The Supremes

[South Austin 53153]

7 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I'll bet you any amount of cash you want to bet Obergefell is not overturned in the next 5 years.

Five years can be a relatively short amount of time for (1) a state legislature to ban gay marriage, (2) a gay couple who unsuccessfully attempts to marry in said state to obtain standing to sue, (3) a lawsuit to work its way through the trial and intermediate appellate levels and briefing, argument, and decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

But I'll be any amount of cash that within the next 5 years at least one state, if not more, is going to enact legislation to ban gay marriage and gay marriage benefits.  Alito's opinion has essentially laid out the red carpet for that.

[RomaVicta 30500]

41 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

it's the greatest sham ever. republicans have convinced their idiot followers that Jesus was a pull yourself up by the bootstraps, hate people of color, loves guns, loves freedom, and loves capitalism kind of guy.

So close, Lee Ann, but you left out Salty Sailor. Yes, Jesus loves the salty sailor. But you can use your bonus card! Give these Republican lips a kiss, swear to have any baby that may be conceived, and you can still win the points.

You lose the game!

Edited May 3, 2022 by RomaVicta

[956 Worldwide 35516]

10 minutes ago, Skipper said:

He quit less than a week after the war started dude. It's not exactly simple to unwind ongoing representation on a whim.  Particularly when firms have Moscow offices.   It's completely ignorant of how the business world works.   Pretty much every large firm is now out of Russia by this point or are in the process of doing so.

The war in Ukraine started in 2014 and expanded in 2022. Those firms had plenty of time to assess who they were doing business with. 

['stache 22115]

2 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Five years can be a relatively short amount of time for (1) a state legislature to ban gay marriage, (2) a gay couple who unsuccessfully attempts to marry in said state to obtain standing to sue, (3) a lawsuit to work its way through the trial and intermediate appellate levels and briefing, argument, and decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

But I'll be any amount of cash that within the next 5 years at least one state, if not more, is going to enact legislation to ban gay marriage and gay marriage benefits.  Alito's opinion has essentially laid out the red carpet for that.

It'll happen within days of this decision coming out. I'd even bet that Oklahoma or another state will pass a gay marriage ban by the end of this week with the same clause "effective upon the Supreme Court's overturning of Obergfell" which is how the Oklahoma law is written re Roe.

[CooterBrown 18272]

I think both Texas and, to a lesser extent Florida, are moving towards the center.  Better people stay and fight the fight, rather than abandon the states the hard right.  Doesn't really help to have liberals move to liberal states.

Neither government is moving to the center and they are both placing assurances that never happens. They don’t give a shit about the majority.

[crash_davis 23465]

1 minute ago, RomaVicta said:

So close, Lee Ann, but you left out Salty Sailor. Yes, Jesus loves the salty sailor. But you can use bonus card ! Give these Republican lips a kiss and swear to have any baby that may be conceived and you can still win the points.

You lose the game!

that reminds me of a reddit thread yesterday. bringing some levity in this shit news.

https://www.reddit.com/r/OldSchoolCool/comments/ug1nli/tom_jones_performing_in_toronto_1974_after_the/

tldr: tom jones kissed a girl at his 1974 toronto concert.

pic before kissing

 

pic after she told him that she was only 16

[DDD Dad 14571]

12 hours ago, clapclapclap said:

Maybe lobby George Soros for some of the money he's been spending on campaigns for criminal friendly DA's (the results of which will play a big part in the November butt kicking y'all are going to get.) 

 

 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19279]

Any Surly-ites in NYC should be there.

 

 

 

[RomaVicta 30500]

34 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

The amount of men on this board blaming RBG, Susan Sarandon, Susan Collins, and suburban moms for this is telling.  Maybe you could redirect your ire to Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Trump, Bush, McConnell, and the majority of men who vote GQP.

Excellent. This thread keeps veering into the weeds just as FOX and the GЯP want it to. It will look like they're being generous in sparing women in danger of losing their lives or rape victims as a concession to shut down everything else. 

Blaming those listed above plus the Clintons and Dems is like shooting the people who tried to keep a shot-up plane from crashing because they failed.

Shoulda used more right rudder. Coulda put the landing gear down for more drag. Shoulda consulted the manual. Besides, we hate you guys.

Maybe hunt down the dickheads who shot up the plane, instead. Maybe review what we individual citizens could have done or should be doing. 

[Aqua Buddha 14782]

Long history of leaks at the SC.  The pearl clutching from the right now is just that.

 

[gmr548 16681]

And never was intended to.

This right here is the fundamental point. To some extent I applaud you saying it because there’s a lot of intellectual honesty relative to some of the other horseshit thrown out there.

America was founded as a representative democracy, among a small portion of landowning, white, Christian men. Essentially a formalized oligarchy.

It has expanded beyond that over time, through strife, bloodshed, and persuasion, but America was absolutely not intended for women, minorities, or even non-property owning whites to have full rights and representation. It’s vet hard to change the status quo, on purpose, because it’s favorable to the ruling class that established it.

Look at the GOP’s actions through that lens and it makes sense. Whether it’s wealth redistribution, reproductive rights, voting rights, marriage equality, whatever… The goal is to get as close to returning to that original idea as possible. Originalism in a broadly applied form.

[crash_davis 23465]

i blame america. we get the government we deserve. dems, republicans, independents, non-voters, people who've given up, doesn't matter. we get the shitshow that the elected decide to bestow on us.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

29 minutes ago, 'stache said:

At least three of them also said that overturning a 50 year precedent on fundamental rights would not happen, yet here we are. You know goddamned well gay marriage is next, and you'll be drowing in lib tears, because that's really all this is about. You know you don't give a shit about a fetus' life, especially once it's popped out. 

I do not believe they said that.  

My recollection is that they said Roe and Casey were precedent. Saying something is precedent is a factual statement; literally any Supreme Court opinion that hasn't been overturned is "precedent."  If one of them had said "I will not vote to overrule Roe v. Wade (which no one would ever have said during a confirmation hearing)," then they would have lied.

They all stated that Roe and Casey were precedents of the Court worthy of respect. The draft opinion spends a long time analyzing how much respect and the competing interests in whether or not to overturn them. They did their duty and exactly what they said, and there is literally zero argument otherwise.

[SimonBolivar 11026]

11 minutes ago, 'stache said:

It'll happen within days of this decision coming out. I'd even bet that Oklahoma or another state will pass a gay marriage ban by the end of this week with the same clause "effective upon the Supreme Court's overturning of Obergfell" which is how the Oklahoma law is written re Roe.

I've seen some theories on how it could go down, but of course Sack may be right and that may be a bridge too far at this point.

 

 

 

[Brisketexan 106615]

38 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

For all the slippery slope talk. That this will be used to attack contraception, gay marriage, gay sex, just read page 5 of the draft.

"Roe's defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in the past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged..."

Read Alito's reasoning.  He simultaneously says that "abortion is different" while also saying that the reasoning of cases like Griswold is flawed in the same logical way ("none of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history.")

Just that quoted language is as chilling as it gets.  Other rights that are not "deeply rooted in history": the right of women to own property, the right of women to refuse sex to their spouse, the right of non-property owners to vote, the right to use contraception, and a jillion other rights that have been recognized for decades or more, but do not meet Alito's arbitrary "deeply rooted in history" cutoff.  The fucking gall to say one one hand that "nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion," while simultaneously pronouncing a standard that rights that are not "deeply rooted in history" are voidable is, well, a lie.  Both of those things cannot be true, yet he says them both.

When Alito writes this opinion, and then repeatedly says "but don't worry, we won't use this reasoning to take away any other rights," he's saying that because that's EXACTLY what they intend to do.  It's the jurisprudential equivalent of saying "I won't come in your mouth."  That's a 100% guarantee of a shot right down your gullet.  Alito thinks we're stupid.  The thing is, he's probably right enough about that.  Suppress your gag reflex, folks....here it comes.

[RomaVicta 30500]

11 hours ago, clapclapclap said:

This is the kind of unhinged, shameless slander that results in most right, middle, and moderate left posters quickly deciding to not bother reading or posting in CR.  

 

Quotes from my post you are responding to:

"Nearly 2/3rds of Americans think abortion should be illegal after the 1st trimester, 80% after the second trimester (though many of those want exceptions, as do I.)  

61% think abortion should be legal in the first trimester.  (As do I.) "

 

Only a slimy liar would somehow twist what I wrote into wanting women raped in war to be forced to give birth.  You're not interested in political debate, you just want to shout down/burn down those who don't completely agree with your political positions.  Seems like CR has devolved into a secular church of maybe 3 dozen control freaks making 80% of the posts.

 

So I'll post the poll again, and note that my position that abortion should be legal in the first trimester, and with the usual common sense exceptions for beyond (rape, incest, actual health risks, etc., though rape and incest are usually resolved in the first trimester) is in line with what a substantial majority of Americans believe, what a majority of Europeans believe, and a majority of the world believes. 

Like it or not, we can't get to a more reasonable abortion policy that the majority of Americans support without overturning RvW.  It might be a somewhat politically bumpy road the next few years getting to a moderate balance, but it will happen, and is the result of trying to legislate through the courts.
 

So, you kindly give a deadline for aborting fetuses resulting from rape. If a Ukraine woman raped in a war zone misses the deadline by a day, she gets the compulsory pleasure of carrying, delivering, and then having to make a painful decision about keeping or giving up the child. Even if a woman is not in a war zone, you're ready to set the deadline for her.

You keep posting huge blocks of information that really don't seem to have much to do with whatever point you're trying to make.

You know, I begin to believe that you just may not be qualified to speak for "most right, middle, and moderate left posters quickly deciding to not bother reading or posting in CR." I'll even presume to say that you don't know where you are on that spectrum. It is good of you to step up to the CR bullies to defend the snowflakes.

Sidenote: I do wonder if we should refer to the abortion issue as compulsory pregnancy. It seems more apt if we're talking about the woman rather than the fetus. 

Edited May 4, 2022 by RomaVicta

[Brisketexan 106615]

2 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

I've seen some theories on how it could go down, but of course Sack may be right and that may be a bridge too far at this point.

 

 

 

Also, fundamentally accurate.  Perhaps the timing and mechanisms will be different, but this is ALL coming.

Bookmark Johnny's posts where he says this is all slippery slope bullshit specifically precluded by Alito's statements.  Just so we can all see, yet again, how wrong Johnny is.

Oh, and y'all......remember how bad I've said it's going to get?  We're not even CLOSE to done with how bad it's gonna get.  There is no bottom.  It only gets worse.

[gmr548 16681]

I think both Texas and, to a lesser extent Florida, are moving towards the center.  Better people stay and fight the fight, rather than abandon the states the hard right.  Doesn't really help to have liberals move to liberal states.

I go back and forth on this.

On the one hand, at a base level you’re right of course. On the other hand, conservatives are flocking to these places, it’s not only democrats that sort. And it’s not exactly a fair fight given the voting restrictions pushed in these places.

[Gil Bang 26174]

8 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I do not believe they said that.  

My recollection is that they said Roe and Casey were precedent. Saying something is precedent is a factual statement; literally any Supreme Court opinion that hasn't been overturned is "precedent."  If one of them had said "I will not vote to overrule Roe v. Wade (which no one would ever have said during a confirmation hearing)," then they would have lied.

They all stated that Roe and Casey were precedents of the Court worthy of respect. The draft opinion spends a long time analyzing how much respect and the competing interests in whether or not to overturn them. They did their duty and exactly what they said, and there is literally zero argument otherwise.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins 2475]

31 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I have supported gays' Constitutional right to marry for about 20 years.  Long before Obama did.

Yeah because you suck dick.  

[Bateshorn 9989]

15 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Long history of leaks at the SC.  The pearl clutching from the right now is just that.

 

Yeah, Abe Fortas had problems, but his tenure and nomination for chief were both subject to a broad and wide ranging smear job to flip the balance on the court in advance of a Nixon presidency. 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19279]

 

 

 

[Gourmand 7778]

19 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Oh bullshit.  Her campaign was fine.  The problem was the idiot voters who didn't vote for competency and instead voted for a reality tv business man.  Anyone who watched the debates and thought Trump was fine bears responsibility for the damage to the country.   It wasn't Hillary's fault people are morons. 

PREACH!!!

Fuck all you goddamn idiots and assholes who pilloried Hillary by validating right-wing smears that came out of the very real and very vast right wing conspiracy against all things HRC. 

HILLARY WAS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING and the idiot Bernie Bros (and even Obamaites during the '08 primary war) did a ton of free work for the future Tea Party/GQP crazies. Hillary Clinton would have made an excellent president and was BY FAR the most qualified presidential candidate in my lifetime, yet those of us who supported her and voted for her were constantly arguing with asshole idealists on the left who didn't listen or learn from the very instructive Ralph Nader lesson most of us remember from 2000. Bernie Bros can go fuck alllllll the way off. 

[jimmyjazz 46967]

So, let's say SCOTUS disregards this "precedence" angle and overturns Roe V Wade.  Does that not create new precedent?  Where is the legal analysis regarding competing precedents?  Asking for an engineer who knows jack about ConLaw.

[Skipper 6406]

32 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

they are investigating who leaked this. i'm sure the person who leaked this knows he/she probably will be discovered and that at the very least, his/her law career is over. 

he/she is the real hero. sadly it's not going to change anything.

Strongly disagree with that.   I'm appalled by the opinion if it comes to fruition.   But this absolutely should not have been leaked.   I'm old enough to remember when rules, confidentiality, decorum, etc. actually meant something.   This is just the latest example of all of that going out the window and it's not a positive development for this country.

[GopherRock 1773]

You're also forgetting to add the right to legal counsel if you cannot afford an attorney. Gideon v. Wainwright was all 14th Amendment.

[Macanudo 13253]

1 minute ago, Skipper said:

 I'm old enough to remember when rules, confidentiality, decorum, etc. actually meant something.   

And yet, 70+ million people voted for Trump in 2020.   

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

12 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

I've seen some theories on how it could go down, but of course Sack may be right and that may be a bridge too far at this point.

 

 

 

Can mandatory Christian prayer in public schools be far behind?

[Satchel 6982]

4 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

The myth of Roberts as a swing vote is perplexing to me. Yes he didn’t completely gut the ACA but he voted in plenty of 5-4 decisions siding with the conservatives. Voting Rights. Citizens United. On and on. But yes. He’s a horrible Chief Justice 

Who has been reduced to just being one of nine votes on the Court. He’s the chief of nothing.

[Skipper 6406]

Just now, Macanudo said:

And yet, 70+ million people voted for Trump in 2020.   

Yeah dude.  I agree.  Because Trump set our democracy in a tailspin doesn't justify a Supreme Court leak.  It exacerbates the problem.

[David Dennison 19440]

53 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I bet the majority polled have no idea what that even means.  Many probably think it means abortions would be illegal everywhere.

You have to poll specifics.

Why should abortion be illegal anywhere?

['stache 22115]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So, let's say SCOTUS disregards this "precedence" angle and overturns Roe V Wade.  Does that not create new precedent?  Where is the legal analysis regarding competing precedents?  Asking for an engineer who knows jack about ConLaw.

Roe is overturned and is no longer precedence, the new case becomes the law of the land. 

[Brisketexan 106615]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So, let's say SCOTUS disregards this "precedence" angle and overturns Roe V Wade.  Does that not create new precedent?  Where is the legal analysis regarding competing precedents?  Asking for an engineer who knows jack about ConLaw.

Precedent doesn't matter.  Seriously, we can have a long conversation about nuance, but the current conservative judicial approach is "we do whatever we want, precedent, rules, and order be damned" (oh the irony, these are the folks who cried about "judicial activism" for decades....again, every accusation is a confession).

In short, it's now just a game of Calvinball.  And I say that without any hyperbole....I've actually had this conversation with colleagues, particularly regarding any cases that involve issues that touch on current political events.  We can't accurately advise our clients.  What's going to happen in your case?  Well, the law is pretty clear, so the outcome should look something like X.  But....the current political winds blow another direction, so I can't predict what will happen.  The court is going to do what it wants, precedent be damned.  I am far from alone in this.  It's actually become quite problematic for practicing attorneys, because we truly can't advise our clients as to likely outcomes worth a shit anymore.

[Neonmoon 38130]

4 minutes ago, Skipper said:

But this absolutely should not have been leaked.

Republicans always focus on decorum when horrific things are happening 

[jimmyjazz 46967]

Just now, 'stache said:

Roe is overturned and is no longer precedence, the new case becomes the law of the land. 

Giving cover to the "but it's precedence" asswipes?

[David Dennison 19440]

56 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Terrible take. 
 

The current embodiment of the Democratic Party resembles the Democratic Party of those times as much as the GQP resembles the days of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. 

I was responding to the take that the Democratic Party has always been pussies. That simply isn't true.

[Pig Bellmont 8867]

1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

Republicans always focus on decorum when horrific things are happening 

Especially when it was probably a conservative justice (or his pizza comet wife) who leaked it in the first place 

[Fudge Nuggets 19407]

10 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

PREACH!!!

Fuck all you goddamn idiots and assholes who pilloried Hillary by validating right-wing smears that came out of the very real and very vast right wing conspiracy against all things HRC. 

HILLARY WAS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING and the idiot Bernie Bros (and even Obamaites during the '08 primary war) did a ton of free work for the future Tea Party/GQP crazies. Hillary Clinton would have made an excellent president and was BY FAR the most qualified presidential candidate in my lifetime, yet those of us who supported her and voted for her were constantly arguing with asshole idealists on the left who didn't listen or learn from the very instructive Ralph Nader lesson most of us remember from 2000. Bernie Bros can go fuck alllllll the way off. 

[Ag with kids 581]

40 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Five years can be a relatively short amount of time for (1) a state legislature to ban gay marriage, (2) a gay couple who unsuccessfully attempts to marry in said state to obtain standing to sue, (3) a lawsuit to work its way through the trial and intermediate appellate levels and briefing, argument, and decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

But I'll be any amount of cash that within the next 5 years at least one state, if not more, is going to enact legislation to ban gay marriage and gay marriage benefits.  Alito's opinion has essentially laid out the red carpet for that.

To be fair, that opinion has this in it:

 

Quote

And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.

That seems to limit its scope a bit.

[Starfleet Command 441]

I probably fall into the middle of opinion on abortion, but one thing that is tricky to me about the pro-life position is that if you believe the point at which someone becomes a human being at conception, then how can there be any exceptions to prosecuting the mother-to-be as a murderer except when the woman's life is directly threatened by the pregnancy?  Rape could be a mitigating circumstance at sentencing but it could not be an excuse or justification for the act.  The only sound position is to jail/execute rape victims who seek abortions.

Thus, if you are pro-life but believe in a rape exception, what is it that you actually believe?  Some criminal conduct other than murder has been perpetuated by the mother?  Exactly what kind?

Edited May 3, 2022 by Starfleet Command

[Skipper 6406]

Just now, Neonmoon said:

Republicans always focus on decorum when horrific things are happening 

JFC.  You can't have an opinion in this forum without some idiot ignoring the rest of your post and calling you a "Republican".   I'm not conceding the leaker is even necessarily on the left.  I absolutely would not put it past someone on the right wanting to light the fires and rile Fox News up.  I frankly don't give a damn who leaked it.  My opinion is that it's wrong.   Can't believe that's a hot take on this board but here we are.

[Fudge Nuggets 19407]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I was responding to the take that the Democratic Party has always been pussies. That simply isn't true.

And I realized I can't read and that's what you meant after the chance to edit has passed.

[Brisketexan 106615]

5 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Can mandatory Christian prayer in public schools be far behind?

"If you don't want your school to have mandatory Christian prayer, vote for different school board members!"

"If you don't want to participate in the prayer, just be silent!"

"If you want to go to a school with a different mandatory religion, just move!"

These are the solutions to the erosion/voiding of rights: your solution is "vote differently" or "move away from where you live and have your life, family, and career."  The answer is NOT "hey, maybe we shouldn't have fundagelical populists shit all over people's rights."  Nope.  If Texas wants to become A Handmaid's Tale, well, goshdurnit, that's what the majority voted for.  You shoulda outvoted them.  And if you don't like it, git out*!

* Presuming that the fundamental right to freely travel between the states is not later abrogated.  After all, it is not expressly granted as a right in the Constitution, so it's just made up by a buncha pointy-headed liberal judges back in the day.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19279]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Precedent doesn't matter.  Seriously, we can have a long conversation about nuance, but the current conservative judicial approach is "we do whatever we want, precedent, rules, and order be damned" (oh the irony, these are the folks who cried about "judicial activism" for decades....again, every accusation is a confession).

In short, it's now just a game of Calvinball.  And I say that without any hyperbole....I've actually had this conversation with colleagues, particularly regarding any cases that involve issues that touch on current political events.  We can't accurately advise our clients.  What's going to happen in your case?  Well, the law is pretty clear, so the outcome should look something like X.  But....the current political winds blow another direction, so I can't predict what will happen.  The court is going to do what it wants, precedent be damned.  I am far from alone in this.  It's actually become quite problematic for practicing attorneys, because we truly can't advise our clients as to likely outcomes worth a shit anymore.

If I ever hear a member of the GQP say something about legislating from the bench or activist judges, I might fucking lose my shit.  

[David Dennison 19440]

48 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Oh bullshit.  Her campaign was fine.  The problem was the idiot voters who didn't vote for competency and instead voted for a reality tv business man.  Anyone who watched the debates and thought Trump was fine bears responsibility for the damage to the country.   It wasn't Hillary's fault people are morons. 

Her campaign was not fine. It took states for granted.

Edited May 3, 2022 by David Dennison

[JBJ 3780]

9 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Roe is overturned and is no longer precedence, the new case becomes the law of the land. 

Technically, Roe hasn't been law for 30 years.  This would overturn Casey, the current precedent.

[Neonmoon 38130]

3 minutes ago, Skipper said:

JFC.  You can't have an opinion in this forum without some idiot ignoring the rest of your post and calling you a "Republican".   I'm not conceding the leaker is even necessarily on the left.  I absolutely would not put it past someone on the right wanting to light the fires and rile Fox News up.  I frankly don't give a damn who leaked it.  My opinion is that it's wrong.   Can't believe that's a hot take on this board but here we are.

Of course it was wrong. It was wrong the other times it was done before now. Who gives a fuck? Why focus on that right now? 

[Brisketexan 106615]

8 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

To be fair, that opinion has this in it:

 

That seems to limit its scope a bit.

Nope.  Because it's a lie.  Alito questions the validity of all rights that are not "deeply rooted in history."

This is absolutely analogous to Niemoller:

Alito is expressly telling us "don't worry we're only coming for the Socialists."  But he does so at the SAME TIME that he tells us his basis for coming for the Socialists, which unquestionably applies to every other group on the list.  Both things cannot be true -- Alito cannot only be coming for abortion, but also not be voiding rights that he arbitrarily decides are not "deeply rooted in history."  One of Alito's positions is a lie.  And history and human nature tells us that when someone tells you "don't worry, I'm not coming for you," THAT IS THE LIE.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Brisketexan

[Skipper 6406]

1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

Of course it was wrong. It was wrong the other times it was done before now. Who gives a fuck? Why focus on that right now? 

Because it's less than 24 hours after the biggest leak in Supreme Court history and I was literally responding to (and quoted) a poster that called the leaker a "real hero"? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills every time I venture over to this board.  Even though I happen to strongly agree with all of you that are outraged at the substance of the opinion.  And said as much in the exact post that had nutjob Penelope negging me.  Odd bunch over here.

[Satchel 6982]

Justice Amy on stare decisis:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4914596/judge-amy-coney-barrett-precedent-stare-decisis