint: The ruble is now at its STRONGEST position against the USD in well over a year. The ruble is not only NOT "rubble", it appears to be doing very well.

        The Russians were supposed to have run out of ammunition, gas, and other basic war-making supplies a few weeks ago, yet here we are.

        And now the West seems to be goading Ukraine into NOT negotiating. As one person said: The west seems intent on fighting Russia down to the last Ukrainian.

        1. I am absolutely convinced they are getting their asses handed to them. Their attempt to take Kiev ended in failure. They have lost the flag ship of the Black Sea fleet, the Ukrainians are on the offensive and seem to have the momentum. It has been a complete disaster for the Russian military. I actually wish it hadn't worked out that way. Had the Russians done better, I would be less worried about them doing something crazy and starting a nuclear war.

          1. I am absolutely convinced they are getting their asses handed to them. Their attempt to take Kiev ended in failure.

            It is my opinion (and the opinion of... military analysts who don't work for CNN) that it was NEVER the intent of Russia to put the capitol city under siege. That was a side show to tie up the bulk of the Ukrainian forces so Russia could surround the Donbas region.

            The goal here, based on very clear signaling from Putin and the Minsk II agreement is the Donbas. You drop a few bombs and fire a couple of missiles into Kiev, that causes the Ukrainians (and the West to panic), they fortify Kiev with the bulk of their military and then that softens up the real target: Eastern Ukraine.

            1. It is my opinion (and the opinion of... military analysts who don't work for CNN) that it was NEVER the intent of Russia to put the capitol city under siege

              There are hundreds of burned out Russian vehicles that say otherwise. They put the Kiev under siege. There is no denying that and they didn't put thousands of troops and a 40 mile long convoy there to do it by accident. It is what it is.

              I don't trust CNN either. I do, however, trust my lying eyes.

              1. When this war first broke out, I hinted in an early comment that Kiev was a side show and the Donbas would be the focus.

                Here's the western media on this very issue:

                Russia has shifted most of the focus of its war to eastern Ukraine, after pulling back its forces from near the capital Kyiv. The battle for Ukraine's old industrial heartland known as Donbas is likely to decide the fate of the Russian invasion.

                So was I wrong? Was I accidentally right? Am I the Broken clock that gets it right twice a day? I honestly have no idea. But when I read stuff like the above, my thinking is, "They didn't change strategy, that IS the strategy."

                I don't know what the reality on the ground is, and this is a conflict that I've spent a lot of time, sitting back with my arms crossed and trying to do more listening than talking.

                Here was the Western Media a month ago:

                Sanctions are already devastating the country economically. The ruble has taken a beating, losing 50% of its value on Monday after the sanctions were announced over the weekend. The currency has continued to slump over the past several days, at one point dropping an additional 8% on Wednesday. Before the crisis began, the Bank of Russia said its reserves were sufficient to cover 20 months’ worth of imports. That figure is likely to be 10 months now.

                Look how that's turning out.

                1. It was never a side show. The extent of the battle and Russian losses put lie to that. Just stop it with this nonsense. Really, it is just nonsense. The plan was to take Kiev and absorb the entire country. There wasn't any 12 D chess going on. The Russians didn't burn through most of their military in some diversion plan.

                  1. The plan was to take Kiev and absorb the entire country. There wasn't any 12 D chess going on. The Russians didn't burn through most of their military in some diversion plan.

                    See, when I read stuff like this, it seems like it's coming from someone who has no clue what the Minsk II agreement was about. There is NO evidence that Russia is or was trying to take the entire country. That is a Western narrative designed to pull Western interests into the war.

                    There isn't 12d chess with the Minsk II agreement, there is 1d chess: Take the queen, ie, Donbas.

                    None of my comments are to suggest that this will succeed. But the idea that the Russian army was going to capture Kiev is bordering on the laughable.

                    So again, was I right accidentally? Was I right but for the wrong reasons? Time will tell.

                    1. There is NO evidence that Russia is or was trying to take the entire country.

                      Only the fact that they invaded from from three different directions, took an airport next to the capital and tried to decapitate the government. Other than all of their actions, there is no evidence at all.

                      WTF is wrong with you? Russia invaded Ukraine with several hundred thousand troops and besieged the capital for weeks while actively trying to capture and imprison or kill the government. In what universe can it be said "there is no evidence that they intended to take the entire country"? Do you realize how stupid you sound?

                      I cannot understand why otherwise reasonable people will go to such great lengths to avoid admitting the obvious. Name me one other time in history where a country invaded another along three fronts, besieged its capital, and tried to decapitate its government but didn't actually meant to take it over? I will be waiting for that answer.

                      Just take a step back and ask yourself why you want to believe this so much. It is just bizarre. Stop it. The fact that Russia is losing this war and it has been a disaster says nothing about the merits of their cause whatever they are. One has nothing to do with the other. So, if you think Russia is right or Ukraine more wrong, fine. Just understand that that is a totally different debate than the military reality on the ground. Stop deluding yourself and see the facts as they are.

                    2. I'm not sure they wanted the whole country. Most everything east of the Dnieper, sure. But maybe they wanted to leave the western half as some sort of puppet rump state - like Belarus.

                      I think the goals of the initial invasion were political decapitation in Kiev and encirclement/destruction of the bulk of Ukrainian forces in the eastern half.

                      That said, they have gotten their asses kicked and it's not clear they will even be able to hold what they are currently entrenching - e.g. Kherson.

                    3. Briggs, "Diane" is the same Diane who backed telling several hundred thousand people to not get vaxxed who would be alive today if they did. What can you expect? "She" is rooting for Russian success - her eagerness to find evidence of this is pathetic - and so of course she's sees this complete debacle - including the collapse of most of Russia's markets in Europe and the expansion of NATO - as just a temporary planned feint.

                    4. Joe Friday, you’re a stupid asshole.

          2. Oh and by the by, Boris Johnson is beginning to hint that Ukraine might not be doing as well as we had hoped.

            And here was another line in the sand that appears to have gotten crossed pretty quickly.

            1. They could collapse entirely tomorrow and it still would be a complete disaster for the Russian military. The Russians have lost hundreds of vehicles and countless amounts of equipment they have no way to replace and lost a decent portion of their best trained people that also will be difficult if not impossible to replace.

              1. To me, the American interest was to wound the Bear, via the Ukraine military, badly enough to forestall action against a NATO member. This might well have been achieved. Now we will see troop movements via satellite if Russia attempts to reinforce.

                What also happened was we managed to drive Russia straight into the arms of China. Not sure that was a good idea...

              2. IIRC, Soldiermedic identified some of the equipment that was being used by Russia near Kiev, and he said it was not their elite units, but was outdated. This would support Paul’s position.

                1. No. what that shows is that they can't field their best equipment. That it is for show and they can't do the maintenance and training necessary to field it. They didn't send the old equipment in for fun or out of kindness or something. They sent it in because that is all they could field.

                  1. Maybe. Time will tell.

                  2. What it could mean is they weren't going to use their best equipment on a side show.

                    1. To believe that is to believe they wanted to lose and were okay with equipment that they no longer have the ability to make being destroyed. That is possible but it seems very unlikely.

                      Is there any limit to the number of excuses people like you will make for Russia here? I am taking the easy answer and saying that the Russians attacked Kiev with thousands of people and some of their best combat troops because they wanted to take it. Absent some pretty compelling evidence to the contrary, that is my explanation for the facts I know. Sorry but "CNN lies" and "Ukrainian propaganda" isn't compelling enough evidence for me not to believe the obvious explanation for things.

                      You have zero evidence any of your claims are true. You just have assertions that they might be true. That would be okay if your claims didn't require reading into Russian motivations and ignoring the obvious. Since they do, I am going with the obvious until shown otherwise.

            2. I think this is the dawning realization that, so long as the West keeps supplying Ukraine this fight will go on a lot longer, and as that happens Putin will become more desperate.

              Johnson would be fine if letting Putin keep what he has now in exchange for an end to the shooting.

        2. It's very frustrating because I don't know what to believe.

          As a general rule, it's best not to believe anyone until you've gotten lots of confirmation. I just assume that both sides are lying. Of course, the enemy is stretched thin and is going to collapse any day now. Of course, the enemy is deliberately committing atrocities. Of course, the war crimes of our side either didn't happen, were false flag events committed by the other side, were tragic errors, or were the unauthorized acts of rogue actors who are now being disciplined. And "our" side is as likely to lie as the "bad guys," because our side is fighting for a righteous cause, which makes it OK to bend the truth a bit in the service of a higher good.

          The one thing I'm perfectly willing to believe is that both sides are committing war crimes. It may or may not be the policy of either side, and it may be that one side is more likely to commit them than another. But as a general rule, when you put young men who have been given lethal weapons by their governments into stressful situations (especially life-threatening ones), bad things happen. (And that's not even talking about relatively benign war crimes like putting Russian prisoners on TV, as the Ukrainians apparently did.)

          1. It's like everyone has forgotten that war involves killing and killing and killing until the other guy surrenders.
            (real wars like this one, not 'police actions' and whatever Viet Nam was)

        3. "It's very frustrating because I don't know what to believe. I certainly can't believe anything coming out of Russian media, but increasingly, I have trouble believing anything out of our own."

          Me too.
          I normally hate the both sides position, because whenever it's not a cop-out it's usually dishonest, but I'm having a hell of a time actually believing anything.

      3. I am enjoying watching the Russians get their asses handed to them as much as anyone.

        It's not obvious that this is what's happening.

        1. Yes it is. See above.

  45. >>Some Republicans are mad, too:

    you should be embarrassed to cite Susan Collins as (R)

  46. Let me guess: a constitutional amendment for “bodily autonomy” isn’t a proposed solution to this issue.

    1. Great idea until someone explains how that would apply to vaccines. I have to admit I am getting way too much pleasure watching the left meltdown over this decision.

      1. OMG yes Briggs.....My body, my choice.

        My take: Sorry Team D and uber-libs, you lost your moral claim to that 'choice' argument with your stance on vaccines....taking away people's livelihoods, threatening to take away their children, threatening with imprisonment, threaten to deny healthcare. No, the progtards can all go fuck themselves now.

        1. Gee, maybe if they had kept abortion "safe, legal and rare" instead of celebrating it as a badge of honor and having Planned Parenthood dismember 8 month fetuses to sell their body parts for profit, so many people wouldn't be so keen on overturning Roe.

          It is just possible that falling down every slippery slope and living down to the most hysterical predictions of your worst critics on every single issue, isn't a very effective way to run a political movement in the long term. I know it is crazy but it just might be true.

          1. The fact you believe any of that just shows how much of a gd moron you are.

            JFC you people are unhinged. Step back into reality anytime now.

            1. Yeah, there is no such thing as Planned Parenthood and no such thing as late term abortions. Nope, never happens. That is why the left goes insane every time someone wants to ban late term abortions, because they never happen.

              Do yourself a favor and turn off CNN. Seriously, just turn it off.

              1. Shitlunches doesn’t get his bullshit from CNN. It’s emailed to him every morning.

            2. Unhinged? That is funny. And Planned Parenthood's founder is who, dickweed raspberry? Oh yeah, Margaret Sanger. And what was her stated purpose for Planned Parenthood? Oh....eugenics?

              I don't think Briggs is the unhinged one here.

            3. The fact you don't believe any of that just shows how much of a gd moron you are.
              There are thousands of hours of video and witness testimonies showing exactly all those things.

            4. Planned parenthood admitted on camera to aborting at 8 and 9 months, and by aborting they said taking still living babies dissecting them and selling the parts

          2. “It is just possible that falling down every slippery slope and living down to the most hysterical predictions of your worst critics on every single issue, isn't a very effective way to run a political movement in the long term.”

            Well said.

      2. Did anyone force you to get a vaccine?


        Then stfu you donkey.

        1. Yes, people were forced to get vaccines all over the country at the threat of losing their jobs and no longer being able to go to public places.

          If you are going to troll and lie, you should try to tell more believable lies.

        2. you cant be serious

          1. Tony's an idiot.

        3. There was this gathering. In Canada. Something about some trucks.

          Hear of it?

    2. It conflicts with some currently ongoing issues. Backburnered for now.

      1. It is funny as hell how fast "birthing people" has turned back into "a woman's right to choose". A month or so ago we were being told that you needed to be a biologist to say what a woman is.

        1. Progressive politics has all the consistency of a sci-fi movie.

    3. The left has no interest in codifying general "bodily autonomy," or general autonomy of individuals at all. What they want are specific rulings that only apply to their preferred sacred cows.

      Codifying autonomy of individuals is counter to all their desired endstates.

  47. >>In the longer term, some see it invigorating Democratic support and/or intensifying culture wars.

    the plan all along.

  48. Thanks for the analysis of the Alito draft's reasoning. I am surprised by the claim that a 7-2 decision was wrong being made by a 5-4 draft decision. The fact is that the Roe decision is a well written decision and claims of it being in error are just opinion. Roe can be reversed by there is no overwhelming logic to the reversal, it is just the fact that the conservatives have the votes to do so at this time.

    1. Who knew M4E was ENB's mom?

      1. Sorry, ...ENB's birthing person...

        1. You meant carrier of the birthing uterus. 🙂

          1. Cell manager?

    2. So John Hart Ely (no pro-lifer he) was blowing smoke when he said of Roe that it was "bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be"?

      1. What I am saying is there is no consensus opinion that Roe was wrongly decided. I am sure you can find legal opinions opposing and supporting the original Roe decision. It is notable that 3 of the justices on 1973 case wrote concurring opinions themselves.

        So, I think it wrong to suggest Roe was wrongly decided and would prefer a simple statement that we have the votes to change the decision and so we will do so.

        1. Even Ruth bater cancer cunt said roe was wrongly decided on a specious argument

  49. If you want to "Keep Abortion Legal" maybe you should rely on laws to do that, and not court rulings based on convoluted interpretations of the Constitution.

    I'd imagine that it saves a lot more energy to vote for lawmakers who will vote in favor or abortion, rather than picketing and throwing a fuss every six months whenever SCOTUS decides that they *might* leave this issue up to the states (as they should).

    1. And abortion will be legal in some form in most if not all of the country. What will end up being illegal is late term abortions. If the left were anything but fanatics, they wouldn't have a problem with that.

      1. Go ahead and point out where late term abortions are even an issue. Please tell me again just how many of those are "oh, I don't want the kid" and not because of medical emergencies that endanger either the mother or would-be child.

        I'll wait.

        Just know it's gonna be a dumbass statement when someone says "leftists" or "the left" as if it's some monolithic movement that is seeking some grand plan.

        1. There is no such thing as a medically necessary late term abortion. If continuing the pregnancy is a threat to the mother's health, inducing labor is always the safer option than doing an abortion. The child being born ends the pregnancy and the threat tot he mother's health just like an abortion and does so in a safer way.

          Again, turn off CNN. Just walk away dude.

          1. You hit the nail on the head. We'll hear about the 1% of cases argument rape/incest while ignoring the 99% who use abortion as birth control.

        2. There are only approximately 10,000 elective late term abortions in the US, a mere pittance.

          1. So no problem then. Right banning them is no big deal

      2. Most late term abortions are due to serious health risks for the mother and or the birth of infants without brains and similarly cheerful outcomes.

        1. And there will be states who support the medical processes you are asking for. Perhaps the insurance companies or some other free market enterprise will come up with a way to service that niche market.

  50. There is no right to abortion in the constitution. It was invented by SCOTUS. SCOTUS could have just as easily declared the right to life of the fetus as inalienable. Also would be invented.

    Unlike other rulings people are throwing out like gay marriage for example. It was based on 14A that government should treat all marriages equal, Likewise precedent such as "separate but equal" have also been rescinded because they weren't equal treatment.

    So Alito's opinion states that there is no constitutional basis for the ruling. Therefore per the words of 10A back to the states and the people. Correct.

    Abortion was not allowed nationwide in 1972 when the ruling was made. That was the purpose of 10A to allows states autonomy recognizing there would be differences. GA was not the same as NY in 1790 either

    If a super majority wishes to amend the constitution go ahead. Its been done for all kinds of things like women's right to vote, ending slavery and prohibiting alcohol. The latter was later repealed.

    1. I meant to say abortion was allowed in some states and not in others in 1972. Also today alcohol is also allowed in some places but not in others.

    2. They noted that abortion was a right to privacy between a woman and her doctor.

      Do you think women don't deserve privacy in their medical matters?

      Or that they deserve less agency over their own bodies than corpses (ie. no organ donations, etc.) ?

      1. There is no general right to privacy in the constitution. I guess you're anti-vaccine mandate then? There are a million other counter examples. It was invented to justify this outcome.
        But every contention regarding the mother could be made for the baby.
        Viability is BS because a one week old baby is no more able to survive than one who is a week away from full term.

        But that is the disagreement. That privacy in this matter is an implied right whereas in many many other cases its not.

        The ruling does not make abortion illegal. It just leaves it up to the states as it was 1790-1972. If you want to create a inalienable right explicit to abortion start an amendment

      2. Do you think women don't deserve privacy in their medical matters?

        But mask mandates and mandatory vaccines are ok.

      3. ^now do the drug war

      4. You lost any moral claim to your 'agency' argument with your support for vaccine mandates. You (and people who think like you) took away people's livelihoods with your support of vaccine mandates.

        What will happen now is what should have happened 50 years ago. The people will decide the abortion regulation questions themselves, acting through their state legislatures. We the People can decide this question by persuading others, and voting.

      5. Do you think women don't deserve privacy in their medical matters?

        The District of Columbia has a law that purports to ban "gay conversion therapy," both for adults and for minors. Do you oppose that law too?

        1. Clarification: *some* adults.

  51. Not news to anyone. These charlatans just want their way and they'll use any bullshit to justify it.

    And the authoritarians here will cheer them on all the same.

    1. Yes they will. Maybe you should take this advice to heart and try not being the first victim. Just saying.

    2. why do you fear the votes of the people of the states?

    3. Yes, mask mandates and vaccination passports for the win!

      1. The hypocrisy is very deep here.

    4. Yeah, the strangest authoritarian shit ever....Hey, guess what? We 'Top Persons' are not deciding the question on regulating abortions, you the American people will decide it by persuasion and voting. Yeah, sounds pretty authoritarian to me. Totes.

      Do you have any enduring principles at all? Any? Just asking.

  52. I hear abortion is super duper popular. Than there should be no problem passing a constitutional amendment? Right. So go ahead. If you want to force all states one size fits all start an amendment.

    1. can we put a rider on that to eliminate the income tax?

      1. and a second rider to repeal amendment 17?

        1. And a third rider to eliminate asset forfeiture?

  53. All five Supreme Court Justices who are conspiring to strike down Roe and Casey as unconstitutional are Conservative Catholics, who plan to impose a Papal decree to make all American women's vaginas property/slaves owned and controlled by the state.

    By legally requiring women to have unwanted babies, the proposed theocratic Puritan court ruling would strike down and deny women's fundamental natural right to bodily integrity.

    While anti abortion extremists may be reveling now, this ruling could prompt the GOP to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in November (in many US House, US Senate, Governors, State AG, State House and State Senate races), as the vast majority of voters in suburban swing districts strongly support womens right to abortion.

    If GOP candidates in swing districts and states want to win in November, they'd be wise to go only support an abortion ban after 15 weeks ban, and exempt cases of rape, incest and mother's health.

    GOP candidates (in swing states and districts) who call for a total ban (or near total) on abortions are likely to lose to pro choice Democrats in November (as Democrats will make abortion their primary campaign issue).

    1. After this political bombshell, I now think Democrat Josh Shapiro will be PA's next Governor (after saying he'll veto any bill enacted by the PA House and Senate that bans abortion).

      1. This is borderline retarded.
        We get it, you love abortion, but unregulated abortion has nowhere near the public support that you think that it has.
        In the next few months most states will follow the European abortion model of stopping the killing at 14 weeks, which is what the vast majority favor.

        1. Just 10% of Americans support banning all abortion.

          Unfortunately for freedom loving Americans (and all women), the policy of GOP theocrats is to ban all abortions.

          1. Did you even read the response before putting in that strawman!

            There is less support for unrestricted abortion rights (about 13%) than there is for a total ban on abortion (about 19%). The majority is for something in between.

          2. Just 10% of Americans support banning all abortion.

            This is the exact same bullshit you pulled yesterday when we were talking about regulation. You immediately conflated it with bans.
            Stop being so dishonest.

    2. Needs more spittle flecks.

      1. Also your "advice" to prospective GOP pols is totes credible.

      2. Urine-soaked trousers would add a lot to the argument. This is pretty much rak lite.

    3. Are you sure it is the evil Catholics Bill and not the Jews? I mean those evil Jews probably had something to do with it, right?

      BTW, when is the next rally? You probably need to get your white suit cleaned before then.

    4. I hear that they will wear funny hats like the pope does when they announce it!

    5. you forgot to include climate change in this somehow.

    6. So which is it, a papal decree or a Puritan court ruling? You do know, don't you, that Puritanism and popery are not exactly compatible?

  54. That makes it one of the many rights "retained by the people" (in the words of the Ninth Amendment) that were imported from English law into the Constitution.

    No rights were 'imported from English Law into the Constitution'. ALL rights are inborn. Some were enumerated. Some of that enumeration was imported. If that extremely basic concept has slipped by you, you have no place writing about this topic.

    The 'bodily integrity' line is hogwash anyway. If you force another person to be reliant upon you against their will, you do not have the legal right to kill them because you find the situation inconvenient.

    Jason Kuznicki, editor in chief of the think tank TechFreedom, takes issue with the idea that rights must be "deeply rooted in history" in order to be valid.

    Rights must be deeply rooted in history because they are inborn. Rights get described, enumerated, and protected because most systems of law have traditionally revolved around setting limits on rights.

    A good rule of thumb is that a right cannot require the labor of another.

    Thus there can not BE a right to abortion or even a right to marriage--of any kind. Because both require the involvement of others.

    Freedom of the press is not a right. Freedom of speech IS a right and it includes the freedom to write and publish without government suppression. It includes freedom of belief and association. But is is a SINGLE right--and one that does not require the labor of another.

    1. "A good rule of thumb is that a right cannot require the labor of another."

      Yes. And that flows from the fact that freedom cannot exist without responsibility. If your ability to do something requires someone else to pay for it, you are not free because you are not the person ultimately making the decision to take the action; the person paying for it is. A child whose parents promise to buy them any toy in a store isn't "free" to have toy of his choice because it is the parents not them who are making the decision. It is only when you accept the responsibility of paying for your decision that you are truly free. Without that, you are just a prisoner to someone else's decision not your own.

    2. "A good rule of thumb is that a right cannot require the labor of another."

      I concur entirely.

      So 'abortion' as a third party procedure (medical or otherwise) indeed is not a right.

      However I do believe that we have a fundamental right to ingest most anything, and can do with our own bodies as we please. So, at least in a legislative/judicial sense, it is possible that some methods of abortion could be a right.

      So long as we are ignoring the net effect on the other human being, that is.

    3. But it clearly does not include the freedom to have a twitter account.

  55. But this obsession with process and punishment over the substance of the opinion is pretty weird.

    This is an incredibly disappointing sentiment. The ability to deliberate in private is crucial to a properly functioning, independent SCOTUS. The explosion of outrage on all sides clearly shows the metric fuckton of political pressure that could weight on justices if their deliberations are made public before a ruling has been released.

    If you don't think this is going, and in fact was intended, to taint or alter the upcoming ruling in some way, you're lying to yourself. There's a reason this has never happened before. I don't know if there needs to be any legal punishment, but certainly professional punishment is forthcoming and justified.

  56. “Namely, the right to terminate a pregnancy may be justly seen as a subset of the right to bodily integrity.”

    So, like the right to refuse vaccine mandates, or to use drugs, right?

    1. " the right to bodily integrity"

      Which body?

      1. Also note that it is now "bodily integrity" and not "bodily autonomy."

        Because the latter would mean you do not need to bake the fucking cake.

        Libertarian my ass.

    2. LOL. "right to bodily integrity" my ass. These people support the FDA, DEA, banning menthols. They support complete and total control of every possible decision you can make over your own body.

  57. So I guess it's just wall to wall abortion 24/7 now eh?

    1. So, along with Ukraine, is this two tails wagging one dog, or one tail wagging two dogs, or two tails wagging two dogs?

      And say that five times fast, please.

      1. Long term abortion will go away. The country will reach a political compromise on it and that will be it. That and the corresponding loss of the ability to distract and divide people with the issue is biggest reason why Democrats are so angry about this.,

        1. And if Mexico clamped down on the border and stopped all transit, the uUS politicians would be lost.

  58. OT: the Cult still burns the house down live. if they're coming to your town go see them.

  59. Well, I don't think it's fair to call Alito's writing a "disaster". BUT, I am uncomfortable with the idea that rights only count if they are "deeply rooted in history and tradition", or whatever the phrase is that he used. It suggests that our rights were discovered centuries ago and that's that, no more rights can exist. And that's just not accurate. Our understanding of natural rights goes in tandem with our understanding of the natural world in general - as our understanding increases, so do our thoughts and arguments about the nature of rights. As technology changes, our application of rights, or even new rights, can emerge - if we ever get to the stage of human development where merging of human and artificial intelligence becomes possible, what implications would that have for rights? Surely that is not something that Locke or Madison would have ever contemplated. So the argument that there is no right to an abortion because it is not "deeply rooted in history and tradition" is not a persuasive argument to me. I do think there ARE persuasive arguments, but that is not one of them.

    1. What is an objective standard for determining thus undiscovered unenumerated rights that avoid any disagreement with that determination?

      I do not think merely telling "This is a right!" is particularly convincing, especially when implementing such a right compromises other people's rights.

      1. I would say that a good rule of thumb is that a right is the the permission to execute an action that one has the ability to perform, at least in principle, that does not violate the NAP. This rule of thumb probably doesn't cover every conceivable case (notably abortion), but I think it is a good broad starting point. With changes in technology, as well as with changes in society, our abilities to execute certain actions change, as well as our understanding of what constitutes aggression that violates the NAP. For example, is bullying a type of prohibited aggression? How about cyberbullying? There isn't a necessarily right or wrong answer here.

    2. Well there is this: For 185 years, there were laws on the books relative to abortion in the individual states, that reflected the views of the people within those states. Roe upended the democratic process (that was on-going). IF (we have yet to get the Dobbs decision) the question of abortion is returned to the states where it belongs, it will be resolved by the people themselves in a democratic process.

  60. Its only a mess to pro-baby killing "Libertarians" because they don't understand rights.

    1. For Teen Reason some humans have more rights than others.

  61. But this obsession with process and punishment over the substance of the opinion is pretty weird.

    No, it is not. This is an incredibly bold statement, and it is not supported even by the immediate quote:

    "The Court's credibility doesn't depend on ceremonies or secrets or mystique. It depends on it getting the answers right," notes Timothy Sandefur, an adjunct at Cato and vice president at Goldwater Institute. "If it gets the answers wrong; no amount of officialdom and ritual will save it. If it gets the answers right, none is necessary."

    This is facially true, but does not speak to the incredibly practical matter of deliberating in public and the impact that has on the ability of political forces to put pressures on individual judges and cases. This has very, very significant consequence for getting it right in the long run. I respect CATO enough to suspect that this quote is taken out of context and that ENB is one here who is wrong.

  62. In today's non-abortion, non-Ukraine news:

    Topless beaches legalized in Nantucket

    1. Meh-who needs a topless beach when you can stare at the knockers in the photo that goes with this article. Besides, Nantucket is mostly for uptight prissy girls anyway, so not going to see much.

    2. I go topless at every beach.

  63. More non-abortion, non-Ukraine news:

    Sixty-three 3rd graders get full-ride scholarships to college

    This looks like an awesome project. In the article they hint at one reason why they are giving college scholarships to kids so early - if they know that they have the financial resources to go to college, it can help motivate them to do better in school so that they are able to get accepted to a better college than they otherwise might have gotten in to. What a good idea.

    1. It's an interesting experiment. Will be curious to see how it pans out. There's also a possibility that it will encourage kids to go to college when it would not otherwise benefit them to do so. Something we've seen over the last few decades as well.

      But, I'm certainly open to experiments with it.

  64. I really don't give a shit about abortion either way, but seeing the Enlightened™ take another boot in the face is always a pleasure. I count this as a win!

  65. only 19 percent think abortion should be illegal under all circumstances,"

    The percentage (32%) who think abortion should be legal in all circumstances is also a distinct minority, and is likely overstated since not everyone understands what "all circumstances" really means. In this case the middle is half the population either party's position can be framed as overwhelmingly unpopular.

  66. Alito's draft exposes him as anything but a strict constructionist as he struggles to justify his essentially religious preferences as from the constitution.

    Beyond the affect of the anticipated ruling, which will remove a court determined constitutional right from half the US population (at some time in their life) is the equally large issue of the enforcement of minority will on Americans by an illegitimate SC. All but 1 of the 5 majority justices were appointed by a president not elected by the people, but by the random winner-take-all electoral college. 2 of the 5 should not be there at all - Goresuch is in a seat which GOP senators (all of them) purposefully stole from a twice popularly elected president (they failed their duty to "advise and consent" to purposefully take away the president's right to nominate justices - no hearings were held, so while consent is not guaranteed by the constitution, "advise" is cleary intended to arrive at a suitable nominee), Barret was voted on after the election was already begun, and was nominated by a president everyone - including himself - knew was going to lose. Her seat should have been Biden's to name, based on the concept Republicans had claimed was the reason - bullshit - they held Scalia's seat open.

    In short, the SC is broken, it is intended to roughly represent majority will since the elected President names candidates. Instead, we have a bunch of loser picks who's religion they were raised in and/or claim now is officially opposed to abortion. It represents 20% of the US, 66.7% of the court, and 100% of this draft's majority.

    Don't tell us about the leak as if that were the problem. This court has no basis for respect from American voters, who it does not represent. Part of that is due to the fucked up winner take all (not in the constitution) EC randomness but 2 of the seats - deciding the court majority - were stolen from the Presidents Americans chose in the last decade.

    1. What an impressive block of whingeing.

    2. I can almost set my watch by the likes of Joe, who sit patiently waiting until Reddit boards, Twitter Trends, and TikToks have churned through enough "Just say shit and see if it sticks" to surface their talking points for the next few weeks. It is hilarious. Nevertheless, let's see how many lies Joe can fit into a single sentence:

      "All but 1 of the 5 majority justices were appointed by a president not elected by the people, but by the random winner-take-all electoral college."

      * Lie 1- "1 of 5" - In fact 3 of 5 Majority Justices were appointed by the president who won the popular vote. Alito and Roberts were appointed in Bush's second term after winning the popular vote.

      * Lie 2: "Not by the people": Whether or not you agree with how the peoples' votes work, it is still a vote by the people, so you lie again.

      * Lie 3: "Some random..": There is nothing random about the electoral college. It is well understood and deterministic. You know that if you get the votes here, here and here, you will win the presidency. There is nothing random at all.

      * Not a lie, just hyperbolic stupidity: "Winner take all": What is a popular vote? Winner take all! SMH.

      So 3 lies and a marked misunderstanding of what Winner-takes-all means. But we should totes pay attention to what he has to say about everything else. Clearly his analysis is clear headed and sober.

      Joe, your message bots are failing you. Go ask them to feed you better material, or you are going to look like a worse fool.

      1. Overt:

        "Alito and Roberts were appointed in Bush's second term after winning the popular vote."

        Bush was the incumbent in 2004 only because he was appointed by the EC after the SC's intervention in 2000. Mind telling us how many times a guy who lost the previous presidential election was nominated and won in the next?

        ""Not by the people": Whether or not you agree with how the peoples' votes work, it is still a vote by the people, so you lie again."

        Nice semantics exercise, but it a fact that Bush and Trump were rejected by American voters.

        "There is nothing random about the electoral college. It is well understood and deterministic. You know that if you get the votes here, here and here, you will win the presidency. There is nothing random at all."

        Winner take all state awarding of electors is not in the constitution - 2 states assign electors proportionally - and it's results are random. If Kerry had won 60k more votes in Ohio in 2004 he would have been president with less than the national popular vote. Do you find some meaning in that fact?

        ""Winner take all": What is a popular vote? Winner take all! SMH." Explained above. Is that too difficult for you?

        In short, the only thing you offer is the idea that somehow winner take all state electors actually do represent American voters, when in fact twice in the last 20 years (and twice before that in the previous 212 years) they did not. That is a fact and that makes it a fact that of the signers of this draft 80% were appointed by losers who Americans rejected for the presidency and don't represent what American voters want.

      2. PS I note you don't address the theft of the seats Goresuch and Barrett hold. Citizens can accept the unfortunate fact our fucked up EC system has given us 2 losers in 16 years and they got court appointments. What is not acceptable is one party - and a senate majority also representing only a minority of American citizens - purposefully blocking a twice elected president's right and responsibility to appoint justices and then grossly violating the excuse they gave for that despicable act by approving another justice while an election was already started in which everyone including the incumbent knew he would lose.

        1. You could argue for Goresuch as being stolen using the partisan politics that have woven it's way into our system, but why Barrett? She was confirmed under the rules.

          1. She was confirmed under the rules, but both parties in the past had advocated for let the "voters decide" when a vacancy occurred before an election and the GOP claimed that was it's reasoning in the most recent case in 2016.

        2. Bush's appointments came after he won the popular vote in 2004, you moron.

    3. The 50 Republican senators now serving received 63 million votes in their most recent elections, while the 50 Democratic senators were the preference of 87 million voters. That is how it is within the constitution but the a-constitutional filibuster granting even more lopsided minority rule and the abuse of their skinny majorities by GOP senators representing less Americans than the Democrats is not something Americans should tolerate.

      1. There are lot of idiots in shithole cities. You seem like one of them. This is not a democracy.

      2. I feel your pain, loser.

      3. If you're so assmad about the Senate, support a platform that can actually win in more states.

    4. That’s a lotta words. Too bad I ain’t reading ‘em.

    5. Joe Friday, go fuck yourself.

  67. The author cites Damon Root fro this proposition:

    "Namely, the right to terminate a pregnancy may be justly seen as a subset of the right to bodily integrity. And the right of bodily integrity has a very impressive historical pedigree indeed."

    Yeah. But Alito goes to great length to describe why abortion was never viewed historically as subset. "a subset." Did he even read the draft?

    1. Probably stopped where Alito wrote that abortion is not an enumerated right without examining his arguments for why it is not an unenumerated one either.

  68. More proof this is a right wing MAGA board, not Libertarian.

    It's a tough question that is thousands of years old. Most here want the government to dictate what women do with their bodies. Let them decide.

    My wife has never had an abortion and never would have, but she is fiercely in favor of having that right for herself and others. Being a NP involved in obstetrics most of her career, she's helped families involved in very difficult choices no one chooses to face. You want your wife forced to give birth to an infant with absolutely no hope of future, who's brief life with be filled with suffering and pain the whole family will be immersed in, including medical costs that can bankrupt them. Oh yeah, I would want my governor to weigh in on what we should do, and backed up by the force of law.

    1. Killing kids isn't libertarian, the magical birth-canal fairy doesn't exist and you're anti-science.

      1. They're not kids Mother. Mind your business.

        1. Right, if you leave them alone they become toaster ovens.

        2. "nuh uh, they r clumps of cells"

          So are kids, so are you.

    2. Also you're not a god, soothsayer or time-traveler so you have no idea what an unaborted persons life is going to be like, you Moloch-worshipping ghoul.

      1. Mother, doctors know when a baby is about to be born without a functioning brain, or other tragic medical conditions.

        Mind your own business.

        1. PS If you want the governor in on your decisions, write him a letter.

          1. Statistically irrelevant red herring you're using to run cover for your ghoulish butchery. A century of abortion law pre-Roe v. Wade made allowances for medical necessity, so why wouldn't it now?

            Also, a holocaust is everybody's business, freakshow.

        2. Congrats, you’ve uncovered ~2% of all US abortions. Now do the remainder.

          1. The remainder are "YOLO!"

    3. Joe Friday, eat shit bitch.

    4. More proof this is a right wing MAGA board, not Libertarian.

      More proof that progressives don't want to accept that the majority of the country wants at least some restrictions on the practice.

  69. Over/Under on how many days in a row that ENB will mention abortion as it relates to this current situation?

    I'm going with 17 days.

    1. 4

  70. This title should read: "Journalist--who is not a lawyer--offers legal opinion."

    1. Nope "Twitter reader" journalism takes research

    2. It has the hallmarks of a layman offering a passionate political opinion couched as a legal opinion insofar as it rests upon some purported inerrant silver bullet that everyone including the Roe Court - which nearly everyone who has been law trained agrees did its own legal jazz improvisation - just plumb didn't notice until now. The most compelling legal arguments for Roe remaining undisturbed were simply that it was old.

      If we're going to have a right to privacy or "bodily integrity," I think we need to have society-wide conversations about what that is and what it isn't, what its bounds are and so forth and only a broad consensus view should then be considered for Constitutional Amendment. What it can't mean is that the ruling class and its pets get to do whatever they want, and when the shoe is on the other foot they can coerce or force vaccinate adults with a medication developed on an emergent basis eliding the normal drug trials because orange man (he is bad).


  72. At least there was legal reasoning unlike the original Roe decision which provided no legal basis for a decision that has ended millions (tens of millions?) of lives.

  73. Sorry ENB..Abortion is not mentioned in the DOI or Bill of Rights. By nature it conflicts with "life" and "liberty"...given once pregnant you are dealing with a "two body" problem. The solution is for the legislature to get off its ass and either legalize it or get an amendment to (which is what the pro abortion folks should have been doing the last 50 years).

    The draft was very very well thought out and as an Italian American..very proud of Big Sam. The knowledge that this will piss off the tribes who hate Italians makes it so much more sweeter. Been a very long time coming...

  74. In response to this analysis, as well as the other article on Reason that seem to push for lots of extra special unennumerated rights, the fact is (and what seemed to be the main push of the opinion) that we do a very poor job at protecting and respecting the rights that actually are ennumerated. 2nd amendment -- don't need that if you have a right to declare a different gender identity and it's discrimination if every state affiliate or program doesn't recognize that? Free speech -- don't need that if the right to be free from listening to things that offend me is being substituted.

    The way forward for our nation and our political system is to stop looking to 9 unelected, life-appointed old intellectuals to say what is due when and where. Because nearly all of these fabricated rights are in some part of parcel a work around or end run around a framework that says: the society must follow procedures for encroaching on any right (other than the ones that are enumerate as involate - those can never be encumbered), and the required procedures are those that are due. It's a brilliant piece of circular logic. But it's led us down a rabbit hole where even for enumerated rights, the Supreme Court has sanctioned the ubiquitous balancing tests that are applied to due process. In fact, due process was never expressly about the utilitarian calculus of balancing harm against benfit, private interest against public interest. That in and of itself was a very early fabrication of the Supreme Court. Due process is a standard that aligns with the contemporary values and expectations of the society as a whole at a given time, in a specific set of circumstances. It is appropriate to be left to the legislative branch to decide and to evolve according to the will of the people who elect them. If it means that in a given time and place, it is not appropriate to every execute someone for a crime, then that is a matter for the legislative branch. Why should it be any different when the offender suffers from a mental infrimity (Atkins v. Virginia... note however that they did not use due process to rule, instead they used "cruel and unusual punishment", but the point is the same - a subject standard such a "cruel and unusual" is not something that 9 lifetime appointees should wield control over - it is the quintessential expression of the values of a society according to who they have elected, as well as what they have expressly, by super-majority, included in their federal and state Constitutions).

  75. Alexander Hamilton - the designer and architect of the American Justice system - believed that in court cases “precedent” (previous rulings by higher courts) should almost always supersede current court cases EXCEPT if a precedent were “unconstitutional”.

    Hamilton believed “constitutionality” should supersede even deeply entrenched “precedent” from past court rulings.

    There are basically two types of issues:
    “Voter Issues” versus “Court [constitutional rights] Issues”. Voters issues are democratic and popular with the majority of voters, since politicians are trying to win popular elections.

    “Court/Rights Issues” are not always popular with the majority of voters and hierarchical - higher courts dictating to lower courts. State officials assuming ownership over our bodies is absolutely a “rights” issue.

  76. Finally, the correct legal take on the matter by someone with a degree in theater and a certificate in nutrition. What ever would be do without you, ENB?

  77. "If we act in bad faith to define this very discrete, prohibited act with vast moral dimensions to be indistinguishable from a broad range of human activity including farting, we can see that the Court messed this one up. I am smart."

    Funny then that the Court in Roe didn't rest its reasoning on this alleged well-worn right to "bodily integrity" plainly within the Constitution and predating it in Anglo-American law for centuries, isn't it? If only ENB had been around in 1973 to inform the Justices of this, they wouldn't have had to monkey around with secret decoder rings to read the marginalia hidden between Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

    Further, "integrity" is defined as the state of being whole and undivided, so to the extent that an abortion is simply removing a woman's own tissue it is dividing her and making her less than the whole she was immediately before - ergo, this is not a matter of a right to "integrity," but a made up right to the opposite being a right to "disunity" or "disintegration."

    Here Endeth the Lesson.

  78. Say what you will about this draft, it would have to be much worse to be as poorly reasoned as Roe. And bear in mind that, regardless of any opinions to the contrary, the Federal police power really doesn't extend to regulating abortion. Or a lot of other things the general government does that would horrify the founders.

  79. If we recognize the fetus (at a certain stage) as an early person, then the left has to eat their own standard on vaccine mandates. Your autonomy can be sacrificed when it affects the health and wellbeing of others - or so the argument goes.

    As others have noted, most of the world either bans abortion outright or put restriction beyond 12 weeks. Recognition of the fetus as more than "clump of cells" in pretty much a global standard, putting them on par with some red states. Also fun fact - most of the nations adapt Trump's vision of immigration, including Canada. But the public schools are broken and libs operate out of a fantasy world where Sweden is a socialist success story.

    Do libertarians believe in autonomy of individuals without a voice? They should, right? Their support of illegal immigration is rooted almost entirely on morality, not reason.

    I trust that no one here has ever bought the left's selective mania over "autonomy". These are the same people who lose their minds over a white woman donned a Afro hairstyle. If a black man tried to go Michael Jackson and lighten his skin color, they would be foaming at the mouth.

    I would support abortion barbies giving away their citizenship to migrant mothers before leaving for Iran, where they can wear the hijab for the rest of their lives. The nation would be much, much better off.

  80. What a pathetic hot mess

    1: There is no US government recognized right to "bodily integrity". See Covid vaccine mandates and Covid passports, all inflicted by a Democrat President and Democrat Governors, and all supported by Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor

    2: "This 17th-18th century understanding would mean upholding Roe, and disallowing Dobbs," notes Brewer. "So Alito then says the common law somehow must have made abortion illegal before quickening — without a shred of evidence."
    What a pathetic lie. Alito addressed that very question, I've written out part of it here:

    tl;dr: If you gave a woman an abortificant and she died, you were guilty of murder, because if you try to murder Person A, but accidentally kill B instead, your illegal intent with the first person carries over to the second. And this held any time a woman was "with child", not just when she was "with quick child"
    Thus abortion was always illegal.

    3: Jason Kuznicki, editor in chief of the think tank TechFreedom, takes issue with the idea that rights must be "deeply rooted in history" in order to be valid.
    Well, Jason is a pro-dictatorship thug, who thinks that people he likes who are on SCOTUS have the "right" to rewrite our laws at will.

    You want a new right added to the Constitution? No problem!
    Get a Constitutional Amendment passed, and it's in.
    Getting 5 oath violating scum bags to "create" it, OTOH, is not a legitimate path

    You are pathetic

  81. It is important to remember that it was the First Draft of the opinion that was released. When I have a document that I'm releasing, I often go through multiple versions.

    I'm confident that justices who eventually sign any opinion or dissent will have input and and influence over the final documents. Complaining over a first draft is complaining about something that will never be.

    When I version a document it because I have found a better way to express myself, make a subject clearer. Typically a first draft is not just to remove typos and bad grammar, but rather to improve the delivery of the subject.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.