Whose cell/womb is it anyways?

[Lloyd Perna]

Granted, the Right finds the Ninth Amendment highly inconvenient to their project of establishing a theocratic white ethnostate

When you make blanket, untrue, racist accusations like this you invalidate everything else you say and no one can should you seriously.

[cherrypoptart]

9th Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

-----------------------------------------------------

Exactly. Like the right of the people to elect state lawmakers who can pass laws about abortion.

-----------------------------------------------------

https://constitutionus.com/constitution/amendments/the-9th-amendment-to-the-united-states-constitution-explained/

"How Can The 9th Amendment Be Summarized?

The Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that the federal government doesn’t own the rights that are not listed in the Constitution, but instead, they belong to citizens..."

---------------------------------------------------

The federal government doesn't own rights that are not listed. Federal government. Nobody on the right is saying that the federal government owns abortion rights. That's the whole point. Everyone on the right understands that if they want abortion to be illegal nationwide it requires a Constitutional Amendment. All of that aligns perfectly with both the 9th and 10th Amendments.

[NobleHunter]

Trying to squash the debate is itself probably a human rights violation.

You know, I have some perspective down in the cellar if you find you miss it.

When you make blanket, untrue, racist accusations like this you invalidate everything else you say and no one can should you seriously.

It's so cute when the right thinks they can just use the word racist whenever someone says the word "white."

[yossarian22c]

...

And just to reiterate, I don't think abortion should be illegal. But that doesn't mean the Constitution says it can't be.

Better start voting for democrats then. Republicans are going to outlaw it in every state they can.

Seems like democrats better align with more of your views anyway, climate change, coronavirus, abortion rights, the list is growing. Your party is leaving you.

[msquared]

What is more they will likely also pass laws that make it illegal to go to another state where abortion is legal to get an abortion.

[NobleHunter]

When they get the chance, they'll definitely pass a federal law against it. The current Supreme Court will probably refuse to review any cases about it. Unless they see the chance to undo Loving or Lawrence. 

[Fenring]

Trying to squash the debate is itself probably a human rights violation.

You know, I have some perspective down in the cellar if you find you miss it.

If what you mean to imply is that I've accused you personally of trying to squash the debate, that's not what I mean. Sorry if it sounded that way. What I meant was that a lot of left-wing people are of the opinion it's finished, closed, settled, and not open to discussion anymore; and any insinuation that further debate is needed is met with anger and accusations. That is the squashing I'm referring to, so I suppose this only includes you if that's your attitude. What I am saying is the debate about this has barely begun as far as I'm concerned. Most of the public-facing argumentation on the topic has been at a very immature stage of debate thus far. Privately I've heard cogent arguments on both side, both those don't tend to trickle into the greater consciousness. Abortion is going to be a bigger deal going foward, and I think in part it's because the honest moral debate has been sidestepped by a lot of people.

[NobleHunter]

If what you mean to imply is that I've accused you personally of trying to squash the debate, that's not what I mean. Sorry if it sounded that way. What I meant was that a lot of left-wing people are of the opinion it's finished, closed, settled, and not open to discussion anymore; and any insinuation that further debate is needed is met with anger and accusations. That is the squashing I'm referring to, so I suppose this only includes you if that's your attitude. What I am saying is the debate about this has barely begun as far as I'm concerned. Most of the public-facing argumentation on the topic has been at a very immature stage of debate thus far. Privately I've heard cogent arguments on both side, both those don't tend to trickle into the greater consciousness. Abortion is going to be a bigger deal going foward, and I think in part it's because the honest moral debate has been sidestepped by a lot of people.

The debate has been running for decades, though I agree most of the public discussion of it has been facile. Mostly because the Democratic Party isn't particularly interested in ending the debate and Republicans don't want people to think about it. There's also a tendency to focus on edge cases as most people don't have significant disagreements over if abortion should be available or not, merely how much.

[Fenring]

The debate has been running for decades

Well the battle over has been waged, but I wouldn't call that a debate; more like a power struggle, which is what so many of these political issues devolve into (including climate change, covid, etc). I have heard very little in the way of 'debate' in my lifetime other than where I've found it by personally seeking it out. It's not 'out there' to much of an extent.

[yossarian22c]

The debate has been running for decades

Well the battle over has been waged, but I wouldn't call that a debate; more like a power struggle, which is what so many of these political issues devolve into (including climate change, covid, etc). I have heard very little in the way of 'debate' in my lifetime other than where I've found it by personally seeking it out. It's not 'out there' to much of an extent.

Sound bite culture at its worst. Candidates don't "debate" any issue in a significant way. Even 2 hour long presidential debates usually bounce through topics so quick that the answers are usually canned 1-2 minute surface level responses that don't delve into the intricacies of a topic. Nuance doesn't win elections. Zingers and soundbites do.

[Fenring]

Sound bite culture at its worst. Candidates don't "debate" any issue in a significant way. Even 2 hour long presidential debates usually bounce through topics so quick that the answers are usually canned 1-2 minute surface level responses that don't delve into the intricacies of a topic. Nuance doesn't win elections. Zingers and soundbites do.

I agree. However in this case it's just just the politicians who bypass the debate and devolve into soundbites. Even ordinary people on this particular topic tend to shoot around 1-sentence canned answers that they most likely received through others rather than coming to from independent thought. Things like "protect the unborn", "my body my right", "abortion is murder", and "religion controlling women" are all mindless tropes with little to no content. They are more like badges designating where on the battlefield you are, or maybe like banners you are waving around to prove you're a good soldier. The whole thing is like an old-school MMA bout, messy, no technique, and a lot of screaming.

[NobleHunter]

Sound bite culture at its worst. Candidates don't "debate" any issue in a significant way. Even 2 hour long presidential debates usually bounce through topics so quick that the answers are usually canned 1-2 minute surface level responses that don't delve into the intricacies of a topic. Nuance doesn't win elections. Zingers and soundbites do.

Not to mention the need to create division. It's hard to win elections if the voters think the other guy is pretty all right.

[Crunch]

What is more they will likely also pass laws that make it illegal to go to another state where abortion is legal to get an abortion.

JFC. 

[Crunch]

...

This "but what if it was a conservative" logic is so specious and uninformed it's insane that so many of you are trying to run with it. Those that break the law should face consequences. That you're trying to set it up so that the people you approve of don't have to follow the law is absurd.

So you are supportive of all the prosecutions of the January 6th rioters? Do you support prosecuting Flynn for lying to the FBI and violating FARA requirements? Do you support prosecuting Trump for destroying documents and taking classified files to Mara Lago? Just curious where you draw the line at prosecuting every potential violation of the law to the fullest.

IMO this leak is firing worthy. I just don't see how any laws are broken by giving a non classified document to the American media. Its a violation of policy not law. I also don't see this leak as serving the public interest in any meaningful way. It was going to become public within a month or so. Knowing what the first draft says instead of the final and knowing in May instead of June doesn't really change the public response all that much.

First, you see the law quoted. It’s real and it was broken. If you want to argue that it’s ok to break the law because it was gonna happen anyway, good luck with that.

supportive of all the prosecutions of the January 6th rioters? Support their prosecution where appropriate. Holding them as political prisoners and ignoring due process for what is actually gonna end up being misdemeanora for a lot of them, I don’t support that.

 Do you support prosecuting Flynn for lying to the FBI and violating FARA requirements? I support prosecuting everyone that lies to the FBI but not just republicans- you know what I’m talking about.

Do you support prosecuting Trump for destroying documents and taking classified files to Mara Lago? Sure, but only if it goes for democrats too. Let’s ask the Clintons. Good enough for sandy berger, good enough for everyone.

Just curious where you draw the line at prosecuting every potential violation of the law to the fullest. I draw the line where the law starts and ends, without an ideological litmus test.

[yossarian22c]

What is more they will likely also pass laws that make it illegal to go to another state where abortion is legal to get an abortion.

JFC. 

Have you been paying attention to the bills being passed? None have outlawed that yet but legislators have proposed them. Or proposed laws that allow their citizens to sue abortion providers in other states who provide abortion services to citizens of their state.

[Crunch]

Do you seriously think a law can be passed that limits travel from one state to another? Certain goods and services, sure. But people? Come on, let’s stay in reality here. It’s literally impossible to enforce it much less get it past court challenges.

If you get a medical procedure and its botched, you should be able to sue the provider. How is this controversial?

[yossarian22c]

Do you seriously think a law can be passed that limits travel from one state to another? Certain goods and services, sure. But people? Come on, let’s stay in reality here. It’s literally impossible to enforce it much less get it past court challenges.

If you get a medical procedure and its botched, you should be able to sue the provider. How is this controversial?

It wasn’t the patient who could sue. It was a Texas style bounty on providers of other states. Glad you agree such proposals are absurd and unconstitutional.

[msquared]

Crunch

I never said they would stand up. But the fact is many Legislatures controlled by Republicans would try and make it illegal to go outside the state for an abortion.  The writing is on the wall and if you do not see it you are blind.

[msquared]

So why is Missouri trying to pass such a law?

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/19/travel-abortion-law-missouri-00018539

If it is so obviously against the Constitution, why are they trying this?  And I would bet they will not be the first.  You can be sure Florida and Texas will be right behind.

[msquared]

The leak may not be illegal.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/despite-conservative-saber-rattling-lawless-210459839.html

Draft SC opinions may not be confidential (legally).

[TheDrake]

There's an obvious ploy if states start outlawing abortions, that non-profits can start figuring out how to help women who need abortions.

And even some for-profits.

But abortion travel isn’t financially and logistically an option that’s available to everyone. That’s why several big employers like Citigroup, Yelp, and Uber have pledged pay the travel expenses if their employees can’t access the procedure in their home states.

I can't wait to see conservatives boycott Yelp and Uber over it.

Here's one approach.

A Texas woman was just arrested in April on murder charges after she allegedly caused “the death of an individual ... by self-induced abortion.” A Texas district attorney ultimately dismissed the charges, but legal scholars say there are aggressive local prosecutors who may try to use trigger laws and other pre-Roe bans to go after a pregnant person or anyone who helps them travel for an abortion.

Prosecutors could argue that as long as some part of the crime took place in the state, then they are allowed to have jurisdiction and developing the guilty intent to travel may be enough, Cohen said.

And this one could put airlines at risk of being sued.

Using the same model Texas used in an abortion law known as S.B. 8, Missouri state Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R) introduced a proposal in December to allow private citizens to sue anyone who performs an abortion or helps a pregnant person obtain one, even if the procedure takes place outside Missouri.

Some are taking this seriously enough to pass preventative measures.

In California, S.B. 1142, which would provide funding for out-of-state residents who may travel there for an abortion, is scheduled for a May 9 hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee. California lawmakers are also considering a measure to shield those who help a pregnant person travel to the Golden State for an abortion from getting sued.

And there's precedent.

Missouri has tried to extend its laws to out-of-state conduct before. In 2005, the state passed a law that created a civil cause of action against anyone who helps a minor get an abortion without parental consent or a judge’s permission, even if the abortion takes place in another state that doesn’t require it. The state Supreme Court in 2007, however, narrowed the law so it only applies to abortions in Missouri.

All of which seems perfectly reasonable if seen through the lens that abortion is murder. Nobody would be getting too upset if California allowed you to kill an adult and Missouri tried to do something to stop it. Which brings us back to the non-debate of people convinced about the nature of a fetus.

[msquared]

Maybe I should start a new thread.

Should the Justices who committed perjury  under oath in their confirmation hearings be impeached?

[Crunch]

Maybe I should start a new thread.

Should the Justices who committed perjury  under oath in their confirmation hearings be impeached?

As long as I get to define it, sure.

[Crunch]

Do you seriously think a law can be passed that limits travel from one state to another? Certain goods and services, sure. But people? Come on, let’s stay in reality here. It’s literally impossible to enforce it much less get it past court challenges.

If you get a medical procedure and its botched, you should be able to sue the provider. How is this controversial?

It wasn’t the patient who could sue. It was a Texas style bounty on providers of other states. Glad you agree such proposals are absurd and unconstitutional.

Now you’re mixing things. Anyone can sue anyone, it’s the American way. In this case, I question the constitutionality of such a law and would look forward to seeing it challenged in court. I realize that’s an extreme position among you guys but it’s the beet system going.

[msquared]

Define what Crunch? Perjury? that is lying under oath. Like saying Roe V Wade is the law of the land and then over turning that law at the first chance.

[Crunch]

Crunch

I never said they would stand up. But the fact is many Legislatures controlled by Republicans would try and make it illegal to go outside the state for an abortion.  The writing is on the wall and if you do not see it you are blind.

So what? Let them try. It’s a feature of our system and it’s a good one. In the unlikely event a law limiting interstate travel is created, it will be challenged in court and it will almost certainly lose.

Plus, how do you propose to enforce this absurdity you’ve adopted? Checkpoints at every road out of state where women must submit to a pregnancy test befoe being allowed to continue? You must realize how laughable this is.

[Crunch]

Define what Crunch? Perjury? that is lying under oath. Like saying Roe V Wade is the law of the land and then over turning that law at the first chance.

Lying. I get to define what is or is not a lie. Just like democrats do now.

[msquared]

I am not the one proposing the law, so it is not my laughable idea.

I am guessing they are looking for Soviet/Russia style informing.  Neighbors reporting neighbors to an 800 number and turning them in.  Like good christians.

[rightleft22]

Define what Crunch? Perjury? that is lying under oath. Like saying Roe V Wade is the law of the land and then over turning that law at the first chance.

Lying. I get to define what is or is not a lie. Just like democrats do now.

Your arguments are better when you don't make such statements.

[Lloyd Perna]

Define what Crunch? Perjury? that is lying under oath. Like saying Roe V Wade is the law of the land and then over turning that law at the first chance.

I'm sure you can provide quotes where one of the recently appointed Justices made false statements under oath.  Right?

[Mynnion]

If I was going to leak this type of document and I was a left leaning activist I would have waited until September to make sure the media and Left were at a maximum level of outrage to "Get out the Vote."  I am sure that those with access to this document are at least as intelligent as I am and know that US voters have incredibly short memories releasing it now seems more likely to have had a conservative source.  Add to that the fact that releasing this basically provides states to use it as a play book to submit a direct challenge to RVW.

[Mynnion]

Should the Justices who committed perjury  under oath in their confirmation hearings be impeached?

I can't believe that I am agreeing with Crunch but at least based on the article below none of the judges came out and lied under oath.  It looks like their answers contain a lot of plausible deniability for apologists such as Susan Collins but no overt lies.

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096108319/roe-v-wade-alito-conservative-justices-confirmation-hearings

[msquared]

So Roe v Wade as settled law and the Law of the Land is not lying?

[yossarian22c]

So Roe v Wade as settled law and the Law of the Land is not lying?

It was until it wasn’t. They are lawyers with time to prepare their answers carefully. They threaded this needle deceptively but without perjury.

[Mynnion]

So Roe v Wade as settled law and the Law of the Land is not lying?

I have not reviewed the transcripts and am strictly going by what NPR posted and while it says Kavanaugh told Collins it was the law of the land he did not make that statement during the hearings.

Those listed stated that it was precedent but left the door open to review.  Kavanaugh stated that it was the Law of the Land but that is just a statement not an intent.  I believe the answers given under oath were specifically designed not to be lies but rather to give an impression of impartiality.

[rightleft22]

Conformation hearings another nail in the coffin of governing institutions.

One might imagine that their was a intentional attempt to undermine our institutions.

I liked Mitch's redirect to the question about taking credit for the possible end of Roe. Lets focus on the leaker. Without that leak I wonder what his answer would have been when the desision came out when it ought to have.  We will never know and I suspect Mitch is good with that.

[Fenring]

I don't see how a judge can reasonably be expected to claim, in advance, how they will consider or rule on something not yet on the table in front of them. It would almost be impeachable to make promises about how they'll do their job, since IMO that implies they will apply partisan principles going in rather than assessing the facts when they are presented in the future.

[Lloyd Perna]

What does it matter what they said anyway?  None of the Dems on the committee voted for Kavanaugh, Gorsuch or Barrett.  They were never going to vote for them no matter what they said.

[msquared]

Because they knew they were lying about Roe being settled law?

Why didn't the Justices, especially Alito, say they thought Roe was an egregious decision when they were asked about it?  I mean that is what he is saying now.

[Lloyd Perna]

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096108319/roe-v-wade-alito-conservative-justices-confirmation-hearings

[yossarian22c]

I don't see how a judge can reasonably be expected to claim, in advance, how they will consider or rule on something not yet on the table in front of them. It would almost be impeachable to make promises about how they'll do their job, since IMO that implies they will apply partisan principles going in rather than assessing the facts when they are presented in the future.

Judges should be able to comment on if a past case was decided properly or unconstitutionally. I agree they shouldn't opine about hypothetical cases. But making a statement on a past decision they have had time to review isn't a crazy question. I understand why its politically unacceptable for them to answer such questions. But it should be within the scope of their legal acumen to critique past decisions they have all the documentation, facts, and legal reasoning on.

[NobleHunter]

The weirdest thing is that no one could believe that they were coming to Roe as blank slates so as to judge the merits of the case impartially. The whole "gee golly, I have no pre-formed opinion" when their willingness to overturn Roe was one of, if not the primary, reason they were nominated is one of the more bizarre pieces of political theatre.

[rightleft22]

I don't see how a judge can reasonably be expected to claim, in advance, how they will consider or rule on something not yet on the table in front of them. It would almost be impeachable to make promises about how they'll do their job, since IMO that implies they will apply partisan principles going in rather than assessing the facts when they are presented in the future.

Judges should be able to comment on if a past case was decided properly or unconstitutionally. I agree they shouldn't opine about hypothetical cases. But making a statement on a past decision they have had time to review isn't a crazy question. I understand why its politically unacceptable for them to answer such questions. But it should be within the scope of their legal acumen to critique past decisions they have all the documentation, facts, and legal reasoning on.

If only a conformation hearing was really a conformation hearing such well thought out questions about the law would be the only type of questions asked.

[cherrypoptart]

One good thing about the "settled law" issue is that if the Supreme Court does decide to legalize illegalizing abortion, it will be settled law so all of the people talking about settled law, who have been talking about settled law for decades now, will calm down and not fight it anymore or expect it to ever change or ever be able to be changed. 

[Lloyd Perna]

Alito:

Pressed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on whether the issue of Roe had been settled by the court, Alito again refused to answer directly.

"It would be wrong for me to say to anybody who might be bringing any case before my court, 'If you bring your case before my court, I'm not even going to listen to you. I've made up my mind on this issue. I'm not going to read your brief. I'm not going to listen to your argument. I'm not going to discuss the issue with my colleagues. Go away — I've made up my mind,' " he said.

"That's the antithesis of what the courts are supposed to do, and if that's what settled means, then I think that's not what judges are supposed to do."

Thomas

During his confirmation hearing in 1991, Thomas refused to state an opinion on abortion or whether Roe had been properly decided. Doing so could compromise his future ability to rule on cases related to Roe, he said. ("I can say on that issue and on those cases I have no agenda. I have an open mind, and I can function strongly as a judge.")

Gorsuch

"I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed," he said. "A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other."

Kavanaugh:

"It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis," he said. "The Supreme Court has recognized the right to abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. It has reaffirmed it many times."

Additionally, Kavanaugh said it can be appropriate for the court to revisit prior decisions. "I listen to all arguments," he said. "You have an open mind. You get the briefs and arguments. And some arguments are better than others. Precedent is critically important. It is the foundation of our system. But you listen to all arguments."

Barrett

Perhaps the most revealing moment for Barrett came as she was being questioned by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., who asked if Barrett considered Roe to be a "super-precedent."

Barrett answered by defining super-precedent as "cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling."

"And I'm answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn't fall in that category," she said.

"Roe is not a super-precedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased. But that doesn't mean that Roe should be overruled. It just means that it doesn't fall in the small handful of cases like Marbury v. Madison and Brown v. Board that no one questions anymore," she added.

Can we drop this bull*censored* about them lying now?

As stated already by yossarian22c.   At the time that whoever called roe "Settled Law" it was.  At no point did any of them promise not to overturn it.

The Roe ruling was bad from the start. Unsupportable by the actual constitution. It was inevitable that it would be overturned eventually.
Dems have had 50 years to codify the Roe findings into actual law and they failed to do so.

Maybe you should be looking inwards for answers rather than calling honorable public servants liers.

[Lloyd Perna]

I don't see how a judge can reasonably be expected to claim, in advance, how they will consider or rule on something not yet on the table in front of them. It would almost be impeachable to make promises about how they'll do their job, since IMO that implies they will apply partisan principles going in rather than assessing the facts when they are presented in the future.

Judges should be able to comment on if a past case was decided properly or unconstitutionally. I agree they shouldn't opine about hypothetical cases. But making a statement on a past decision they have had time to review isn't a crazy question. I understand why its politically unacceptable for them to answer such questions. But it should be within the scope of their legal acumen to critique past decisions they have all the documentation, facts, and legal reasoning on.

If only a conformation hearing was really a conformation hearing such well thought out questions about the law would be the only type of questions asked.

In your world the only things that matter about a Judge are their race/sex/sexual preference and whether they are willing to invent things you like in the constitution.

[Fenring]

Because they knew they were lying about Roe being settled law?

I don't really understand this phrase anyhow, "settled law". The term as you're using implies that a matter is sealed for all time, determined as gospel like as if written on two stone tablets. How can anything be settled law, applying that standard? As far as I'm concerned all matters should be on the table for debate at all times. The idea of something being nailed shut and buried seems intrinsically wrong.

[Fenring]

But it should be within the scope of their legal acumen to critique past decisions they have all the documentation, facts, and legal reasoning on.

You could ask me right now what I think about some factual topic, but requiring analysis. Let's say it's the behavior of the Federal Reserve during the 2008 crisis. I have read about it, heard testimony, seen the results of some investigations, and I have a private opinion on the matter. Even if I was an expert and had a somewhat more sophisticated opinion it would still be just that. But now if you officially task me with investigating it myself and coming to 'final conclusions' to the best of my ability, that would be something else. Someone can study something all they want in abstraction, but if the task is actually a reality and present-tense decisions need to be made, that colors and changes everything. Of course new study would be needed, which maybe could affect or even reverse your previous position. You should only hope the justices would have that much of an open mind.

[yossarian22c]

...

This "but what if it was a conservative" logic is so specious and uninformed it's insane that so many of you are trying to run with it. Those that break the law should face consequences. That you're trying to set it up so that the people you approve of don't have to follow the law is absurd.

So you are supportive of all the prosecutions of the January 6th rioters? Do you support prosecuting Flynn for lying to the FBI and violating FARA requirements? Do you support prosecuting Trump for destroying documents and taking classified files to Mara Lago? Just curious where you draw the line at prosecuting every potential violation of the law to the fullest.

IMO this leak is firing worthy. I just don't see how any laws are broken by giving a non classified document to the American media. Its a violation of policy not law. I also don't see this leak as serving the public interest in any meaningful way. It was going to become public within a month or so. Knowing what the first draft says instead of the final and knowing in May instead of June doesn't really change the public response all that much.

First, you see the law quoted. It’s real and it was broken. If you want to argue that it’s ok to break the law because it was gonna happen anyway, good luck with that.

supportive of all the prosecutions of the January 6th rioters? Support their prosecution where appropriate. Holding them as political prisoners and ignoring due process for what is actually gonna end up being misdemeanora for a lot of them, I don’t support that.

 Do you support prosecuting Flynn for lying to the FBI and violating FARA requirements? I support prosecuting everyone that lies to the FBI but not just republicans- you know what I’m talking about.

Do you support prosecuting Trump for destroying documents and taking classified files to Mara Lago? Sure, but only if it goes for democrats too. Let’s ask the Clintons. Good enough for sandy berger, good enough for everyone.

Just curious where you draw the line at prosecuting every potential violation of the law to the fullest. I draw the line where the law starts and ends, without an ideological litmus test.

Gotcha, if you think a Democrat ever got away with a crime that crime is no longer enforceable on any Republican.

[rightleft22]

In your world the only things that matter about a Judge are their race/sex/sexual preference and whether they are willing to invent things you like in the constitution.

Not sure how my comment on a confirmation hearing not being a confirmation hearing (just political theater) gave you such a insight in to my mind.

I actually agree with your statement that is time to end the bull*censored* about lying now. Its serves only as a distraction.

That said if I identified as someone on the far right I would revel in this distraction as its something that is all about nothing, nothing that anyone will be held accountable that drives those on the far left crazy.

Also time to stop whining when a call doesn't go the way you or ones tribe thinks it should have.  If the rules of the game are messed up fix the rules. The reality it the DNC keep dropping the ball and or taking their eye of it all together.

No one can be surprised by this development or that the justices who might vote to end Roe would do so. No once can be surprised so acting all OMG how can this happen no when its to late is just a waist of energy and very unconstructive.