Congressman says We cannot have SCOTUS decisions made based on intimidation (leak)

[rightnow909]

Rep. Buddy Carter to Newsmax: Science of Roe V. Wade Is 'Outdated'

The science of pregnancy and abortion has evolved since Roe v. Wade was ruled on by the Supreme Court in January 1973 and the precedent is at least "outdated," according to Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., on Newsmax.

www.newsmax.com

Well, I hope this leak is investigated

But most leaks do not seem to against the law, even though they are against the law...

seems only the little people (so called) are to obey the law @ all times...

 

[White 6]

Rep. Buddy Carter to Newsmax: Science of Roe V. Wade Is 'Outdated'

The science of pregnancy and abortion has evolved since Roe v. Wade was ruled on by the Supreme Court in January 1973 and the precedent is at least "outdated," according to Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., on Newsmax.

www.newsmax.com

Well, I hope this leak is investigated

But most leaks do not seem to against the law, even though they are against the law...

seems only the little people (so called) are to obey the law @ all times...

What law would that be? Sure, it's considered dirty and it and is just plain wrong, but against the law at the supreme court, for the supreme court? Who could it be appealed to? Sure, we would like them to act ethically and most of the time do, but when they don't by acting unethically or politically (and they definitely have), there isn't a whole lot to be done about it, in the end. Lots of people think this case was decided politically, maybe some on the court itself. If so, it was wrong. You would think people on the supreme court or working in the supreme court would know the basic truth that two wrongs don't make a right, and I'm pretty sure, we're not talking janitors here. This is the Supreme Court. Just what kind of shitshow is Roberts running up there?

 

[rightnow909]

What law would that be? Sure, it's considered dirty and it and is just plain wrong, but against the law at the supreme court, for the supreme court? Who could it be appealed to? Sure, we would like them to act ethically and most of the time do, but when they don't by acting unethically or politically (and they definitely have), there isn't a whole lot to be done about it, in the end. Lots of people think this case was decided politically, maybe some on the court itself. If so, it was wrong. You would think people on the supreme court or working in the supreme court would know the basic truth that two wrongs don't make a right, and I'm pretty sure, we're not talking janitors here. This is the Supreme Court. Just what kind of shitshow is Roberts running up there?

I'm thinking
of the words
incite a riot

that's against the law

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Wouldn't we call that.....


....wait for it.....



Insurrection?

 

[rightnow909]

only Ds are allowed to be in insurrection

 

[White 6]

I'm thinking
of the words
incite a riot

that's against the law

It won't be the Supremes that tell people to march by day and burn by night. It is highly unlikely they would trial and sentence themselves and if it came before them, you think they would uphold conviction?
I am not even in favor of the decision they have made, or the battle of the sexes screaming culture war to come, but if they don't go through with it now, in spite of the weaselly leak, they haven't got a hair on their asses or whatevers.