Roe to be overturned!!!!

... Move-over New York-way.

And when the baby comes out of the hatch - just kill it then.
It's legal.

... No bleedin' wonder people are fleeing the Democrat party.

### Salty

You might be right about her not testifying. There were a couple that didn't. But her story probably made the interviewers roll their eyes and chuckle


Ok, so you say they were known rape parties?
Yes
How many did you attend?
About ten or so
How often did you attend?
one or two a month
You were 21 yrs old or older?
Yes
And they were all in high school?
yes


Yeah, pretty sure she did not testify at trial Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

No trial. Just a hearing. Like the Marjorie racist Greene episode.

Is a "rape party" an oxymoron? I would have fuckin' remembered that!

... It was leaked TODAY in an effort to start a firestorm and drown out the noise about 2000 Mules. Originally Posted by bambino

Not gonna work and unless someone (Sore-ass) starts paying the Antifa(gs), they're gonna drift off in summer of self love endeavors.

Funny how the conversation started drifting off around post #94 or so, once the perp was identified. Welp, let me know if any of the regular douche-nozzles need trimmed.

Leaving the carrier to die is universally unnatural. She is most important. To reproduce again. If she can. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

The carrier?

surprised that they found the leaker this fast.


hes a sotomayer clerk.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/r...rts-to-threats

There is no valid defense of Roe. That’s why that side resorts to threats
May 03, 2022 12:49 PM
By Timothy P. Carney

Roe v. Wade “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” That was the conclusion in the Yale Law Journal of pro-choice legal scholar John Hart Ely.

“One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” That's liberal legal scholar Laurence Tribe.

It’s near-consensus among legal scholars, even those who believe abortion should be legal, that Roe was a shoddy decision, not grounded in the Constitution.

“You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result,” wrote pro-choice scholar Kermit Roosevelt in the Washington Post.

“This is not surprising,” Roosevelt continued. “As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent.”

The Constitution quite obviously does not protect abortion as a fundamental right. Roe relied on a “right of privacy” “emanating” from a “penumbra” cast by actually enumerated rights. It was clearly motivated reasoning.

Abortion has thus been protected from democracy by a ruling that everyone knows is garbage, motivated reasoning . I’ve collected here many pro-choice legal scholars saying how bad Roe was.

Subject to scrutiny, Roe falls, and abortion defenders need to convince politicians to vote in order to strip unborn babies of any legal protections.

This is why the pro-Roe side is relying on threats to protect Roe. Democrats promise that they will declare the Supreme Court illegitimate if it doesn’t uphold their decision. That directly implies that they believe the federal government and state courts should disregard any subsequent rulings from the court.

Some Democratic senators already declare the Supreme Court is illegitimate. That means they don’t believe in the Constitution and thus have violated their oath of office.

Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts is threatening to pack the court — add four or more additional justices so that Democrats have a majority. (You can imagine the one-upping cycle this would set off.)

https://twitter.com/SenMarkey/status...04604625059841

Ed Markey
@SenMarkey
A stolen, illegitimate, and far-right Supreme Court majority appears set to destroy the right to abortion, an essential right which protects the health, safety, and freedom of millions of Americans. There is no other recourse. We must expand the court.

8:44 PM · May 2, 2022·Twitter Web App

Bullying a court to rule along with the party in power has a storied history (FDR did it), but it doesn’t exactly smell of good norms.

Chuck Schumer even threatened violence against the majority if they overturned Roe. “I want to tell you, Gorsuch,” Schumer said. “I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” Supreme Court justices don't face elections, and so Schumer was obviously calling for violence. He apologized for that, but expect more to come these days.

Sonia Sotomayor, the most political and least judicial of the nine justices, even threatened that overturning Roe would harm the legitimacy of the court. "Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception?" she asked during oral arguments.

All this to protect a Supreme Court decision that protects abortion up until the moment of birth, when everybody acknowledges that is the killing of a human being.

When you have the scientific facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the Constitution on your side, argue the Constitution. When you have only a dishonest precedent on your side, threaten the judges.

https://t.me/saltycrackernews/9442

BAHAHAHAHA

The carrier? Originally Posted by Levianon17

They are mistaken or running on an outdated hymnal. The correct Left-tard term is "Bodies with Vaginas". Though they may have even dropped that since Apple gave their users the prego-man emoji.

Not a fan of labeling and objectifying anyone -- well except Left-Tards.

So they probably couldn't even go the route to amend the Constitution to codify it??

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/r...rts-to-threats

There is no valid defense of Roe. That’s why that side resorts to threats
May 03, 2022 12:49 PM
By Timothy P. Carney

Roe v. Wade “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” That was the conclusion in the Yale Law Journal of pro-choice legal scholar John Hart Ely.

“One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” That's liberal legal scholar Laurence Tribe.

It’s near-consensus among legal scholars, even those who believe abortion should be legal, that Roe was a shoddy decision, not grounded in the Constitution.

“You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result,” wrote pro-choice scholar Kermit Roosevelt in the Washington Post.

“This is not surprising,” Roosevelt continued. “As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent.”

The Constitution quite obviously does not protect abortion as a fundamental right. Roe relied on a “right of privacy” “emanating” from a “penumbra” cast by actually enumerated rights. It was clearly motivated reasoning.

Abortion has thus been protected from democracy by a ruling that everyone knows is garbage, motivated reasoning . I’ve collected here many pro-choice legal scholars saying how bad Roe was.

Subject to scrutiny, Roe falls, and abortion defenders need to convince politicians to vote in order to strip unborn babies of any legal protections.

This is why the pro-Roe side is relying on threats to protect Roe. Democrats promise that they will declare the Supreme Court illegitimate if it doesn’t uphold their decision. That directly implies that they believe the federal government and state courts should disregard any subsequent rulings from the court.

Some Democratic senators already declare the Supreme Court is illegitimate. That means they don’t believe in the Constitution and thus have violated their oath of office.

Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts is threatening to pack the court — add four or more additional justices so that Democrats have a majority. (You can imagine the one-upping cycle this would set off.)

https://twitter.com/SenMarkey/status...04604625059841

Ed Markey
@SenMarkey
A stolen, illegitimate, and far-right Supreme Court majority appears set to destroy the right to abortion, an essential right which protects the health, safety, and freedom of millions of Americans. There is no other recourse. We must expand the court.

8:44 PM · May 2, 2022·Twitter Web App

Bullying a court to rule along with the party in power has a storied history (FDR did it), but it doesn’t exactly smell of good norms.

Chuck Schumer even threatened violence against the majority if they overturned Roe. “I want to tell you, Gorsuch,” Schumer said. “I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” Supreme Court justices don't face elections, and so Schumer was obviously calling for violence. He apologized for that, but expect more to come these days.

Sonia Sotomayor, the most political and least judicial of the nine justices, even threatened that overturning Roe would harm the legitimacy of the court. "Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception?" she asked during oral arguments.

All this to protect a Supreme Court decision that protects abortion up until the moment of birth, when everybody acknowledges that is the killing of a human being.

When you have the scientific facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the Constitution on your side, argue the Constitution. When you have only a dishonest precedent on your side, threaten the judges. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

They are mistaken or running on an outdated hymnal. The correct Left-tard term is "Bodies with Vaginas". Though they may have even dropped that since Apple gave their users the prego-man emoji.

Not a fan of labeling and objectifying anyone -- well except Left-Tards.


Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Liberal's use terminology that is sickening.

The carrier? Originally Posted by Levianon17

Yes. Most she is most important of all.

Yes. Most she is most important of all. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

You have no idea what is and what isn't important. It's a good thing you can only make decision for yourself and no one else.

You have no idea what is and what isn't important. It's a good thing you can only make decision for yourself and no one else. Originally Posted by Levianon17

She is most important.

Nobody should be making decisions for anybody else. Period.

Who makes your decisions? Does somebody cut your steak before you eat it? (Sorry, I can't refrain from it.)

You think LeviQanon can afford steak?