Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[josh]

The state of Tennessee just turned its clocks back to a time before clocks, apparently, as Gov. Bill Lee signed a law making it a Class E felony with a $50,000 fine for anyone to get an abortion pill through the mail, the Tennessean reports.

According to HB 2416, abortion pills may only be given to a patient in a doctor's office by a physician. A doctor "must examine the patient in-person" and "inform the patient that the patient may see the remains of the unborn child in the process of completing the abortion."

I think it is not a time before clocks, but it certainly is a time before COVID and before Video Conferencing, as well as before Plan B, etc.

[Espnthree]

So you're ranking investigation of things like law enforcement abuse on a par with investigation of a  document leak of a court position that is zero surprise and pretty much everyone has know for months would be the court's position and is a few weeks away from being formally announced.

LOL. Why would the President of the United States wade into one and not the other.?
Especially since the latter is a direct affront to a basic tenet of our Constitution, checks and balances based on the separation of powers.
You cannot be serious.

Leaking the draft opinion is also not illegal.

And if you take the position that it is an illegal attempt to to obstruct official business you are criminalizing a whole category of conduct not previously considered illegal, including whoever leaked the exact same information (though not as far as we know the draft opinion) to the Wall Street Journal four days before the draft was published.

Well, if the leak is not even illegal, then looks like ol' Ward is just gaslighting again.  BAE

You need to direct those thoughts to the President who has called in the Justice Department.
As to your other observation that the leak is small potatoes I seriously doubt your ability to think.

[Holly Martins]

You sound confused, Ward.  You were earlier castigating Biden for not responding to the leak.  Now you're telling us he called in the Justice Dept.  LoL!

A less-confused, and gaslighted, person might conclude:

1.  The leak is not necessarily illegal, but Biden is doing due diligence by having the DOJ look at the case.

2.  His primary reaction to the leaked document is its conflict with the 9th and 14th amendements, given his job duty of defending the Constitution.  (there's an oath they take, in case you missed that)

3.  The act of leakage itself remains small taters, given that everyone already knows (based on the court hearings months ago) that 6 justices are poised to knock down Roe and Casey.

But keep trying to gaslight us!  It's entertaining, in sort of the manner a clown is entertaining.

[Hairy Lime]

So you're ranking investigation of things like law enforcement abuse on a par with investigation of a  document leak of a court position that is zero surprise and pretty much everyone has know for months would be the court's position and is a few weeks away from being formally announced.

LOL. Why would the President of the United States wade into one and not the other.?
Especially since the latter is a direct affront to a basic tenet of our Constitution, checks and balances based on the separation of powers.
You cannot be serious.

Leaking the draft opinion is also not illegal.

And if you take the position that it is an illegal attempt to to obstruct official business you are criminalizing a whole category of conduct not previously considered illegal, including whoever leaked the exact same information (though not as far as we know the draft opinion) to the Wall Street Journal four days before the draft was published.

Well, if the leak is not even illegal, then looks like ol' Ward is just gaslighting again.  BAE

You need to direct those thoughts to the President who has called in the Justice Department.
As to your other observation that the leak is small potatoes I seriously doubt your ability to think.

The leak to the WSJ of the same information does not bother you at all because that leak is almost certainly from a conservative clerk. And is just as legal.

I realize on the right wing pages you get all your opinions from the leak is a big deal because they want a diversion from the political ramifications of making abortion rights (and for those who can think reason contraceptive rights, interracial marriage and get sex) a political issue for the left in the way it has not been for 49 years. But there while the DoJ may look into it, there is literally nothing for law enforcement to investigate. The Court.has an interest in it, like any employer would, but it is not a legal issue.

[Espnthree]

So you're ranking investigation of things like law enforcement abuse on a par with investigation of a  document leak of a court position that is zero surprise and pretty much everyone has know for months would be the court's position and is a few weeks away from being formally announced.

LOL. Why would the President of the United States wade into one and not the other.?
Especially since the latter is a direct affront to a basic tenet of our Constitution, checks and balances based on the separation of powers.
You cannot be serious.

Leaking the draft opinion is also not illegal.

And if you take the position that it is an illegal attempt to to obstruct official business you are criminalizing a whole category of conduct not previously considered illegal, including whoever leaked the exact same information (though not as far as we know the draft opinion) to the Wall Street Journal four days before the draft was published.

Well, if the leak is not even illegal, then looks like ol' Ward is just gaslighting again.  BAE

You need to direct those thoughts to the President who has called in the Justice Department.
As to your other observation that the leak is small potatoes I seriously doubt your ability to think.

The leak to the WSJ of the same information does not bother you at all because that leak is almost certainly from a conservative clerk. And is just as legal.

What leak are you referring to?

[Hairy Lime]

So you're ranking investigation of things like law enforcement abuse on a par with investigation of a  document leak of a court position that is zero surprise and pretty much everyone has know for months would be the court's position and is a few weeks away from being formally announced.

LOL. Why would the President of the United States wade into one and not the other.?
Especially since the latter is a direct affront to a basic tenet of our Constitution, checks and balances based on the separation of powers.
You cannot be serious.

Leaking the draft opinion is also not illegal.

And if you take the position that it is an illegal attempt to to obstruct official business you are criminalizing a whole category of conduct not previously considered illegal, including whoever leaked the exact same information (though not as far as we know the draft opinion) to the Wall Street Journal four days before the draft was published.

Well, if the leak is not even illegal, then looks like ol' Ward is just gaslighting again.  BAE

You need to direct those thoughts to the President who has called in the Justice Department.
As to your other observation that the leak is small potatoes I seriously doubt your ability to think.

The leak to the WSJ of the same information does not bother you at all because that leak is almost certainly from a conservative clerk. And is just as legal.

What leak are you referring to?

Stuff your rosaries and your weaponized prayer. We will remain outraged after this weekend, so keep praying. We will be burning the Eucharist to show our disgust for the abuse Catholic Churches have condoned for centuries, tweeted the organization Ruth Sent Uswhich...

Who is Ruth Sent Uswhich?  Is she from the Connecticut Uswhiches?

I guess you do not keep up on the news.

...

Red s inability to format is apparently an unfixable bug.

There is now a third leak on the same opinion, this one to the NYT from a described conservative source.

[Espnthree]

There is now a third leak on the same opinion, this one to the NYT from a described conservative source.

I asked about your assertion of a leak to the WSJ. How was it reported?

[Hairy Lime]

There is now a third leak on the same opinion, this one to the NYT from a described conservative source.

I asked about your assertion of a leak to the WSJ. How was it reported?

"I guess you do not keep up on the news."

[facilitatorn]

It was an excellent and timely leak, echoed by numerous leakers.

Republicans are running to raise your taxes and steal your rights while poisoning your land and your culture.

Hamstring conservatives to save the constitution and the courts.

Jesus votes for the Democrat in every race.

[facilitatorn]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/07/fox-new-deals-in-kremlin-propaganda-freeze-rupert-murdochs-assets

This would definitely help red hew a little closer to the facts.

[Espnthree]

There is now a third leak on the same opinion, this one to the NYT from a described conservative source.

I asked about your assertion of a leak to the WSJ. How was it reported?

"I guess you do not keep up on the news."

Aha.
It was not.
Unless you are referring to the April 26th essay on the Editorial Page.
That was not a leak.

[Holly Martins]

Various theories on who leaked and with what strategy behind it...

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/05/who-leaked-the-supreme-court-draft-overturning-roe-v-wade.html

I lean towards Nina Totenbergs idea that this is to rope in a straying kavanaugh, before Roberts could persuade towards a more moderate ruling that leaves some skeleton of Roe intact. 

[Espnthree]

Various theories on who leaked and with what strategy behind it...

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/05/who-leaked-the-supreme-court-draft-overturning-roe-v-wade.html

The biggest political story in recent memory  the Supreme Court has apparently decided to overturn Roe v. Wade was delivered by a virtually unprecedented leak from inside the secretive Court.

My, my.
Those taters are huge!

[facilitatorn]

A legitimate Supreme Court does not leak.

The problem lies within the majority on that body.

Republicans have recently avoided appointing competent jurists preferring corrupted hacks

[josh]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/09/politics/david-perdue-senate-republican-reaction/index.html