The 'Bombshell' Secret Alito Recording Was Not a Bombshell
The justice's benign comments set off a lengthy news cycle and have been treated as a scandal by some in the media. Why?

There's a mythic air around federal judges. Though equipped with immense power to decide issues of paramount political importance, we are in some sense expected to believe they are robots when they assume their role on the bench, devoid of basic biases and beliefs that motivate pretty much any sentient being. Justice should be impartial.
That explains in part how you get news cycles like the one this week, pegged to comments made by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito that were secretly recorded by "gonzo" journalist Lauren Windsor in an exchange with him at the annual Supreme Court Historical Society dinner. The result was a "bombshell" report.
But was it?
Posing as a Catholic conservative, Windsor approached Alito at the closed-door event and asked him a series of questions, although she has not released the full unedited audio. The part she did release, which I will include mostly in full so as to provide the adequate context, is as follows:
Windsor: I know it's got to be terrible what your family, what you and your family are going through right now, so I'm just so sorry.
Alito: Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate you.
Windsor: But, and I'm sure you don't remember this at all, but what I'd asked you about was about the polarization in this country, about, like, how do we repair that rift. And considering everything that's been going on in the past year, you know, as a Catholic, and as someone who, like, really cherishes my faith, I just don't know that we can negotiate with the left in the way that needs to happen for the polarization to end. I think it's a matter of, like, winning.
Alito: I think you're probably right. On one side or the other, one side or the other is going to win. I don't know. I mean, there can be a way of working, a way of living together peacefully. But it's difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can't be compromised. They really can't be compromised. So it's not like you're going to split the difference.
Windsor: And that's what I'm saying. It's just, I think that the solution really is, like, winning the moral argument. Like, people in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that, to return our country to a place of godliness.
Alito: I agree with you. I agree with you.
That, dear reader, was the bombshell.
Let's do an honest accounting of what we learned. We found out that Alito thinks one side in American politics will win—he doesn't say which one and doesn't appear to know—which does not strike me as a particularly contentious statement when considering our system is predicated on running in elections, with someone winning. But the arguably more controversial comment in terms of press coverage was Alito saying "I agree" in response to Windsor's remark about the importance of the country returning "to a place of godliness."
Many people disagree with that idea, as is obviously their right. But it is puzzling to present it as scandalous or even surprising when considering Alito's religiosity is not a secret. He has been open about his Catholic faith, has spoken at events sponsored by religious groups, and his social conservatism should not come as a shock to people who have read some of his decisions, including his 2022 majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and ruled the Constitution does not confer the right to have an abortion.
Windsor also secretly recorded Chief Justice John Roberts, who told her that the task of navigating the U.S. to a more "moral path" is for "the people we elect" and "not for lawyers." When she countered that America is "a Christian nation and that our Supreme Court should be guiding us in that path," he responded: "I don't know that we live in a Christian nation. I know a lot of Jewish and Muslim friends who would say maybe not, and it's not our job to do that." Even less of a "gotcha," which was a low bar to clear.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Any other recently revealed recordings of noteworthiness? Don’t want to be a nagging Nancy about it but…
That Was Totally Taken Out Of Context!
That tape is less credible than Ms Ford.
Exactly. Why it only got referenced in a late Friday article.
Go ahead and give us a link; pretty sure most of us will enjoy it.
"The justice's benign comments set off a lengthy news cycle and have been treated as a scandal by some in the media. Why?"
'Cos Progs want a 30 Justice SCOTUS ...
They tried that with FDR. Well, not 30, he just wanted to double the size. But I doubt any president of either side would give up the ability to pack the court by doubling it, if they thought they'd get away with it. Of course if a republican were to do that you'd not call it packing the court....
No, they'd be happy with 9 progressive idiots who can't define woman vs man (wonder how they'd figure out the NDAA's new automatic registration for selective service for men only?).
But it is puzzling to present it as scandalous or even surprising when considering Alito's religiosity is not a secret.
It's not puzzling when you realize that the media is trying to build up the political capitol for the Democrats to reorganize the Supreme Court. It's in their interest to manufacture as many potential scandals as they can when it comes to conservative justices. Any pretense they can find that makes conservatives look bad and builds the political will to either impeach a justice, or else encourage a Democratic push to expand the court by appointing a ton of left-leaning justices, is now newsworthy.
The only puzzling part is why someone would be puzzled.
One thing that is perhaps noteworthy is to jot down which outlets are selling this as a scandal and stop reading those publications. They have outed themselves as little more than mouthpieces for the Democrat party by running with a non-story that doesn't meet any baseline criteria for newsworthiness.
At least James O'Keefe gets people to reveal things that are otherwise lied about or hidden. Go figure that Roberts waffles and Alito is Catholic. Both are things that everyone already knows and they are both on the record for already.
Shit, Kagan was never even a judge at all so if we're nosing around the Supreme court to find people who aren't qualified maybe start there. She's an obvious political appointee and, at least in my view, wasn't qualified to start her Judicial career at the highest court in the nation no matter how long she was a law professor.
Remember when O'Keefe posted the abortion clinic videos the left media's mantra was to repeat "edited video" instead of identifying anything misleading (since they couldn't find anything misleading). Now they admit they don't actually object to edited video either.
If you watch them a bit you'll notice every principle they use to attack the right they ignore when discussing the left. It's a perfect correlation.
Those revaluation are very scandalous! Next the will revel that clearance Thomas is black!
"Next the will revel that clearance Thomas is black!"
Blacker than Barak Obama. (commence certain heads exploding)
Misspelled Long Dong. -3 points
which overturned Roe v. Wade and ruled the Constitution does not confer the right to have an abortion.
This atheist agrees!
So does this one.
Not this one. People should be FULL owners of themselves be it an abortion or any other topic. The State doesn't get to own me!
It's not the state that puts babies in women.
It is a valid role of the state, though, to arbitrate when rights collide. Ignore that the baby also has rights and you are then forced to find a cutoff at which a baby magically gains rights, which is a silly game.
The baby has rights as soon as forces are set in motion that, otherwise undisturbed, would result in a human being born. Those rights may at some points have different weight, but they exist. Framing the argument as only one right being in contention is dishonest.
It is the State keeping your delusional "baby-unicorn" in Women.
What ‘inherent right’ does your "baby-unicorn" have?
If it had an ‘inherent’ right to life it would have ‘inherent’ life on it’s own because that is the very definition of 'inherent' rights.
INHERENT meaning: existing as a natural and basic part of something.
So what ‘inherent rights’ does your "baby-unicorn" really have?
Do tell.
Your BS propaganda of deceitful labeling-and-naming it a ‘baby’ doesn’t change the fact it has no 'inherent' right to life.
Counting chickens before they hatch is NO excuse to shove Gov-Guns into other people’s PERSONAL life.
Biology isn't propaganda. This is Misek type argumentation.
Apparently the *real* biology is exactly the reason it doesn’t have an ‘inherent’ right to life only “The Science” gets to thwart that reality.
Good grief. It’s like the word ‘abortion’ literally flips everyone political beliefs around. Gov-Gun forced ‘Universal’ healthcare for unicorn-babies anyone?
real biology is unambiguous. life – whatever life we’re talking about here , bird, lizard, monkey, human… begins at conception. Your life – your human life – started at your conception. It will end with your death - whether you are in a coma, shot by a psycho, or just have a heart attack in your sleep - totally oblivious to the world and your soon coming end.
You may not have had your cognitive faculties – thats a different issue and different argument. You were a separate human life from that of the mother that gave birth to you. very simple
And my house 'began' with a plan so I guess surely it doesn't instantly exist because someone came out and destroyed/killed it. /s
You can explain the situation all you want. It's still not going to give the pregnancy an 'inherent' right to life. In the lawful arena of the subject the 'rights' are the topic.
I've never seen a house built by house plans.
I've never seen a sperm turn into a baby without encountering an egg in a hospitable environment. Once that happens, the only thing preventing a fully developed baby in 9 months is death, accidental or otherwise.
Once house plans can build a house, your bad analogy might mean something.
"in a hospitable environment"
Then you have your solution. Remove it and put it into a hospital environment. A Woman's body isn't yours for the taking against her will.
If you take anything alive out of a hospitable environment, you've killed it. Doubly so when you're the one responsible for putting it there in the first place.
And guess what?
Closest Families have had the authority to pull the plug (remove the environment) on sibling on life-support for years. Is that really an authority you wanted handed over to the State?
Never-mind a persons body is probably more PERSONAL than a public hospital. The legal premise Pro-Life plays is that of "It's entitled" to something it has no 'inherent' right to.
You're getting closer but not quite there yet.
Can siblings pull the plug on life support if there's a 99% chance of recovery?
As far as I know; Yes they can by will and testament.
And even if I'm wrong your staw-man (self-project much?) doesn't say grandpa can go rape the female nurse if it prevents him from dying of prostate cancer (a 31% lower risk).
So we just need the fetuses to sign away their right to life and then we're golden.
It doesn't have a right to life because rights are ‘inherent’ not ‘entitlements’.
So does a bird, lizard or monkey have a right to life? How about a cow? A pig? A sheep? Are you a vegan to maintain ideological consistency?
That's what I don't get. Babies are real expensive to have. Even a complication free delivery is a small fortune. Add in some complications and maybe an NICU stay and you're talking bankrupting levels of cost. I know. Our son had a week in NICU and we got sent the bill. It was a stupid number.
If every pregnancy must be carried to term then why not support universal health care? Most insurance companies require purchasing pregnancy coverage at least a year before the pregnancy begins. Most abortions are for unplanned pregnancies. Thus getting the woman to carry to term from an unplanned pregnancy is a bankruptcy to start off parenthood.
So if the baby is so important that they want the government to get involved then why not get the government involved in providing her with total coverage so she can afford to have the child?
Ironically; Pro-Life doesn't think it's just repeating leftard talking points although they are.
An NO; The US Constitution definitely doesn't authorize universal healthcare [Na]tional So[zi]alist.
I'm saying if they are so all fired up to stop all abortions with the full force of the federal government why are they so all fired up against universal health care? I agree that both are not within the power of the Federal government but if these conservatives want one then why not want the other?
The answer of course is they don't give a shit about the baby. They just want the woman punished for having sex. You don't see them demanding the sperm donor being forced into marriage. It's the woman who must be enslaved for her sin.
What is the difference between a one day old child and a 40 week-gestated unborn baby? You can kill it until it leaves the birth canal?
See, stupid games. Both are separate, alive, and entirely dependent on others.
Blatant Lies don’t make a point. They are NOT separate but they can be separated by fetal ejection so you can be sure by the process of action (instead of unicorn fairy-tale imagination) that the fertilized egg really isn’t ‘alive’ with an 'inherent' right to life.
Trying to win a fantasy-land argument with imaginary creatures and pretending a blatant lie holds truth is stupid games.
So when does a fertilized egg gain the same rights as you?
It never does have a 'right' to be encapsulated in another person; just like you have no right to stick your head-up my *ss against my will.
However; If it has an 'inherent' right to life it can be peacefully removed on will of the encapsulate-r (Woman). The bottom line is people need to 'own' themselves (their own body) else the very premise of 'slavery' (enslaved) happens.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons" ... "against" ... "seizures, shall not be violated". The pregnancy cannot 'seize' the Woman without violating the Woman's Constitutional rights.
Them don’t encapsulate it in the first place. Problem solved.
A man and a woman put the baby in there. Their actions directly resulted in another life being fully dependent on the woman.
If you go hiking and take a toddler along with you, you can't leave the toddler up on the top of the mountain because you got tired of lugging her along. You pick up one end of the stick, you pick up the other end too.
Taking that toddler may make you a slave to the government, but only because you chose that responsibility. It makes you responsible for the child that YOU put in a position where her life is now in your hands. Don't want that responsibility? Then don't do the deed.
"Then don’t encapsulate it in the first place. Problem solved."
Do you know what they call forced encapsulation at that state?
RAPE.
"A man and a woman put the 'unicorn-baby' in there."
If you want the legal act of sex to come with the legal responsibility of reproducing you need to make a LAW that states that. Not use some shady tail-end manipulative entrapment law to get there.
Yeah, that's what abortion laws do. They attach responsibility to sex:
If you have sex, you may become pregnant. If you become pregnant, you can't kill the baby just because it's inconvenient.
Thank you for seeing the light.
You sure arrogantly believe it's okay to shove your religious responsibility standards on other people's personal life.
What part of a Fetal Ejection is an act of 'killing'?
Like I said before; You Pro-Lifers do nothing but spread BS lies, lies, lies until your propaganda-lies become truths. "killing" "babies" "killing" "babies" "killing" "babies" - It's NOT killing and they're NOT babies (lies, lies, lies).
Where has religion come into play here, Mr Straw Man?
You're taking a life form and either ending that life via direct intervention or by depriving it of what it needs for life.
I've never said this is an easy solution. I'm just admitting (which you seem incapable of) that there are TWO DISTINCT people involved in an abortion, and that abortion violates the rights of the unborn. You have yet to explain why leaving a toddler in the mountains is essentially murder but ejecting a baby before it has developed the necessary bodily functions is not.
"that abortion violates the rights of the unborn"
What Right?
Do Tell. (Again)
It has no 'inherent' right to life.
Does my fingernail have some "your religious" right to own me?
"You have yet to explain why leaving a toddler in the mountains is essentially murder"
- It's not. It's called child neglect.
"ejecting a baby before it has developed the necessary bodily functions"
- Which as just discussed can (upon your own theories) develop them on it's own in a hospital environment.
You excuses go nowhere to supporting the legal taking of a Woman's body rights away.
Well that helps. You do not believe that leaving a toddler in the wilderness is at the least manslaughter.
Good day.
The problem is right there.
'Belief'.
I really don't care to change your 'Beliefs' beyond your belief that your 'Beliefs' have Gov-Gun authority to use against others.
If you cannot support ?baby? freedom. (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
UR supporting Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction.
It really is that simple without all the.....
Lying, Lying, Lying until the Lies become a propagandized truths.
you are truly unhinged on this topic.
What happened to make you this way? you are normal (what passes for it in this forum anyways...) on so many other topics.
When I first got involved in the debate I realized the right-way was LIMITED government (bloody sick of never-ending gov-dictation) and the real debate was whether ‘government’ should even be playing ‘God’ in such a PERSONAL area.
I think it's good 'government' isn't legislating when the plug on family members on life support get pulled but is left to closest family. I think it's sick (crazy nosy) when the general public wants to stick their 'opinions' into those personal matters (like the co-joined twins that were born episode a few decades back). It's really none of the general public's business.
Government cannot be given the power to dictate that a woman must carry a pregnancy to term and be responcible for the child until it is 18. It's as simple as that. You want to empower the government to intrude, quite literally, into the bedroom and regulate the most basic of human interactions.
Maybe you don't come to this idiocy because of region. Maybe you're just a natural born idiot who wants the government to monitor your sex life and insure that any fertilized eggs created by you are by force of law carried to term.
Why not mandate that the man who impregnated the woman must marry her and stick around until the kid is 18? I mean, while your prioritizing the life of this baby over a woman's rights then why not force the man into slavery too? Why not eliminate divorce while youre at it? After all, single parent homes are the worst way to raise a child.
Or maybe cut out all the ?free-sh*t? child support and alimony because rape is illegal and the reproduction system belongs to the Woman which is HER-OWN responsibility.
Most likely the UN-religious abortion banning arrogant reasoning sits directly in the fact that Women have been selling off their own responsibility to men for years. So why not just treat them like incubator-slaves.
Women have been killing babies after they have been born for millenia. Too many mouths to feed? Toss the youngest in the river. Even in the 19th and 20th century doctors used to kill deformed babies as they were coming out so a family wouldn't be burdened by some freak of nature. It's only been since the medical profession turned away from home birth and toward hospital births that these practices ended.
You put the "killing babies" is okay into actual reality.
You're not helping the upholding of Individual Rights at all.
The individual rights argument is a good one but it has been used for so long that the slqvers have developed arguments against it using a lot of wiggle words and outright bullshit.
The argument is like a well choreographed ballet. Maybe nice to watch but it gets nowhere.
30 years ago I stopped a gun banning preacher dead in his tracks at a public event discussing gun control. I asked him why not make murder illegal. His ability to argue was destroyed after that. Every time he basically said, "there ought to be a law" someone said, "but murder is already illegal."
Ten years later that argument was useless because they developed replies to shut it down.
You need new material. That's all. I'm trying some new material and seeing how it works.
What inherent right? The right to stay alive.
If you don’t have it ‘inherently’ you don’t have it at all.
This is so leftard argument style: A 'right' to housing. A 'right' to healthcare. A 'right' to others money.
Unborn babies inherently live. Just as with newborns, they will continue to live and grow as long as they're given the nutrients they need.
Deprive them of those things and they die.
So give it those things without poking Gov-Guns at a Woman to get them. It's that simple. Nobody is justly entitled to a slave.
Then get to financing some bright idea people to develop artificial wombs and get ready to pay to support every unwanted pregnancy. If this means so much to you then money shouldn't be any object.
So, if you are sick then the doctor must treat you even if you have no capacity to pay because you have a right to life?
And if you are homeless then the home-owners must accommodate you if you have no capacity to pay because you have a right to life?
Indeed; Pro-Life is nothing but leftard talking points.
INHERENT meaning: existing as a natural and basic part of something.
What part of a fetus being alive is neither natural nor basic?
Are we cherry-picking words in definition now?
"existing as a natural and basic part of something"
If the fetus has a natural and basic life; part of itself. It doesn't need the Woman so there is ZERO excuse not to separate the two.
Say what? The only thing that's truly alive doesn't need anything other than itself?
Yes. That is the very meaning of an 'inherent' right.
So babies have no rights? They cannot provide their own necessities and would quickly die without outside intervention. Many disabled people have no rights then, nor do the extremely infirm.
That is a very... ummm... unique definition of life.
What baby?
See............ Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies until the Lies become truths.
If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
UR supporting Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction.
I'm talking about a newborn.
It cannot support itself. The way you argue (ignoring the substance of my arguments to focus on tangents) suggests you know your argument is fatally flawed but do not want to accept it.
Newborns do have 'inherent' life sustainment; they are no longer just a 'piece' of someone else while sustaining life (gosh. Maybe because they actually are alive instead of a clump of cells? Who wudda thunkit.). Now you're trying to extremity the narrative. How can you call it transportation without a full tank of gas.
Look. You believe what-ever you want to believe (The great part of being a free-nation). You just don't have any legitimate grounds for legal Gov-Guns forcing others to reproduce against their will. Your 'beliefs' is not that excuse. Counting chickens before they hatch is not that excuse. Keep your 'Beliefs' to yourself. Is it really that hard to just mind your own F'En business?
TJJ2000 seems to think that if the fetus is crowning, it's still not too late to legally bash its skull in with a hammer.
So then killing a baby right before she leaves the womb is okay with you? Doesn't have inherent rights yet under your definition.
Complete mobster BS.
Fetal Ejection (?baby? freedom) is not bashing its skull in nor an act of 'killing' what-so-ever you dishonest propagandists.
You'll lie anyway you can to shove your religious beliefs onto others.
Just maybe now is a good time to ask yourself, “Are you thinking; or just thinking-up-excuses for your own 'faith-based' bigotry.”
Complete mobster BS.
You’re just dodging the accusation, which is not unsurprising.
At what point, precisely, do you believe a fetus becomes sufficiently alive to have an inherent right to life?
A. At some point during pregnancy after conception. (maybe be specific if this is your answer.)
B. When the woman goes into labor.
C. When the fetus is crowning.
D. After the fetus has left the birth canal but before the umbilical cord has been cut.
E. Sometime after the cord has been cut. (again, be specific if it’s this answer.)
I’m curious if you can provide a straight answer and avoid ad hominems.
When you Fetal Eject it and it demonstrates it has an 'inherent' right to life. Amazing how simple things get when you exit imaginary fantasy-land and acknowledge reality.
So you believe a fetus has an inherent right to life when it demonstrates it has an inherent right to life.
What a predictably idiotic response.
I'm asking you about the two defining characteristics in the definition YOU CITED, dumbass.
A fetus' life, like anything that's alive, requires a habitable environment, at least one source of energy, and a way to store or eliminate excess energy. The fact that a fetus requires a direct connection to another living creature in order to have those three things until it can better sustain itself outside of that environment is a basic and natural part of biology, dimwit. That doesn't make the fetus not alive, or unnaturally alive, regardless of how much you wish it might be otherwise.
So you think it's Gov-Guns responsibility to ensure everyone has a suitable environment provided for them at someone else's expense?
Leftard thinking 101.
So you think it’s Gov-Guns responsibility to ensure everyone has a suitable environment provided for them at someone else’s expense?
Nope.
No, but taking someone or something out of an environment that sustains their life is killing it.
Indeed. It has no 'inherent' right to life.
How long are you going to let dead grandpa's body get pumped with oxygen and a Pacemaker before you stop calling it 'murder'? Until Gov-Guns are out collecting other people's body organs for him?
So, you are opposed to evicting squatters on someone else's property I take it? After all, without that home they may die in the cold world.
"I didn't kill him, officer. I just held him underwater. Not my fault his body couldn't handle it."
Ironically keeping your "unicorn-baby" underwater is exactly what your legislation is doing. Correlation failure.
That's exactly what women have done for millenia when their families didn't have enough food for all the mouths. Drown the youngest because it can't work yet.
So, since you're alive, we assume, you must be provided all the basic sustenance you need because of your right to life. Right? No matter your ability to pay for it of course.
They are alive as the spermatozoa wankers kill in far greater numbers. But they are not political persons, but rather, female parts Grabbers-Of-Pussy will eventually learn to keep their paws off of. After Texas and Alabama take legislative steps to outlaw wanking--with funds for snitches and slave-catchers--we can come back to other living cells. THEN we gear up the Blitzkrieg to convert other countries to Christian National Socialism.
You realize many fertilized eggs don't actually survive to become babies. They naturally and spontaneously abort. Some don't settle right into the womb, others don't get key nutrients... there are various biological reason why this happens.
Shall we hold funerals for each of these spontaneous abortions? After all, if they were alive the moment sperm hit egg then shouldn't we treat them as humans from that point forward and don't they deserve the same as a post birth dead human?
Why? Seriously. Why?
How?
If there is no soul, because that is superstitious bullshit, then what exactly is an abortion doing? It's not killing a person any more than killing a cow is killing a person. Unless you're a vegan. No, if you were a vegan you'd have told us 20 times already.
So on what grounds do you object to a voulentary medical procedure that terminates a pregnancy?
Supreme Court justices are allowed to have their own political opinions. They still have to rule on cases according to the law.
Bump stock ban overturned:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-gun-bump-stocks-ban-unlawful-rcna154651
Looks like the Court correctly ruled that the ban was regulatory overreach not authorized by the scope of the 1934 National Firearms Act (which effectively banned machine guns).
To Justice Sotomayor, the actual law doesn't matter though, she knows a machine gun when she sees one:
"When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck," she wrote in reference to bump stocks enabling semiautomatic rifles to operate like machine guns.
This is why you never, ever, ever, relinquish a “banned” item.
I know it is now cliche, but Molon Labe, assholes.
Selling a trashed pistol for 500 during buy backs is a good sale.
True, but this is how you do gun buybacks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2P26XlVcBI
They thought that shit was real.
I hate seeing those pictures of a bunch of perfectly nice, often old and interesting, rifles and shotguns that are going to get destroyed.
You can tell me it's a Supreme Court Justice, but if it looks like a retard cunt spick, talks like a retard cut spick, and acts like a retard cunt spick, I call it a retard cunt spick
She's not a mechanical engineer, what do you expect from a fucking lawyer?
not the progressive ones. they can rule by feelz
^Exactly; Now say the word 'abortion' and watch yourself flip-over faster than a tossed coin.
Republicans wrote Roe v Wade.
Pro-Life is a Catholic Democrat born agenda.
...and it shows.
The "Why" is simple. Not that Binion ever gets to it.
There has been a very concerted effort to delegitimize the court. Over and over the last few years, pick on anything they can find and make a scandal out of it. Carefully orchestrate "damning" evidence like in the Kavanaugh hearings and have the Soros bots continue to harp on it years later, pick on everything Thomas has ever done, freak out over a flag in the yard, everything.
None of this is organic. None of this is justice, it's all organized and the mainstream press repeats it, then the fifty cent armies pound home the talking points on the reddits and message boards and twitters.
Several entities want to sow discontent in the US. Not just internally, China, Russia, and to some extent Iran all have their propaganda machines, as do the local politicals. But the mass of it is definitely the MO of our local leftist fifty centers.
Which is especially hilarious given that Democrats and the left have been using the Supreme Court for quite some time to further their agenda, then as soon as it flips suddenly they aren't legitimate anymore.
Gosh, it's almost like they don't have any principles at all!
Most of what I see is they want government to do everything the Constitution prohibits and prohibit government from doing everything the Constitution instructs. Sometimes I wonder if the left principle is actually to just flat out destroy the Constitution.
"...then the fifty cent armies pound home the talking points on the reddits and message boards and twitters."
Which is why I appreciate the mute button here.
Let's do an honest accounting of what we learned. That Lauren Windsor is a devious and duplicitous lying liar?
What do you think of James O'Keefe? Seems like she's just copying him.
seems like a yin to James' yang
And to be honest, I find some of O'Keefe's antics distasteful, as I do this woman's behavior in this case. But he has uncovered some pretty interesting things.
Yep. Agreed. It's what OKeefe does/did.
Wonder if they are going to try to destroy her life like they did to him. I'm doubtful.
That's because, unlike this chick, O'Keefe actually gets things that are newsworthy. This girl managed to get two justices to confirm things everyone already knew about them.
While O'Keefe does some crazy things, for sure, he comes away from those antics with an actual news story. I'm not making a judgement if that justifies his actions or not, but notably he is successful at this schtick whereas this girl is not.
You know what I learned from O'Keefe? How many people in power are gay.
Will Lauren Windsor be prosecuted for obtaining confidential information through deception, or does that only apply to one side?
*sigh*
(D)ifferent
Yes there's a contrast 'gotcha' in there between Justice Roberts and Alito's. Just as pointed out Alito actually thinks his job is to jam his own religious beliefs into rulings (i.e. 'Dobbs') where-as Roberts recognizes there should be a separation of religion and state.
Alito actually thinks his job is to jam his own religious beliefs into rulings (i.e. ‘Dobbs’)
LOLOLOLOLOL, what!?!?
Have you ever even read Dobbs? I defy you to find one iota of religious belief in the entire opinion.
Alito never did explain how his Dobbs opinion was Constitutionally sound he just said "because I say so".
The only explanation necessary is that Roe was unconstitutional. No right to abortion exists in the Constitution. Roe imagined it out of thin air.
Care to explain how it was unconstitutional?
Roe v Wade explained in detail how people owning themselves instead of the State owning them was specifically stated in the 4th Amendment as well as an entire history of precedence that followed that statement on the subject to a T. Putting one person into involuntary servitude of another is a blatant violation of the 13th.
Biased ignorance to the Constitution is all you and Alito’s-Dobb is selling.
Just as he explained it too, “because I said so.”
Frankly; Roe v Wade’s only mistake was allowing State’s to violate the 4th post-viable. The ruling already was too Pro-Life. And as it is with every grant of POWER the power-mad wacko wanna-play-god dictators just can’t get enough of it…. MORE, MORE, MORE Power over those ‘icky’ people.
It should’ve ruled that people own themselves completely; not the State without exception because that is what the US Constitution says.
Care to explain how it was unconstitutional?
Because it’s not in the Constitution. Hope that clears it up for you.
You’re welcome.
And if you want it in the Constitution, write an Amendment and get enough states to ratify it.
The heck if it isn’t.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons” … “against” … “seizures, shall not be violated”.
– The government cannot ‘seize’ the Woman’s body for a pregnancy without violating the Woman’s Constitutional rights.
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude” … “shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
– The government cannot FORCE the Woman to reproduce; an act of into involuntary servitude.
As there is no federal ban on abortion, the federal government isn’t seizing anything, dullard, nor is it forcing involuntary servitude on anyone.
Awe. The slave-state argument. Human rights (bill of rights) are only applicable to the 'Federal' government. Whoops you forgot the 14th amendment.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall* make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
Nevertheless, nothing is being seized, and nobody is being enslaved. Keep swinging and missing, slugger.
paraphrased, "Nothing beats my faith-based bigotry. Not even the US Constitution."
Yet another leftard position.
Humorously your “unicorn-baby” is by every definition ‘seized’ by someone else so if you want to pretend it’s a real person with rights it’s actually government job to allow it to be free’d as well (ejected).
Course that 'born' or 'naturalized' citizenship (ACTUAL WORDS) used in the Constitution should probably also mean something to your "unicorn-baby" BS.
FREE the ?baby? and the Woman.
NOT enslave the ?baby? and the Woman.
You really need to take an ESL class.
Is that a class on how to conquer the USA by playing ignorant to it's very definition?
No, ESL is English as a Second Language, since you're clearly not a native speaker.
Wrong again. Maybe you'd like Gov-Guns to come out and FORCE me to talk the way you want too huh?
You make good points. If you assemble a lot of different bits and bobs from the constitution, bill of rights and other amendments you do have sort of shakey grounds for an end run around states rights. But I think the 9th and 10th are more important than anything over the 11th and we need to really fight for those two amendments.
Roe v Wade was just a bad ruling. It deprived the states and the people of their rights because climbing into a woman's womb is not enumerated anywhere in the constitution.
Having said that I think the fact that powers not enumerated are reserved to the states and the people also means the federal government can't ban abortion. Leaving it to the states will be a mess for a while but it will shake itself out in time. Religion is dying in this nation and the hard core far right are dying even faster. I don't see a revival in the future. Sure we may have a shakey decade but this will blow over if we stick to principles over faith.
"Roe v Wade was just a bad ruling. It deprived the states and the people of their rights"
WTF? Roe v Wade EXACTLY ruled that it was a "people right" until Post-Viable at which time it became only a "State right". Roe v Wade literally took 'Federal Legislation' completely out of it.
Good grief do most people not even understand what Roe v Wade said? Where are they getting these LIES about it from?
Dobbs and Roe v Wade came from the exact same SCOTUS so I don't know how people are reasoning one is 'Federal' over-reach and the other isn't. Neither one gave Federal-Legislation authority; all Dobbs did was shifted Pre-Viable "people rights" to the "state" destroying the Individual "people"s rights affirmed in Roe v Wade.
Sorry, it deprived the states and the people of their right to legislate this topic for themselves. It shut down all reasonable debate on the issue to either pro Roe v Wade or anti Roe v Wade.
Now that the issue is back with the states most are going with the pro individual liberty argument and the pro slavery forces are forced to show their hand. Which is mostly "we want more government control of people's sex lives!" Which is a lot more honest than focusing on Roe v Wade.
MrMxyzptlk 6/3/24
“…Thirdly, political prosecutions are not new, this is just the first time it was someone so high and they lost the trial.”
Still waiting for a cite, MrBullshitter. Just one other political enemy who was convicted by a kangaroo court for a "crime".
Still not wasting my time when anyone who has paid attention to the last 50 years knows I am right.
LMAO… “the people of their right to legislate this topic for themselves”
Do you usually write up legislation for yourself?
Dobbs ruled specifically (the change) that “the people” no longer had rights. That “The State” reserved all the rights on the subject over “the people”. As-if the ‘changes’ going on didn’t completely make that obvious.
The problem you have is thinking ‘democracy’ ([WE] majority RULES!) is going to establish Individual Rights when that is but enforced by the US Constitution in the USA; specifically by the Roe v Wade ruling on this topic. Your Pro-Individual Liberty status already existed until Dobbs kicked it out the door and left your Liberties to the State's 'government' whim.
Dobbs ruled specifically (the change) that “the people” no longer had rights.
False.
Legislation is where definitions of terms needs to come from. Abortion is a definition of terms issue. We agree killing a person is wrong, we disagree when a lump of cells is a person. The truth of the anti abortion argument is they think the soul is what makes the difference and that the soul comes in at the point when sperm hits egg. But they've learned not to try that argument because it is too easily countered. Prove I have a soul thus making it wrong to kill me.
Personally, no. I lack the legal background for writing up a ballot initiative. Perhaps you live in one of the states where the ballot initiative process is needlessly complicated or requires a beginning in the state legislature. If so I feel for you. Here in South Dakota all it takes is a certain number of signatures based on how many votes were cast in the last gubernatorial race.
We actually voted in both Medical Marijuana and Recreational Marijuana in 2020. Our Governor, a Republican, and her police allies sued to prevent recreational because we cannot have multiple ballot initiatives that deal with the same topic and the court agreed with her. Go figure. But Recreational is up this year so maybe we can get it through.
It is this process that I refer to with the people having their say at the state level, which is where issues not covered under the Bill of Rights are supposed to be dealt with.
I am not a fan of the Federal government exceeding it's mandate under the Constitution even if the ruling is in my favor. It's a bad idea to set the precedent. I also think the 14th was a stupid amendment as it makes violations of the 9th and 10th possible and when they clash I stand with the 9th and 10th.
"Legislation is where definitions of terms needs to come from."
Not when those terms are in the US Constitution.
That is precisely the very reason for SCOTUS existance.
"False?"
Do tell then. What right does a Pregnant Woman have to her own body concerning pregnancy that the State cannot take away under Dobbs? State's are down to trying to say what legal pills she can take. Some examples are clear down to the State telling her she can't even abort to save her own life.
Do tell. What right she 'the Individual' has on ?who's? pregnancy?
Apparently the State got pregnant not a person.
Hey, just wanted to tell you that South Dakota has on the ballot this year a ballot initiative that will protect a woman's right to an abortion. If it passes it will make up to week 17 nobody's business but the woman and her doctor. After that it will require a doctor's opinion that the mothers lire is in danger. Seems a fair compromise to me. All done at the state level as the founders intended.
"as the founders intended"
by the Pre-Civil War intentions that had slavery-states.
Again you push the belief that Individual Rights are only ensured by ([WE] mob RULES) 'ballot initiatives'. The USA is NOT a 'democracy'. It's a Constitutional Republic precisely because [WE]-mob-RULES general 'democracy' does a piss poor job at ensuring Individual Rights. South Dakota's [WE] mob might be doing the right thing but that doesn't dismiss the fact that [WE] mobs might do the wrong thing and completely violate Individual Rights like many other nations do.
No right to enslave women into involuntary labor exists in the Constitution--at least not any more. Then again, the the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments made that clear to everyone except geriatric honky judges, which necessitated the 19th. So the ERA ought to be a simple thing to pass now that papal Torquemadistas and Lutheran National Socialists have again shown their branding hands...
The issue is does the federal government have the power to enslave people.
One can argue that the income tax is a form of enslavement that has survived challenges. Perhaps the government is empowered to enslave citizens.
This is why I think the argument of why dont we enslave the father as well is a better path to take. The real argument the religious right is making is women aren't supposed to be having sex outside of marriage. Thus they need to be punished for their sins. Their assumption is the man is not guilty of a sin because the Bible is a very woman hating book.
FFS. What part of No-federal-interest part of Roe v Wade don’t you understand? Do you remember any federal legislation about abortion during Roe v Wade? Do you think Dobbs is ‘enslaving people’ too because it was written by the exact same SCOTUS?
If Federal ever does start legislating abortion it will be EXACTLY a progression from Dobbs (not Roe v Wade) because the ‘feds’ are famous for taking-over State Powers.
It's not involuntary. In the extreme majority of cases, they made the choice to do the one single thing that would put that bun in their oven.
You're taking the Kristi Noem approach here. Take all the necessary steps to obtain a dog, then decide after the fact, "hey, I didn't intend to be stuck with that responsibility!", so you go shoot it in a ditch to avoid being inconvenienced by it.
That's sick. Only a sicko does things like that. Sicko.
So why aren't you trying to pass laws that force the "father" to step up and marry the woman he impregnated? Why only focus on the woman in this case? It took two to tango. Why focus on the one partner?
As for Noem shooting a dog, why give a shit? We kill cows, sheep, pigs, chickens, ducks, turkeys, geese, fish, crustaceans and mollusks. Do you think only a sicko kills a cow? Are you a vegan to maintain moral consistency?
I don't dispute that the surreptitious recording is a bullshit way to try get someone to say something that can be used against them. It's the tactic of James O'Keefe- which pretty much sums up the ethics of it.
But despite the cowardly way of capturing what he and his wife said, it was still out of line. I get that at a party someone famous like Alito might be inclined to agree with something rather than push back just to get the person to speak their peace and leave.
But when an appointed judge (and *especially* a Supreme Court justice) takes the job, they owe it to the court, the rule of law, and the faith of the citizenry to be apolitical in public. Everyone is going to have an opinion, but when Roberts was asked the same questions and given the same prompts as the Alitos he went out of his way to remain impartial and not political. Alito's wife, just like Ginny Thomas, took no oaths to judge impartially. But when they accompany their husbands to an event where they meet and mingle with the general public, you'd think they would know better than to go off on political shit. It looks terrible. Judges' impartiality is the only thing that makes a court seem impartial and legitimate. If Sotamayor (or her husband or whatever) was flying a flag that was currently being used as a symbol of Antifa, how would that play in Republican circles? People would be apoplectic, and completely justified.
The fact that neither Alito nor Thomas has even apologized, much less recused themselves from anything pertaining to J6 or Trump is appalling. The rules for a Federal judge is clear and definitive. A judge "shall" (not may choose to) recuse if something can reasonably cause the impression of bias. The court s experiencing its lowest approval in modern times. Not declaring hundreds of thousands (or in Thomas' case, fucking millions!) of dollars of gifts from members of the Federalist society doesn't just look like a potential conflict. It IS a conflict. These taped messages are hard evidence of their biases. I don't think the court can hope to regain the trust of the average American. They have certainly lost mine, not that they give a fuck. They have a lifetime appointment. It is absolutely appalling.
The fact that neither has even apologized, much less recused themselves from anything pertaining to J6 or Trump is appalling.
You could say that about Pelosi, but why the fuck do Alito or Thomas have anything to do with your phony fucking Reichstag fire, Nazi?
Yes, they need to follow the recusal pattern shown by Justice Kagan when she was faced with rulings on Obamacare.
or Ruthie G when she trashed Trump publicly.
Sarc or stupidity?
Guessing we have a new TDS-addled shit-pile and it's the second.
Why do lefty shit assholic commenters claim themselves (in their handles) to be other than lefty shit assholic commenters.
FOAD, asshole, you wouldn’t recognize a “free thought” if it ran across your path and tossed you into a face-plant.
"I don’t dispute that the surreptitious recording is a bullshit way to try get someone to say something that can be used against them. It’s the tactic of James O’Keefe- which pretty much sums up the ethics of it."
Yes, James O'Keefe originated it. The media has not been doing it for decades now.
The rest of your point is mindless gibberish that I will not do the work to raise to the level of an argument to refute it.
No, James O’Keefe did NOT originate it, 60 Minutes originated it. And I’m quite sure if I really dug into it, I’d find an even earlier version by perfectly acceptable mainstream news organizations that did it even before that.
It was when James O'Keefe started doing it, and doing it well that suddenly the tactic was considered "unethical".
If you're the New York Times or the Washington Post and you publish the Pentagon Papers, you're lauded as a hero. If you're a youtuber or redditor or rando on twitter and you publish the Pentagon Papers, you're a Russian Disinfo Op and the Washington post and the New York Times literally work with the US intelligence agencies to uncover your identity and have you arrested.
I make no bones about the fact that if I were an appellate judge I'd lie and cheat thru my teeth to get the outcome I want. Ahahahah, you put me in this job and now there's nothing you can do about it, sucker! It'd be so satisfying. Like when I was a juror and did that.
"It is absolutely appalling."
Catholics gonna catholic.
It's only appalling to someone who lives in a bubble.
No political party in These States has ever admitted wrong, much less apologized for anything. Christian National Socialists certainly didn't, not at Nuremberg nor the separate US Nazi hangings. Only George Wallace faked some contrition after a taste of his own medicine took him out of the race. His fanboys--the ones that hung the "A Black America Will Never Be Great" banner from the dorm windows--are still out there passing out Trumpista flyers and pimping the Jesus Caucus.
"...it was still out of line."
Too embarrassing to say exactly what was "out of line?"
But it is puzzling to present it as scandalous or even surprising when considering Alito’s religiosity is not a secret.
It’s not puzzling. It’s simple. There are very large swaths of highly educated morons who have been taught the brazen falsity that judges are (or should be) mindless legal automatons with no opinions on anything, and that must recuse themselves from any case in which they might have a person opinion on the subject.
They confidently proclaim things like “conflict of interest” – despite having no idea at all whatsoever what the term means. They're usually also the sort of people who can determine, with 100% certainty, the guilt or liability of someone despite knowing literally nothing about the case but what they read on social media.
“I mean, there can be a way of working, a way of living together peacefully. But it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So it’s not like you’re going to split the difference.”
Normal people don’t understand this, but to a Wokie steeped in intersectionality talk about living together peacefully is actually a bad thing. The monsters only want you to surrender or die.
People being allowed to have personal opinions in what was supposed to be their personal time and space.
I'm not sure why that would be shocking and unacceptable to anybody who isn't a totalitarian.
Exactly
Those of my friends most upset about Alito's comments also berate evangelicals for not bringing their political choices to a place of godliness.
I think you may need new friends.
Betting those ass hats are Episcopalians. Politics is about all they do any more.
Same conclusion was reached at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhsphMrRr-o
"...The justice's benign comments set off a lengthy news cycle and have been treated as a scandal by some in the media. Why?"
Because TDS-addled twats are panicking and grasping at any straw they can in the hopes of keeping leakin' Joe in the WH.
Joe is the perfect president for them [West Wing]. If they could they'd put an actual corpse in office; running the country would be simpler that way.
A more perplexing question is why Reason magazine is packing its staff with Torquemadista papists. All they do is whine about how their feelings are hurt when people object to the things they want men with guns to rush out and do to peaceful folks. They sob they can't change the way they were brainwashed from childhood, but that THAT entitles them to Affirmative Action as much as anyone else is so entitled. Is this some sort of hedge against MAGA pitchfork mobs in case Sharknado Warmunistas lose the election for the Dems?
"winning the moral argument ... to return our country to a place of godliness."
Nowhere in this "bombshell" does Alito indicate a willingness to use government power and legal authority to FORCE our country "to a place of godliness." Moral suasion is the only appropriate way to try to accomplish that. The mainstream media has backed itself so far into a corner of ridiculously obvious partisan bias that it can't even generate a scandal that impresses the people who already agree with that side of the polarization divide, let alone shame or change the other side.
Dobbs was that bombshell.
Cite the line that suggests that.
"None of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical ********moral********* question posed by abortion."
^THERE you go.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/19-1392
8th Paragraph.
As well as ...
"Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like."
"Roe termed this a right to privacy, 410 U. S., at 154, and Casey described it as the freedom to make “intimate and personal choices” that are “central to personal dignity and autonomy,”"
The entire thing is a 'moral' manifesto trying to pretend it's about the 14th Amendment instead of about the 4th.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons"
And call it "saving democracy."
Makes James O'Keefe look like Walter Kronkite by comparison. Any chance she'll end up having the FBI kick down her door and drag her out of bed in handcuffs, or is that only for people who get on the wrong side of the "liberals"?