william wrote:

alberchico wrote:

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-clarence-thomas-e08bbdfbe48d33171fa6f2a17931da63

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/ma ... k-abortion

It looks like the investigation is focusing on a small group of law clerks. I've been doing some reading on what the possible punishments are, and they could be severe. Leaking sensitive court documentrs could land you behind bars, and even if you escape jail time you would likely end up with a felony conviction. which would mean disbarment if you are a law clerk. Imagine working hard your whole life so you could graduate from an elite law school and get your dream assignment working on the Supreme Court only to throw it all away.

Punishment will be severe, this cannot happen again in the future. What ever side of the political spectrum one cannot have leaks like this because one side does not like the outcome. In the future the "shoe" will be on the other foot. Things have a way of balancing out, at one time the Supreme Court backed segregation only to overturn it in the future.

If one is fine with this form of leaking just disband the Supreme Court. And lets stop this charade of picking Justices based on their opinion of political hot button issues. Seriously, disband it.

There is no Constitutional mechanism for 'disbanding' the Supreme Court.

seb146 wrote:

alberchico wrote:

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-clarence-thomas-e08bbdfbe48d33171fa6f2a17931da63

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/ma ... k-abortion

It looks like the investigation is focusing on a small group of law clerks. I've been doing some reading on what the possible punishments are, and they could be severe. Leaking sensitive court documentrs could land you behind bars, and even if you escape jail time you would likely end up with a felony conviction. which would mean disbarment if you are a law clerk. Even working hard your whole life an graduating from an elite law school and getting your dream assignment working on the Supreme Court only to throw it all away.

I just wonder, though, what if a justice leaked it? Like "I'm just going to set this here and maybe someone will pick it up"?

I don't think it was a justice who leaked it. They would know that committing such an egregious breach of ethics and trust would tarnish their reputation to the point where they could no longer continue to serve on the Supreme Court.

seb146 wrote:

So, instead of defending their stand on taking away rights from women, the right has pivoted to "the leak" and complaining about "the leak" instead of crowing about getting what they want

That's all they can afford to do. They know it's a big negative going into the mid-terms.

They also know the SCOTUS "opinions" can easily be challenged in the future by simply switching justices since its clear the SCOTUS has partisan agendas. All it takes is a retirement announcement by Justice Thomas under the current administration to get the courts back to center (yes, I'm aware Chief Justice Roberts came onboard as more right-leaning, but lately he's been probably the most center out of all of the justices).

Bricktop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Spell it out for me. I am asking genuinely.

https://mississippitoday.org/2021/12/08 ... oe-v-wade/

If the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, an existing state law will be triggered prohibiting abortion in most instances in Mississippi.

The law, which would permit abortions only when the mother’s life is at risk and in cases of rape, was passed in 2007 by the Mississippi Legislature.

This would ban abortions from day 1

Thanks, but lies like this one keep going around.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Apparently you force her to have the baby she doesn't want when he rapes her.

For Jesus! Blessed be!

Where's the lie?

"Of the 22 states with abortion bans that will instantly take effect if the landmark Supreme Court ruling is overturned, 10 have passed laws that make no exceptions for rape or incest: Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas."

https://news.yahoo.com/some-republican- ... 05491.html

alberchico wrote:

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-clarence-thomas-e08bbdfbe48d33171fa6f2a17931da63

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/ma ... k-abortion

It looks like the investigation is focusing on a small group of law clerks. I've been doing some reading on what the possible punishments are, and they could be severe. Leaking sensitive court documentrs could land you behind bars, and even if you escape jail time you would likely end up with a felony conviction. which would mean disbarment if you are a law clerk. Imagine working hard your whole life so you could graduate from an elite law school and get your dream assignment working on the Supreme Court only to throw it all away.

I imagine a female clerk caught out in this investigation that airs genuine grievances against a conservative court stacked by the GOP in the most partisan manner ever seen in this branch of government in our history would end up a hero to 100M women and be a beacon for Womens' Rights her entire life. She might be disbarred and unable to practice law but I could see her end up a leader, writer, professor..who knows what. At the end of the day the true scumbags will always be Alito and any other conservative "justice" that throws away settled law for purely political purposes to serve their GOP masters. The court is a joke at this point. When Kavanagh goes back on his word that Roe was settled law and joins the court in ceding women's bodies to the fat old klansmen running too many states it'll be a day to remember for sure. A woman's right to vote isn't settled law either so where will the GOP stop? Women are going to be marching by the tens of millions all over this country all summer long. What a beautiful sight that will be.

Aesma wrote:

Is marital rape recognized in Mississippi ?

It’s likely encouraged there.

SL1200MK2 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Is marital rape recognized in Mississippi ?

It’s likely encouraged there.

Bazinga!

phatfarmlines wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So, instead of defending their stand on taking away rights from women, the right has pivoted to "the leak" and complaining about "the leak" instead of crowing about getting what they want

That's all they can afford to do. They know it's a big negative going into the mid-terms.

They also know the SCOTUS "opinions" can easily be challenged in the future by simply switching justices since its clear the SCOTUS has partisan agendas. All it takes is a retirement announcement by Justice Thomas under the current administration to get the courts back to center (yes, I'm aware Chief Justice Roberts came onboard as more right-leaning, but lately he's been probably the most center out of all of the justices).

The right keeps talking about "settled law" when it comes to cases ruled in their favor but will challenge any SCOTUS ruling they don't like. Roe and Obergefell and Heller are the three that spring immediately to mind.

Cue the "both sides do it!!" in 3... 2...

SL1200MK2 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Is marital rape recognized in Mississippi ?

It’s likely encouraged there.

Winner! This thread can now be successfully closed

Legal scholar Mary Ziegler and Conservative Legal scholar Ed Whelan discuss their differing views on the Supreme Court’s leaked draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, the future of abortion law in America, and what this expected ruling could mean for other cases on PBS's Firing Line with Margaret Hoover. 5/13/2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaDIyfYk4xc

Nebraska is looking to punish women that have been raped with 9 months of remembrance.



https://www.axios.com/2022/05/15/nebras ... ortion-ban

Ricketts said if Roe is overturned, he will "work with our speaker of the legislature to work on a special session and do more to protect pre-born babies." He added, "We will have to wait and see what that decision is before we can take further steps, but that would certainly be my intention."
Ricketts added that he'd push for measures that do not include exceptions for rape and incest.

casinterest wrote:

Nebraska is looking to punish women that have been raped with 9 months of remembrance.



https://www.axios.com/2022/05/15/nebras ... ortion-ban

Ricketts said if Roe is overturned, he will "work with our speaker of the legislature to work on a special session and do more to protect pre-born babies." He added, "We will have to wait and see what that decision is before we can take further steps, but that would certainly be my intention."
Ricketts added that he'd push for measures that do not include exceptions for rape and incest.

"Pre-born babies"? ugh...

There is also talk of penalties for women who miscarry due to miscarriages happen.

casinterest wrote:

Nebraska is looking to punish women that have been raped with 9 months of remembrance.



https://www.axios.com/2022/05/15/nebras ... ortion-ban

Ricketts said if Roe is overturned, he will "work with our speaker of the legislature to work on a special session and do more to protect pre-born babies." He added, "We will have to wait and see what that decision is before we can take further steps, but that would certainly be my intention."
Ricketts added that he'd push for measures that do not include exceptions for rape and incest.

‘Pre-born baby’ is not a medical term...it’s pablum for morons.

casinterest wrote:

Nebraska is looking to punish women that have been raped with 9 months of remembrance.

9 months is for Guv. White Guy and I doubt his remembrance would extend beyond 3-4 seconds. The mother's remembrance will last a lifetime.

Anyway, add this scumbag to the GOP pond. When Trump said he just grabs women by the privates he warn't kiddin. Sounds more like the GOP is gonna get up in there with a GoPro.

I see a Zygote! Where'd it come from Nancy?
Uhh, the football team raped me after the big win.
Hmmm, that's what we call a "pre-born Corn Husker in the GOP Nancy, or maybe a whole pre-born Offensive Line, depends how lucky you got, haha!

Ricketts was right. Here is this pre-born astronaut smoking Marlyboros outside the capsule spacewalkin'.

https://www.theonion.com/fetus-steps-ou ... 1848637711

It does seem that just by taking this case from Mississippi, the Supreme Court ended it's legitimacy, and has made itself into a political arm.

Juan Williams makes a good case below.

https://thehill.com/opinion/3497549-jua ... -disaster/

Did Congress force the court to consider the issue by passing a law banning abortion? No, the votes are not there.

Instead, the court made a political decision to take up cases designed by anti-abortion groups and their political allies in state government to intentionally undermine Roe v. Wade.

casinterest wrote:

It does seem that just by taking this case from Mississippi, the Supreme Court ended it's legitimacy, and has made itself into a political arm.

Juan Williams makes a good case below.

https://thehill.com/opinion/3497549-jua ... -disaster/

Did Congress force the court to consider the issue by passing a law banning abortion? No, the votes are not there.

Instead, the court made a political decision to take up cases designed by anti-abortion groups and their political allies in state government to intentionally undermine Roe v. Wade.

Why isn't there enough court capacity to handle any and all cases waiting for supreme court proceeding, something that would be expected in probably most other countries around the world?

c933103 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

It does seem that just by taking this case from Mississippi, the Supreme Court ended it's legitimacy, and has made itself into a political arm.

Juan Williams makes a good case below.

https://thehill.com/opinion/3497549-jua ... -disaster/

Did Congress force the court to consider the issue by passing a law banning abortion? No, the votes are not there.

Instead, the court made a political decision to take up cases designed by anti-abortion groups and their political allies in state government to intentionally undermine Roe v. Wade.

Why isn't there enough court capacity to handle any and all cases waiting for supreme court proceeding, something that would be expected in probably most other countries around the world?

That wasn't the issue here. The Supreme Court took on a case that was rebuked by the appeals court in a manner consistent with previous rulings in order to push the conservative will onto the people of the United States.

c933103 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

It does seem that just by taking this case from Mississippi, the Supreme Court ended it's legitimacy, and has made itself into a political arm.

Juan Williams makes a good case below.

https://thehill.com/opinion/3497549-jua ... -disaster/

Did Congress force the court to consider the issue by passing a law banning abortion? No, the votes are not there.

Instead, the court made a political decision to take up cases designed by anti-abortion groups and their political allies in state government to intentionally undermine Roe v. Wade.

Why isn't there enough court capacity to handle any and all cases waiting for supreme court proceeding, something that would be expected in probably most other countries around the world?

Each lower court has only so many seats. The speed at which judges were seated under the MAGA administration was neck breaking. It is not really surprising these far right wing ideologies are being passed, now that the courts are now an arm of the Republican party.

casinterest wrote:

the court
That wasn't the issue here. The Supreme Court took on a case that was rebuked by the appeals court in a manner consistent with previous rulings in order to push the conservative will onto the people of the United States.

What I mean is that, if someone in a court case want to be appeal, unless being rejected, shouldn't all of them have the chance to present their case in front of the court? Why the court have the power to "pick" which cases they do and which cases they don't?

seb146 wrote:

Each lower court has only so many seats. The speed at which judges were seated under the MAGA administration was neck breaking. It is not really surprising these far right wing ideologies are being passed, now that the courts are now an arm of the Republican party.

Wait, come to think of it, why is there only a specific number of judges ruling all the cases in the US lower courts and supreme court? Like US Supreme court have 9 judges? The final court in Hong Kong with Hong Kong being just a city have 21 judges according to wikipedia, and each of them process different cases individually. How come the highest level court of the ~3 largest country in the world have fewer judges than a city?

c933103 wrote:

What I mean is that, if someone in a court case want to be appeal, unless being rejected, shouldn't all of them have the chance to present their case in front of the court? Why the court have the power to "pick" which cases they do and which cases they don't?

Wait, come to think of it, why is there only a specific number of judges ruling all the cases in the US lower courts and supreme court? Like US Supreme court have 9 judges? The final court in Hong Kong with Hong Kong being just a city have 21 judges according to wikipedia, and each of them process different cases individually. How come the highest level court of the ~3 largest country in the world have fewer judges than a city?

The US Constitution established the Supreme Court with equal powers to the Legislative and Executive, so as to arbitrate between them and be the final appeal to the Constitution within the judicial system. This equal power Constitutional role within the government is somewhat unique to the US.

The Founders recognized the court could be swamped and thus gave it power to decide which cases had judicial merit, and the potential to interpret Constitutionality. Not every case does.

The court has 9 lifetime appointments to ensure a range of Constitutional views, and independence from the politics that govern the other two branches. All justices hear every accepted case to ensure those views are represented.

Thus it's not really a case resolution factory as in HK, it's focused on those cases that address the balance of powers and rights under the Constitution. That tends to be a very deliberate process, with multiple judges writing opinions for internal debate.

Avatar2go wrote:

c933103 wrote:

What I mean is that, if someone in a court case want to be appeal, unless being rejected, shouldn't all of them have the chance to present their case in front of the court? Why the court have the power to "pick" which cases they do and which cases they don't?

Wait, come to think of it, why is there only a specific number of judges ruling all the cases in the US lower courts and supreme court? Like US Supreme court have 9 judges? The final court in Hong Kong with Hong Kong being just a city have 21 judges according to wikipedia, and each of them process different cases individually. How come the highest level court of the ~3 largest country in the world have fewer judges than a city?

The US Constitution established the Supreme Court with equal powers to the Legislative and Executive, so as to arbitrate between them and be the final appeal to the Constitution within the judicial system. This equal power Constitutional role within the government is somewhat unique to the US.

The Founders recognized the court could be swamped and thus gave it power to decide which cases had judicial merit, and the potential to interpret Constitutionality. Not every case does.

The court has 9 lifetime appointments to ensure a range of Constitutional views, and independence from the politics that govern the other two branches. All justices hear every accepted case to ensure those views are represented.

Thus it's not really a case resolution factory as in HK, it's focused on those cases that address the balance of powers and rights under the Constitution.

The court in HK was assumed to have equal power as executive and legislative branch in HK also, until Chinese government redefined it a few years ago. But the composition of judges still haven't changes, other than special procedure for political cases. Back then the courts in Hong Kong did made ruling that forced government to e.g. change treatment to homosexual couples, limit interpretation of what is deemed acceptable under the law term of land reclamation, ddefine who qualify as having residency status in the city, and so on. So they deal with these constitutionality things relatively commonly also. I believe the system was from, and similar to, UK and other common law countries?

c933103 wrote:

The court in HK was assumed to have equal power as executive and legislative branch in HK also, until Chinese government redefined it a few years ago. But the composition of judges still haven't changes, other than special procedure for political cases. Back then the courts in Hong Kong did made ruling that forced government to e.g. change treatment to homosexual couples, limit interpretation of what is deemed acceptable under the law term of land reclamation, ddefine who qualify as having residency status in the city, and so on. So they deal with these constitutionality things relatively commonly also. I believe the system was from, and similar to, UK and other common law countries?

I think the difference is that Commonwealth Supreme/High courts also hear criminal and civil cases, and can also serve as a court of first instance in certain circumstances. In the US, the Supreme Court will only take cases pertaining to issues of Constitutionality, on appeal, that have already been heard by lower courts. That's why the other courts have more members.

I don't know, but would presume, that Constitutionality cases in those courts would not be handled by individual justices, but would be collectively decided, as in the US.

Avatar2go wrote:

c933103 wrote:

What I mean is that, if someone in a court case want to be appeal, unless being rejected, shouldn't all of them have the chance to present their case in front of the court? Why the court have the power to "pick" which cases they do and which cases they don't?

Wait, come to think of it, why is there only a specific number of judges ruling all the cases in the US lower courts and supreme court? Like US Supreme court have 9 judges? The final court in Hong Kong with Hong Kong being just a city have 21 judges according to wikipedia, and each of them process different cases individually. How come the highest level court of the ~3 largest country in the world have fewer judges than a city?

The US Constitution established the Supreme Court with equal powers to the Legislative and Executive, so as to arbitrate between them and be the final appeal to the Constitution within the judicial system. This equal power Constitutional role within the government is somewhat unique to the US.

The Founders recognized the court could be swamped and thus gave it power to decide which cases had judicial merit, and the potential to interpret Constitutionality. Not every case does.

The court has 9 lifetime appointments to ensure a range of Constitutional views, and independence from the politics that govern the other two branches. All justices hear every accepted case to ensure those views are represented.

Thus it's not really a case resolution factory as in HK, it's focused on those cases that address the balance of powers and rights under the Constitution. That tends to be a very deliberate process, with multiple judges writing opinions for internal debate.

I heard on a podcast this week the skeleton of an argument for a Commonwealth style Supreme Court model that would employ 2 circuits, with term limits of 15 years, and would substantially increase the size of the Supreme Court, but allow potentially larger representation, and help mitigate a bit the partisan lock of the court for decades.
Probably impossible, because the court has been inextricably political especially for the past 5 years, but an interesting thought experiment.

bluecrew wrote:

I heard on a podcast this week the skeleton of an argument for a Commonwealth style Supreme Court model that would employ 2 circuits, with term limits of 15 years, and would substantially increase the size of the Supreme Court, but allow potentially larger representation, and help mitigate a bit the partisan lock of the court for decades.
Probably impossible, because the court has been inextricably political especially for the past 5 years, but an interesting thought experiment.

Those are interesting ideas. There are some simpler ones as well. Senate confirmation of justices could require a majority vote within each represented party, which would tend to favor centrist over partisan nominees. That was the actual intention of the Founders in balancing powers, and was the practice for most of American history.

Failure to confirm within a given period, would result in a default to the Court itself selecting the new member. This would be an incentive for the executive and legislative branches to either exercise their Constitutional power over the judiciary branch well, or forfeit it.

The same default could be used for vacancies that occur near the end of a president's term, or in a lame duck period, so that neither party could stall to get a different nominee from the incoming party.

These methods preserve the executive power of nomination and the legislative power of confirmation, as defined by the Constitution, but would prevent abuses of the process and partisan stacking of the court that have been pursued recently.

Aesma wrote:

If a court can override a law passed by parliament, isn't it actually more powerful than the other branches ?

In France our constitutional council can strike down a law (or some parts of it) even before it is enacted. However a number of legislators, or the president, must ask the court to look at it. Technically, unconstitutional laws could be passed, if nobody complained. Since 2010 it's now possible to ask for a review a posteriori, one of the first time this happened was regarding a law on sexual harassment, the law was badly written and a defendant successfully had it declared unconstitutional. That had an immediate effect on hundreds of cases, and the National Assembly had to write and pass a new law quickly.

On thing that would make heads explode in the US : former presidents get an automatic seat on the council.

The Supreme Court can strike down laws as unconstitutional, but cannot itself create laws, which is the domain of the legislature. So that is the balance of power between the two.

One of the complaints that conservatives have, is that when the Court reaches an intermediate finding, as it did for Roe v Wade, that's effectively legislating, determining the law instead of ruling strictly on validity. That was the basis of Alito's opinion.

Whereas liberals see the court as having broader discretion to discriminate in their findings. Since the legislature has the power to write a new law to deal with the ruling, if they choose, discretion is not viewed as an infringement. Historically, the Court has always exercised such discretion. It can be valuable to delineate the legal premises that are valid or invalid within a law.

In the case of abortion, neither the federal legislature nor Constitutional amendment process has been able to deal with the issue, due to lack of the necessary majority on either side. So the Court has provided the only federal guidance. Recognizing this, conservatives have sought to remove guidance from the federal level entirely, and hand it to the states instead. The states are themselves highly divided on the issue.

That's really interesting about how the French process works. It's helpful to learn how other countries deal with these issues around the world. I think you're correct, heads would explode in the US

c933103 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

the court
That wasn't the issue here. The Supreme Court took on a case that was rebuked by the appeals court in a manner consistent with previous rulings in order to push the conservative will onto the people of the United States.

What I mean is that, if someone in a court case want to be appeal, unless being rejected, shouldn't all of them have the chance to present their case in front of the court? Why the court have the power to "pick" which cases they do and which cases they don't?

Time and politics. Some justices see no issues with the lower courts rulings, and will not take up the cases. The misssissippi case and the Texas ones would have been rejected, but now that the political players are in place thanks to dishonorable antics by people like Mitch McConnel, we have a court that has politically decided to take a case to advance an agenda that has been grooming judges for decades.

c933103 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Each lower court has only so many seats. The speed at which judges were seated under the MAGA administration was neck breaking. It is not really surprising these far right wing ideologies are being passed, now that the courts are now an arm of the Republican party.

Wait, come to think of it, why is there only a specific number of judges ruling all the cases in the US lower courts and supreme court? Like US Supreme court have 9 judges? The final court in Hong Kong with Hong Kong being just a city have 21 judges according to wikipedia, and each of them process different cases individually. How come the highest level court of the ~3 largest country in the world have fewer judges than a city?

YES!!! Expand the court NOW!!! Seat justices NOW!! This second under this specific administration! PLEASE!! This is what We The People WANT!!!

seb146 wrote:

YES!!! Expand the court NOW!!! Seat justices NOW!! This second under this specific administration! PLEASE!! This is what We The People WANT!!!

who does "we the people" encompass?

It is amazing what a serious court case can do to public perceptions of an issue.


And in such highly sough after demographics of young woman
https://news.gallup.com/poll/393104/pro ... -high.aspx

The GOP may be asking their collusive colleagues on the Supreme Court to abandon the ending of Roe with these numbers

The Violent Left . . .

Armed man arrested for threat to kill SCOTUS Justice Kavanaugh

A man carrying a gun, a knife and zip ties was arrested Wednesday near Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s house in Maryland after threatening to kill the justice.

Nicholas John Roske of Simi Valley, California, who was identified in a criminal complaint charging him with the attempted murder of a Supreme Court justice, was dressed in black when he arrived by taxi just after 1 a.m. outside Kavanaugh’s home in a Washington suburb.

Roske, 26, had a Glock 17 pistol, ammunition, a knife, zip ties, pepper spray, duct tape and other items that he told police he would use to break into Kavanaugh’s house and kill him, according to a criminal complaint and affidavit filed in federal court in Maryland.

https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-c ... 542ceb0b29

DIRECTFLT wrote:

The Violent Left . . .

Armed man arrested for threat to kill SCOTUS Justice Kavanaugh
A man carrying a gun, a knife and zip ties was arrested Wednesday near Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s house in Maryland after threatening to kill the justice.
Nicholas John Roske of Simi Valley, California, who was identified in a criminal complaint charging him with the attempted murder of a Supreme Court justice, was dressed in black when he arrived by taxi just after 1 a.m. outside Kavanaugh’s home in a Washington suburb.
Roske, 26, had a Glock 17 pistol, ammunition, a knife, zip ties, pepper spray, duct tape and other items that he told police he would use to break into Kavanaugh’s house and kill him, according to a criminal complaint and affidavit filed in federal court in Maryland.
https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-c ... 542ceb0b29

Sadly, such threats destroy the credibility and positions of the 'left'. It will likely encourage a pending law and short-term policy to ban protests near the residences of the SCOTUS Justices. It will also mean the SCOTUS building will continue for the foreseeable future to have high fences and barricades to limit protests and protect the building and those in it. No doubt the Mississippi law will be upheld and states have total right to set their laws as to the legality of abortion unless a Federal law is passed by Congress to either ban all abortions in the USA or make legal abortions with certain limits. It will disrupt lives, but for many they believe making abortion illegal in their state, and eventually in the USA it is as moral as laws against murder.

The murderous lunatic makes a very good argument for term limiting Supreme Court justices. But if simply violence was all it took to destroy "credibility and positions," the erstwhile pro-life side wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

The Violent Left . . .

Armed man arrested for threat to kill SCOTUS Justice Kavanaugh

A man carrying a gun, a knife and zip ties was arrested Wednesday near Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s house in Maryland after threatening to kill the justice.

Nicholas John Roske of Simi Valley, California, who was identified in a criminal complaint charging him with the attempted murder of a Supreme Court justice, was dressed in black when he arrived by taxi just after 1 a.m. outside Kavanaugh’s home in a Washington suburb.

Roske, 26, had a Glock 17 pistol, ammunition, a knife, zip ties, pepper spray, duct tape and other items that he told police he would use to break into Kavanaugh’s house and kill him, according to a criminal complaint and affidavit filed in federal court in Maryland.

https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-c ... 542ceb0b29

Bottom line is there unfortunately are crazies on both sides. But we have to remember the crazies don't really represent the position of either side.

Avatar2go wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

The Violent Left . . .

Armed man arrested for threat to kill SCOTUS Justice Kavanaugh

A man carrying a gun, a knife and zip ties was arrested Wednesday near Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s house in Maryland after threatening to kill the justice.

Nicholas John Roske of Simi Valley, California, who was identified in a criminal complaint charging him with the attempted murder of a Supreme Court justice, was dressed in black when he arrived by taxi just after 1 a.m. outside Kavanaugh’s home in a Washington suburb.

Roske, 26, had a Glock 17 pistol, ammunition, a knife, zip ties, pepper spray, duct tape and other items that he told police he would use to break into Kavanaugh’s house and kill him, according to a criminal complaint and affidavit filed in federal court in Maryland.

https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-c ... 542ceb0b29

Bottom line is there unfortunately are crazies on both sides. But we have to remember the crazies don't really represent the position of either side.

He should got to jail for trying to attack a federal official. Just like the 800+ currently in various stats of charge for the attack on the Capitol, as well as the ones that led them there.

Newark727 wrote:

The murderous lunatic makes a very good argument for term limiting Supreme Court justices. But if simply violence was all it took to destroy "credibility and positions," the erstwhile pro-life side wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

No it makes an argument for people like Schumer not to incite these nutbags with their careless rhetoric.

NIKV69 wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

The murderous lunatic makes a very good argument for term limiting Supreme Court justices. But if simply violence was all it took to destroy "credibility and positions," the erstwhile pro-life side wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

No it makes an argument for people like Schumer not to incite these nutbags with their careless rhetoric.

What's so nutbag or careless about believing in a woman's right to her own body? Nothing.

What you do about that belief - well that's something else again.

It is now emerging that the man called 9/11 himself and told them he was suicidal and planned to undertake violence against the SC justice. It would seem there was a serious mental health / suicide issue at play.

I hope he gets the mental health care needed while is also held to account for his actions.

ltbewr wrote:

Sadly, such threats destroy the credibility and positions of the 'left'. It will likely encourage a pending law and short-term policy to ban protests near the residences of the SCOTUS Justices.

It's already illegal. This DOJ just refuses to enforce that particular law.

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/cour ... ces-homes/

EA CO AS wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

Sadly, such threats destroy the credibility and positions of the 'left'. It will likely encourage a pending law and short-term policy to ban protests near the residences of the SCOTUS Justices.

It's already illegal. This DOJ just refuses to enforce that particular law.

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/cour ... ces-homes/

Do they refuse or is it that can not because of budget cuts?

seb146 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

Sadly, such threats destroy the credibility and positions of the 'left'. It will likely encourage a pending law and short-term policy to ban protests near the residences of the SCOTUS Justices.

It's already illegal. This DOJ just refuses to enforce that particular law.

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/cour ... ces-homes/

Do they refuse or is it that can not because of budget cuts?

Budget cuts, are you serious?? You can’t be serious - right?

EA CO AS wrote:

seb146 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

It's already illegal. This DOJ just refuses to enforce that particular law.

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/cour ... ces-homes/

Do they refuse or is it that can not because of budget cuts?

Budget cuts, are you serious?? You can’t be serious - right?

https://www.vera.org/newsroom/survey-re ... ctitioners

Budget cuts. REPUBLICAN MANDATED budget cuts. Because big gub'mint don't work so if we break it, it don't work so let's just scrap the whole thing because we loves the Constitution

seb146 wrote:

Budget cuts. REPUBLICAN MANDATED budget cuts.

Wrong. From your source, there have been decreases since 2010 - gosh, who controlled the executive branch and both houses of Congress then? Your beloved Democrats, that’s who, and the 2011 budget bill was a bipartisan one signed by President Obama, who could have vetoed it if he wanted.

Face it, protesting in front of the home of SCOTUS justices is against the law, and this Democrat-controlled DOJ is refusing to enforce the law. Period.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/06/20/poli ... index.html

Very interesting article that claims that the court's rulings will simply be released online, and the justices might not even be present in D.C. when it comes out. Considering the backlash that will ensue it makes sense.

alberchico wrote:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/06/20/politics/supreme-court-june-preview/index.html

Very interesting article that claims that the court's rulings will simply be released online, and the justices might not even be present in D.C. when it comes out. Considering the backlash that will ensue it makes sense.

Nothing says "this is a good decision we're making" like wanting to be in a different state when people start seeing the results...

For the Latest SCOTUS Rulings:

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/06/21/poli ... index.html

It seeks like she knows that Roe v Wade is going to be overturned, and she's giving people a heads up but is choosing her words carefully so she dosen't get accused of leaking any confidential information.

Aaron747 wrote:

william wrote:

alberchico wrote:

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-clarence-thomas-e08bbdfbe48d33171fa6f2a17931da63

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/ma ... k-abortion

It looks like the investigation is focusing on a small group of law clerks. I've been doing some reading on what the possible punishments are, and they could be severe. Leaking sensitive court documentrs could land you behind bars, and even if you escape jail time you would likely end up with a felony conviction. which would mean disbarment if you are a law clerk. Imagine working hard your whole life so you could graduate from an elite law school and get your dream assignment working on the Supreme Court only to throw it all away.

Punishment will be severe, this cannot happen again in the future. What ever side of the political spectrum one cannot have leaks like this because one side does not like the outcome. In the future the "shoe" will be on the other foot. Things have a way of balancing out, at one time the Supreme Court backed segregation only to overturn it in the future.

If one is fine with this form of leaking just disband the Supreme Court. And lets stop this charade of picking Justices based on their opinion of political hot button issues. Seriously, disband it.

There is no Constitutional mechanism for 'disbanding' the Supreme Court.

Wouldn't the clerks be protected by whistleblower laws?

Kiwirob wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

william wrote:

Punishment will be severe, this cannot happen again in the future. What ever side of the political spectrum one cannot have leaks like this because one side does not like the outcome. In the future the "shoe" will be on the other foot. Things have a way of balancing out, at one time the Supreme Court backed segregation only to overturn it in the future.

If one is fine with this form of leaking just disband the Supreme Court. And lets stop this charade of picking Justices based on their opinion of political hot button issues. Seriously, disband it.

There is no Constitutional mechanism for 'disbanding' the Supreme Court.

Wouldn't the clerks be protected by whistleblower laws?

Whistleblowers are protected from uncovering activity that is illegal, against policy, gross mismanagement, unethical, etc. They are not protected from things such as releasing a SCOTUS decision early. Also, whistleblowers generally have to "blow the whistle" to upper management, the Office of Inspector General, Office of Special Counsel, Congress, etc. You cant just leak to the media and claim whistleblower protections.