Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, May 11, 2022

Justice Samuel Alito's sweeping and blunt draft majority opinion from February overturning Roe remains the court's only circulated draft in the pending Mississippi abortion case, POLITICO has learned, and none of the conservative justices who initially sided with Alito have to date switched their votes. No dissenting draft opinions have circulated from any justice, including the three liberals.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

As the nine justices prepare for their scheduled, private, closed-door conference this week, they face one of the greatest crises in modern Supreme Court history, with an internal leak investigation under way, an agitated nation focused on whether the constitutional right to abortion is about to be overturned, and some justices facing angry protests at their homes.

"This is the most serious assault on the court, perhaps from within, that the Supreme Court's ever experienced," said one person close to the court's conservatives, who spoke anonymously because of the sensitive nature of the court deliberations. "It's an understatement to say they are heavily, heavily burdened by this."

A second person close to the court said that the liberal justices "are as shocked as anyone" by the revelation. "There are concerns for the integrity of the institution," this person said. "The views are uniform."

"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind" (Hosea 8:7)

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-11 09:17 AM | Reply

It's not the leak that's denigrating the institution.

#2 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2022-05-11 10:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I expect the dissenting opinion will go off like a neutron bomb, utterly destroying Alito's logic and references noted in his leaked draft. Whether it's Kagan or Sotomayor, the upcoming screed will likely denote that not only is the decision to overturn Roe the first time in U.S. history a Supreme Court has invalidated a constitutional right of liberty enjoyed by Americans for almost 50 years. It's also an abrogation of the constitutional principle that citizens retain unenumerated rights which obviously aren't evident in American history - the same history under which women were not allowed to vote, own property, nor participate in politics, and one where black Americans were not considered autonomous citizens protected by the supposed "God given" and manmade rights white men enjoyed under this same Constitution.

The very idea that a sentient person would go back centuries and try to make a reasoned argument that the very past where burning witches was the legal norm as the time, place, and intellectual fulcrum for erasing a half century of settled law is mindboggling and completely unsupportable for a nation whose founders envisioned a never-ending quest to evolve a "more perfect Union."

#3 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-11 10:41 AM | Reply

The dissent won't make any Constitutional arguments. It will be mostly emotional arguments.

#4 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-11 11:48 AM | Reply

"The dissent won't make any Constitutional arguments."

As long as maternal mortality exists, there's a HUGE Constitutional argument.

#5 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-11 12:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

As long as liberty and privacy exist, there are Constitutional arguments... so I expect the attacks on those will increase also.

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2022-05-11 01:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Those of you still grasping onto the hope that Roe v. Wade will not be overturned need to start facing reality. We have a bunch of uber rightwingers on the packed Supreme Court who are totally out of touch with both the mainstream of America and the basic humanity that lies at the heart of the US Constitution. If there is a hell, surely Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Barret and Gorsuch will be burning there for eternity.

#7 | Posted by moder8 at 2022-05-11 01:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#7. They applied the Constitution and this opinion allows for a legislative remedy. A federal abortion law is very feasible and of course what Schumer introduced is so ridiculous that it can never pass.

#8 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-11 01:44 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The dissent won't make any Constitutional arguments. It will be mostly emotional arguments.

#4 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You mean much like the majority opinion?

#9 | Posted by jpw at 2022-05-11 01:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

They applied the Constitution

"How it's always been done" isn't applying the Constitution.

"Show me where it says X" isn't applying the Constitution.

Righties prove every day they don't understand it and have probably never read it. They just think "it's Constitutional" or "it's unconstitutional" is some sort of trump card argument for whatever half baked -------- they've come up with that day.

#10 | Posted by jpw at 2022-05-11 01:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It will be mostly emotional arguments.
#4 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Are you talking about, "Abortion is murder!"

Because that's literally an emotional argument not based on facts or reason.

#11 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-11 01:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#10. I have several copies of the Constitution and have read it countless times.

You can certainly challenge and debate my understanding of what I've read. But to claim I've never even read it is incredibly stupid. You

#12 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-11 01:59 PM | Reply

" Are you talking about, "Abortion is murder!"

Because that's literally an emotional argument not based on facts or reason.

#11 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2022-05-11 01:53 PM | FLAG: "

Have you ever even read the physical details of an abortion? It's gut wrenching.

#13 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-11 02:01 PM | Reply

Have you ever even read the physical details of an abortion? It's gut wrenching.
#13 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Okay.

"You shouldn't become an abortion provider" is the only actionable information we can extrapolate from your opinion.

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-11 02:03 PM | Reply

Have you ever even read the physical details of an abortion? It's gut wrenching.

That sounds emotional.

#15 | Posted by Nixon at 2022-05-11 02:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

It will be mostly emotional arguments.

#4 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-11 11:48 AM | Reply | Flag

Why doesn't the IRS grant a dependency exemption for the unborn?

Why doesn't child support start at conception?

#16 | Posted by Nixon at 2022-05-11 02:08 PM | Reply

"#7. They applied the Constitution and this opinion allows for a legislative remedy."

What specifically would need to be legislated, to allow for gut-wreching murder in the womb?

Could a State likewise legislatively allow gut-wrenching murder outside the womb? That too would withstand Constitutional scrutiny?

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-11 02:11 PM | Reply

what Schumer introduced is so ridiculous that it can never pass.
#8 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

^
Sounds like an Eberly Promise.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-11 02:13 PM | Reply

It's gut wrenching.

So are a lot of jobs. Doesn't mean they aren't worth doing.

#19 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-05-11 02:34 PM | Reply

" So are a lot of jobs. Doesn't mean they aren't worth doing.

#19 | POSTED BY EL_BUSCADOR AT 2022-05-11 02:34 PM | FLAG: "

I think abortion needs to be legal in the first trimester and needs targeted carveouts for mother, yes "mother" health risk carveouts later in the process. I will never equate carving the head apart of a developing human with the gross process of snaking a sewer drain.

#20 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-11 02:40 PM | Reply

"I think abortion needs to be legal in the first trimester and needs targeted carveouts for mother, yes "mother" health risk carveouts later in the process."

But why?

Why do you believe gut-wrenching murder should be allowed for children under three months?

It's hard to understand how you arrived at that conclusion, based on your language surrounding the issue.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-11 02:43 PM | Reply

carving the head apart of a developing human
#20 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

But why?

Why does the head have to be taken apart?

Once you can answer that question, you'll surely see why that's better than the alternative.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-11 02:45 PM | Reply

Here are the numbers:
Week (pregnancy)/Abortion (percentage):
1:6 - 34%
7 - 18%
8 - 13%
9 - 9%
10 - 6%
11 - 5%
12 - 3%
14 - 2%
15 - %
16 - 1%
17 - 1%
18 - 1%
19 - 1%
20 - 0.5%
21 - 0.4%
22 - 0.3%
23 - 0.2%
24 - 0.1%
25 - 0.1%
26 - 0.04%
27 - 0.03%
28 - 0.02%
29 - 0.01%
30 - 0.01%
31:term - none.

Fetus size:
1:6 weeks the fetus is 3-9mm (1/8-1/4")
7 weeks the fetus is 10mm (1/4-1/2")
8 weeks the fetus is 12.5-15mm (1/2-8/13")
9 weeks the fetus is 15-17.8mm (8/13-9/13")
These weeks, 1-9, are where 74% of abortions are performed.
~90% are done by week 12. After that there's usually a damn good reason - like life of the mother, or something seriously wrong with the fetus.

In the United States, more than one half of pregnancies are unintended, with 3 in 10 women having an abortion by age 45. Think about that. You and other Republicans are imposing your religious nonsense on the vast majority of the population (men and women) where nearly 1/3 of all women have had an abortion. You are making them all criminals - by having an abortion or by being a party to it, or to helping, or just by association if they don't report it (based on laws we're seeing proposed in red states across America).

#23 | Posted by YAV at 2022-05-11 02:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I will never equate carving the head apart of a developing human with the gross process of snaking a sewer drain.

How about with extracting a burning person from a car fire?

#24 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-05-11 02:52 PM | Reply

I've heard that medically induced abortion can, in some cases, upset the woman's stomach - so I can see the "gut wrenching" part.

#25 | Posted by YAV at 2022-05-11 02:54 PM | Reply

Does JeffJ think they puncture the skull and vacuum out the liquefied brains for fun?

Since you won't believe us, why not try asking your ex-wife why they do that. She still works at the hospital, right?

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-11 02:58 PM | Reply

Why does the head have to be taken apart?
Once you can answer that question, you'll surely see why that's better than the alternative.

#22 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Because the fetus is too large to be suctioned out with the method typically used up to 13 weeks, and also because stretching the cervix wide enough to pull the fetus out intact could cause permanent damage to the woman.

#27 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-05-11 03:07 PM | Reply

All this and the history of the 14th amendment.
You'd think we'd progressed, but we have so many that are just too hard to deal with. Too self-righteous, to ignorantly self-assured. And I'm not just talking about Alito and his Roman Catholic Cohorts on the Supreme Court.

#28 | Posted by YAV at 2022-05-11 03:09 PM | Reply

#27 The reason the skull needs to be taken apart is because hydrocephaly, a fatal condition, means the head of the fetus has swollen up to be the size of a basketball.

JeffJ says the details of that procedure are gut-wrenching.

What JeffJ will never, ever dare to acknowledge is that it's far less gut-wrenching than the alternative, which is not crushing the skull and removing the brains, but rather leaving the mother to push a basketball sized fetal head out of her wherever, and most likely die trying.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-11 03:14 PM | Reply

The dissent won't make any Constitutional arguments. It will be mostly emotional arguments.

#4 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

The emotional argument is that a fertilized egg/fetus/zygote has more of a right to life than a woman.

#30 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-11 03:23 PM | Reply

Originalism as it applies to the constitution when it considers women and POC is patently ridiculous.

#31 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-11 03:25 PM | Reply

Have you ever even read the physical details of an abortion? It's gut wrenching.

#13 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Have you ever seen a port-a-potty cleaned? That too is gut wrenching, literally. Not sure what that has to do with whether a woman has a right to bodily autonomy or not.

#32 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-11 03:27 PM | Reply

carving the head apart of a developing human
#20 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER
But why?
Why does the head have to be taken apart?
Once you can answer that question, you'll surely see why that's better than the alternative.

#22 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Because the liar thinks it's icky

#33 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-11 03:28 PM | Reply

could cause permanent damage to the woman.

#27 | POSTED BY EL_BUSCADO

"Who cares about the ----!?!"

---BillJeffJ

#34 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-11 03:30 PM | Reply

I will never equate carving the head apart of a developing human with the gross process of snaking a sewer drain.

#20 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

As usual an extreme exception is made the norm.

#35 | Posted by jpw at 2022-05-11 03:32 PM | Reply

They just think "it's Constitutional" or "it's unconstitutional" is some sort of trump card argument for whatever half baked -------- they've come up with that day.
#10 | POSTED BY JPW

Yep.

To the right, the Constitution is either a cudgel to be wielded against political enemies, or a hurdle to be manipulated and cleared, depending on the circumstances. I wouldn't even care about that if they didn't so ludicrously claim to worship the document.

Me, i see no objective reason that a highly flawed document written centuries ago should continue to be followed today simply because it exists. I prefer an objective defense of the ideas being pursued rather than "because they said so," and i rarely hear the former.

If a group of people were building a nation today and drafting their charter document, there is a slim to zero chance that they would adopt things like the Senate, the Electoral College, or the widespread "right" to own assault rifles.

#36 | Posted by JOE at 2022-05-11 03:33 PM | Reply

20 - 0.5%
21 - 0.4%
22 - 0.3%
23 - 0.2%
24 - 0.1%
25 - 0.1%
26 - 0.04%
27 - 0.03%
28 - 0.02%
29 - 0.01%
30 - 0.01%

And how many of these are due to lethal developmental abnormalities or non-viable fetuses?

I'm betting an overwhelming majority if not entirety.

#37 | Posted by jpw at 2022-05-11 03:33 PM | Reply

As usual an extreme exception is made the norm.

#35 | POSTED BY JPW

And even worse than that, that extreme exception is, literally, to save a woman's life at the expense of a dead or seriously unviable fetus-you know the type of fetus that will live long enough to die in miserable pain.

#38 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-11 03:33 PM | Reply

Ironically the forced birthers are the same ones that don't believe in welfare for the mothers after the fetus is born. That's what is barbaric.

#39 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-05-11 03:33 PM | Reply

Ironically the forced birthers are the same ones that don't believe in welfare for the mothers after the fetus is born. That's what is barbaric.

#40 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-05-11 03:33 PM | Reply

I'm betting an overwhelming majority if not entirety.

#37 | POSTED BY JPW

It's the entirety because a. women know whether they want a baby by that point and b. it would otherwise be illegal everywhere and c. very few people would argue it shouldnt be illegal.

#41 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-11 03:35 PM | Reply

And I'm also willing to bet that overwhelming majority or even entirety is also a massively ------ day/week/month for the mother and father and isn't some flippant "I want to look good in my bikini on spring break" -------- reason righties seem to think is the driver of the majority of abortions.

#42 | Posted by jpw at 2022-05-11 03:35 PM | Reply

Pro-late term abortion IS Pro-Life, just the life of the mother.

#43 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-11 03:35 PM | Reply

Late term abortions are one of those things you have to have lived through to truly understand.

#44 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-11 03:36 PM | Reply

And even worse than that, that extreme exception is, literally, to save a woman's life at the expense of a dead or seriously unviable fetus-you know the type of fetus that will live long enough to die in miserable pain.
#38 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

And likely a considerable amount of pain and suffering for the parents.

#45 | Posted by jpw at 2022-05-11 03:37 PM | Reply

I've said it before, I'll say it again, Republicans are scum.

I am sick of toadying to this whacko fringe who seem to have taken control of our country.

#46 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-11 03:37 PM | Reply

"Have you ever seen a port-a-potty cleaned? That too is gut wrenching, literally."

Wow, you've accused others including me of whataboutism.

That was pretty good one though.

comparing an abortion to cleaning a port-a-potty.

#47 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-11 03:40 PM | Reply

Have you ever even read the physical details of an abortion? It's gut wrenching.
#13 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Thanks for providing an example of an emotional argument.

#48 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-11 03:40 PM | Reply

Since the ONLY constitutional argument for overturning Roe is that abortion was not a right originally granted in the Constitution, I'd say he has NO constitutional argument. Alito supports his argument that Abortion is a crime by citing an English jurist who sentenced women he believed were witches to be burned at stake, was this intended as comedy? Every society evolves, and new rights are granted, the Constitution has been amended multiple times and his moronic screed failed to consider the 9th and 14th Amendments. By his logic, black people and women should immediately be considered property.

#49 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2022-05-11 03:41 PM | Reply

And likely a considerable amount of pain and suffering for the parents.

#45 | POSTED BY JPW A

Imagine for a second a couple that has decided they want a child, go through 5, 6 months of preparation-painted a baby room, bought clothes, had a maternity party, getting themselves psyched up, excited, nervous. they go to the doctor who says, we ran some tests and the fetus is seriously abnormal, it's DNA are really screwed up, if the fetus even makes it to term will die shortly after birth. Imagine the pain and difficulty of the man and woman in that situation. Now compound that with, well, if you proceed there is a really good chance you will develop a life threatening illness-the woman could die.

That is what happens. Period Full Stop

#50 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-11 03:41 PM | Reply

"Have you ever seen a port-a-potty cleaned? That too is gut wrenching, literally."
Wow, you've accused others including me of whataboutism.
That was pretty good one though.
comparing an abortion to cleaning a port-a-potty.

#47 | POSTED BY EBERLY A

Hey, look someone took the bait.

Now, now, now beverly, I am not equating abortion to cleaning a port-a-potty, I was just showing jeffj (the liar) the ridiculousness of his argument. That somehow abortion should be outlawed because the process is difficult. Patently ridiculous

Now go run along boy

#51 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-11 03:43 PM | Reply

Since the ONLY constitutional argument for overturning Roe is that abortion was not a right originally granted in the Constitution, I'd say he has NO constitutional argument. Alito supports his argument that Abortion is a crime by citing an English jurist who sentenced women he believed were witches to be burned at stake, was this intended as comedy? Every society evolves, and new rights are granted, the Constitution has been amended multiple times and his moronic screed failed to consider the 9th and 14th Amendments. By his logic, black people and women should immediately be considered property.

#49 | POSTED BY _GUNSLINGER_

Compound that lack of argument by the fact that women could and did get abortions in 1775-1787, you know when the country was being founded and the constitution written and all.

#52 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-11 03:45 PM | Reply

-I was just showing jeffj (the liar) the ridiculousness of his argument.

Oh, I see that. I don't disagree. I don't have a problem with your argument.

It's usually what I'm doing when folks come along and accuse me of whataboutism.

try and remember that next time you do that.

#53 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-11 04:04 PM | Reply

"try and remember that next time you do that."

That would require an attention span longer than a fetus'.

#54 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-11 04:15 PM | Reply

You know what's really gut wrenching.

Seeing kids whose parents can't afford to feed them on a regular basis and provide them with basic needs.

That's not a life. That's cruel and unnecessary punishment. For both the mother and the child.

Having an abortion because you're unable to care for the child takes a lot of strength and determination. It's never taken lightly by the mother.

I applaud women who act responsibly.

#55 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-11 04:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

For all you anti abortionists.

Feel free to take care of the suffering your creating.

www.nokidhungry.org

#56 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-11 04:21 PM | Reply

"You know what's really gut wrenching.
Seeing kids whose parents can't afford to feed them on a regular basis and provide them with basic needs.
That's not a life. That's cruel and unnecessary punishment. For both the mother and the child.
Having an abortion because you're unable to care for the child takes a lot of strength and determination. It's never taken lightly by the mother.
I applaud women who act responsibly."

-Margaret Sanger, famous eugenist and racist

#57 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-11 05:00 PM | Reply

c. very few people would argue it shouldnt be illegal.

#41 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

I would. I believe the need to outlaw abortion is similar to the need to strengthen voting laws. It is creating an unnecessary law for a problem that doesn't exist. I believe that regardless of the legality, people don't want to have abortions late in pregnancy. This is held up by the numbers quoted. If the current point of "illegality" (24 weeks) were affecting behavior you would expect to see a jump in abortions right before this cutoff (when people would get "elective" abortions to beat the deadline). But, instead, the data seems to indicate that that cutoff has no effect.

So, I believe that pretty much all abortions at that stage of pregnancy are, and would be, done for a "good reason". So there is no point for conservatives to put useless laws on the books that accomplish nothing except for costing people money and getting in the way of people trying to do the right thing.

#58 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2022-05-11 05:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-Margaret Sanger, famous eugenist and racist

#57 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Going with the "guilt by association" logical fallacy this time. Strong choice. I appreciate the variety.

"Jack is a crooked salesman. Jack proposes monorail. Therefore, monorail is folly."

;)

#59 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2022-05-11 05:16 PM | Reply

#57 | POSTED BY EBERLY

If you can point to where I bring up race or can provide a solid rebuttal, I'd be glad to discuss your comparison between my statement and your implication.

#60 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-11 05:48 PM | Reply

If liberals can wear masks for 2+ years, then they can wear a condom for 30 seconds or less.

#61 | Posted by LEGALLYDORKY at 2022-05-11 05:57 PM | Reply

60

just racebaiting at your expense. You know....something you've done about a million times here.

No need to take it seriously....believe me, nobody does.

Here is me having more fun.....

I'd be glad to discuss your comparison between my statement and your implication.

"If the shoe fits!!"

-Clownshack...a million times

But perhaps the difference is that I don't take it seriously.....so you shouldn't either.

#62 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-11 06:00 PM | Reply

#58 Is a home run of level-headed thinking.

Quite unlike conservatives. Conservatives have stringently refused any consideration of Chesterton's Fence in their zeal to criminalize abortion.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-11 06:22 PM | Reply

I don't take it seriously

I've worked on a few projects for no kid hungry.

It's really depressing to see kids living horrible lives.

Literally gut wrenching.

Parents skipping meals so kids can eat. Sometime no food at all.

Families who can't pay utilities. Main one being the electric bill.

I can't say they should have been aborted. That's not what being pro choice means.

But seeing a child living in poverty, is gut wrenching.

It's a failure of our nation to protect it's citizens.

It's a failure of our nation to protect future generations of Americans.

#64 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-11 06:37 PM | Reply

Being pro-chice means we accept thst oor opinions sbout abrotiio nARE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANt tO a womam with an unwanted pregnancy.

#65 | Posted by danni at 2022-05-12 02:34 PM | Reply

wear a condom for 30 seconds or less.

#61 | POSTED BY LEGALLYDORKY

Oh. I'm sorry. You poor little incel.

#66 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2022-05-12 03:52 PM | Reply

#66 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL

I feel worse for any woman dumb or drunk enough to hook up with Mr. Half-Minuteman.

#67 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-05-12 04:18 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort