Justice Scalia's Opinion of 'Leakers'
I don't really have his opinion, but I do have a clerk's description of what it was.
I caught an interview segment of Fox's Neil Cavuto with Justice Scalia's son, Chris.
A clerk of Scalia's, Jan Samuals, paraphrased something that Scalia said, or intimated to his clerks. It was said that several other clerks agreed with Samuals' description.
In short, Scalia felt that breaking the confidentiality of the Court is a violation of honor so bad that he told clerks he would do everything possible to ruin their careers if they did it.
That was just to set the stage for a point: There are some 'ends' that can never justify their means. The trust of honor that is the Court, and all of its working parts is one of those.
I agree with Justice Scalia. Even if the leaker's motive was idealistic and intention pure, it doesn't change the damage done by that breach of honor. The 'supposed' cure is more lethal than the 'supposed' disease.
GAAgree. This was a very obvious political leak.
And speaking to the damage done top the Court, now there is another leak, this coming from an apparently obvious conservative source, say the Washington Post and MSNBC.
"A person close to the most conservative members of the court said [Chief Justice John Roberts] told his fellow jurists in a private conference in early December that he planned to uphold the [Mississippi anti-abortion law at issue in Dobbs] and write an opinion that left Roe and Casey in place for now. But the other conservatives were more interested in an opinion that overturned the precedents, the person said."
A follow-up leak from an Institution where leaks were almost unheard of is an example of the damage done to the Court's integrity by the first leak.
GAGoing back to your OP . . . As it seems appropriate here regarding leaks.
"I caught an interview segment of Fox's Neil Cavuto with Justice Scalia's son, Chris.
A clerk of Scalia's, Jan Samuals, paraphrased something that Scalia said, or intimated to his clerks. It was said that several other clerks agreed with Samuals' description.
Wasn't that a leak where integrity is considered of 'everything' is behind closed doors? It is to me at this time.I'm not sure I understand, but if you mean, relative to Scalia's view "integrity is everything" regarding the Court, that's the way I see it too.
Consider how that integrity has now been ruptured: first, if the story about a WSJ story being fueled by insider info is true, then that was the first breach, a crack in the Court's integrity. Then, the second leak of a complete draft opinion ruptured that crack into a full dam break, and now, with a third leak that speaks to a specific justice's deliberations, it is like the after-effect flooding of that dam break, it has spread to all of the ground that was the sanctum of Court deliberations.
GAI agree with what you shared above, yet what I was aiming at was the fact Jan Samuals shared something that happen behind the closed doors of the Supreme Court (Most likely in Scalia chamber's), thus a leak, therefore the integrity of the Supreme Court was violated. It is in my view. Just adding to the virtue of the integrity of the court as Scalia sees it.
I think I see your point now. I don't think the Samuals comment fits the leak category. I read it as just a character and attitude description. It didn't reveal any secrets and it isn't related to any deliberations. It's no different than if a clerk spoke to a justice's view of lying.
GA
"that integrity has now been ruptured'
I suspect this won't be that big of a deal as you think. Maybe for the leaker.
Though a draft decision has never leaked before, a Supreme Court leak is not exactly unprecedented.
In fact, the Roe v. Wade decision itself was leaked to the press in January 1973, when Larry Hammond, a Supreme Court clerk, shared the news with a Time magazine reporter—resulting in the story appearing hours before Justice Harry Blackmum announced the vote. Before that, while the case was still under deliberation, an anonymous story ran in the Washington Post detailing the justices' debates on the topic of abortion, citing a memo written by Justice William Douglas.
Hammond's leak instituted something called the "20 second rule," according to media law professor Jonathan Peters, who tweeted a thread of Supreme Court's history of leaks, dating back to the mid-19th century. This rule laid out that any clerk caught speaking to the media would be fired "within 20 seconds."
There have been other leaks from the Court, but none that have revealed a draft. In the 1852 case of the state of Pennsylvania versus the Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Company, the New York Tribune published the outcome ten days before the decision was public. Three years later, the Tribune also published an account of the deliberations surrounding Dred Scott versus Sandford.
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/socie … k-history/
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/nati … f-opinions
https://time.com/6173058/supreme-court- … -beckwith/Thanks, I was somewhat familiar with the history of previous leaks. I feel the same way about those leaks as I do this one. I am going to have to think about whether I think they were as damaging as I think this one is.
Maybe my 'crack in the dam' analogy could be stretched to cover them. Or maybe I view this leak as so bad because I am more involved now. *shrug
GA
One would think that the clerks would have had to have signed some kind of non-disclosure agreement upon entering on duty with the Supreme Court.
I see your point but to my thinking this particular expectation of integrity is much more integral to the function of the Court than any that might be affected by a legal agreement.
Think of NDAs as a statement of, 'Don't do it, we're trusting you, but if you do it this is the price."; a cost/benefit analysis that includes accepting that a breach is possible.
I think of the degree of institutional, (and personal), integrity demanded, and accepted, by both clerks and justices is more seriously attached to a person's core character. An agreement without "ifs" or "unless'(?)". Full stop.
GAI looked into it and found zip regarding an NDA or confidentiality agreement. Yet, there is a strong emphasis on the oath they take and a code of conduct as well as ethics. I did find one for Judicial Employees, so presume it may apply. See below.
Why an Oath for Law Clerks. A short read with history when Law Clerks came about and the oath.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage? … &page=
Last revised (Transmittal 02-067) March 21, 2022
Guide to Judiciary Policy
Vol. 2: Ethics and Judicial Conduct
Pt. A: Codes of Conduct
Ch. 3: Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees
There is a section - Duty of Confidentiality.
https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/ … a-ch03.pdf
Such an occurrence amounts to a breach of trust in the handling of deliberative materials from the Court that should have been reserved for official use only.
Scalia was right about it. But I cannot say that the leak, and we do not know who is responsible, is not fortuitous. Helps to get the focus on this issue and the positions of either side into just that much more clarity.
Now the battle lines are clearly drawn with both sides knowing what is at stake. The Republicans would have just as soon kept this all under wraps until the appropriate time, after midterms.
But, no such luck, spilt milk....That's malarky Cred. Not just you saying it, but others that may also feel the leak was "fortuitous."
Come on, that deserves a 'Really'? What has the leak changed that wouldn't have been the same when the opinion was officially released?
Do you think the focus would be any different when applied to the final opinion instead of the leaked-draft opinion? You can't say 'yeah it was wrong, but . . .' It was wrong and hasn't changed anything.
The difference in your 'focus' is only in a measure of months, not the outcome. Is getting a few months headstart on rioting and protesting the fortuitous gain you defend? Surely you don't think the leak had a positive-to-you effect on the Justices? I think the few Justices' public statements about this show that to be wrong.
The opinion would have been released before the mid-terms, and the "battle lines" have always been clearly drawn. What gain did the leak give you, besides a few bonus months of protest?
And look at the very worst-case scenario, (for you); what if it was a conservative leak and its purpose was for the uproar over the leak to lock in the Justices' already-stated opinions before they could change their mind. Would you think that is fortuitous for you?
Come on bud. It was a very damaging political stunt. It was wrong, and I can't see any benefit to the liberal causes. This is zealotry, no matter which side did it. You shouldn't be defending it.
GAGA, I did not say that I defended the leak. Those that are guilty should pay the penalty, whatever that is. And where is the proof as to where the leak comes from?
But spilt milk cannot be returned to the bottle, and thus there are going to be consequences.
I herald the activism and the protests and marches that this leak event will generate. The longer this is in the headlines the better to neutralize possible lagging fortunes for the Democrats this fall. Let people use this "reminder" to focus on draconian policies in several states and challenge Republicans regarding misogyny. And Nobody is talking about the destructive violence generally associated with the rightwing rabble. I am surprised that you would be upset with my position, as you should have expected it.
What the leak changes is to provide the impetus for an ever more robust and in your face protest which can only help me defeat Republicans this fall, and that cannot be all bad. And I will take "those months" and any additional time we can get to make the case regarding this controversy.
I am not really trying to change the opinion of the justices more that have the voters look carefully at Republican driven policy and ask more pertinent questions at the polls. This "leak" will help to keep the cauldron churning.
When I complained about the way Republicans stole two Supreme Court seats, they tell me that "life is not fair". Well, such is the case this time.
Uproars don't bother me as peOple have the right to peaceably assemble and protest. Just because it may not be to my advantage doesn't mean that my adversaries cannot do it.
I am not defending it, but I am not going to have sleepless nights over it either.....Spilled milk can be returned to the bottle, it's toothpaste that can't be put back into the tube.
You say you don't 'technically' defend the leak, yet you call it "fortuitous" and you "herald" the chaos it has provoked by activists' protests. You rationalize your support of it with the 'you did it so it's okay that I'm doing it' excuse. You praise it as a "reminder" to focus anger. But, you say you are not defending the leak. I think you are also saying you are okay with any means that further your ends.
I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised by your position, but I was.
GAI don't know if you want to return spilt milk to the bottle, depending on what it spilled upon...
This abortion rights matter is serious business and activism is a way to address and keep in the public eye right until November.
Yes, anger, fear and loathing needs to be focused against the Republicans and the Right, from those who are concerned about losing basic rights. All this to be express within the purview of the law, of course, yet to the maximum extent.
My problem with you always is that just only one side is expected to "turn the other cheek" while freely being battered by the other side. The abuses from the other side is ok. But, I only have 2 cheeks and enough is enough!
Now that the genie is out of the bottle, what do you think we should do? I don't have to be ok with it to simply acknowledge that it has happened, so am I to ignore it?First, you have to stop reading 'turn the other cheek' context into my responses. It is never there, and it's not "there" in this response either.
My points have always been about doing what is right. That I think that does equate to being 'the better person' is only logical, it has nothing to do with 'cheeks.' That you think so seems to come from you deciding that 'if you ain't with me you're against me', so I'm gonna get some payback, anyway I can. You have set aside your individual character to adopt that of your 'team's' zealots.
Your recent comments scream with the claim that two wrongs do make a right. as long as you are doing the second wrong, and that your ends do justify any means of achievement.
Even when you must acknowledge a point, (I'm not defending it, but . . . , I don't agree with it, but . . . it isn't right, but . . . It may be true, but . . .), you always have to add a "but" that dismisses the point you can't argue, rather than discussing it as a reality. In essence, dismissing the person behind the point you couldn't argue. That ain't right, that's zealotry bud.
Hopefully, you will read the context of my statement instead of taking it personally. It's intended as an explanation of perception, not a personal slander.
*We still good?
GAWe are good. I am always open to constructive criticism as long as you are.
For doing what is right to work in this system, everyone has to do it. Otherwise we have a situation where one side continues to abuse the other and that won't stand for very long.
I am not throwing Molotov cocktails. We are in contentious times, and I am tired of bringing peashooters to try and discuss in a civil way the issues of our times with those that use any tool to thwart it.
You are confusing in your charge that I am a zealot, elaborate if you please?
You still come across to me as taking one side while speaking about some overriding rules of decorum, that applies to one side and not the other.
My character remains, but the Right and its abuses must be identified and countered.I never thought your character changed, but I was unsure of my first word-choice so I tried to tone it down a bit. Originally it was something like you have 'submerged' your character into that of your team.
Anyway . . . for atonement, let me backtrack a bit on that "zealot" thing until I can think of a more clear explanation.
I do understand what you mean about "pea shooters" and feeling it is right to do 'it', (whatever the "it" is), because the other side did "it" first. Even more, I can see why you always feel you are just being asked to turn the other cheek, but I hammer on you because I know, that you know, that just because doing something right is hard, it shouldn't legitimize accepting something that is wrong as right.
My perception is that you agree the leak is wrong, but feel like you have to mitigate its wrongness, because you think your team did it. I would bet that if the sides were reversed—the leak would have benefitted the Republicans, you would never have considered mitigation. You would have heaped condemnation. And I would heap it too, just like I am on the 'supposed' liberal leaker.
That has been our conversation, just about the leak; who, how, and why, not whether the rationalizations for it are true or false.
I view this leak to be as damaging to our national psyche as Jan. 6th was. You should remember that I condemned that too, (except for the part that it was a real coup or insurrection attempt), so my criticism isn't partisan. I just pick on the screw-ups no matter who or what they are. (not you, I was hammering on you, not picking on you.) ;-)
GALets talk about your perception. I don't know who did IT. I am not mitigating, I have been in military service and know what FOUO, secret and top secret designation mean and the importance based on requests based on the Freedom of Information Act from the public to my agency as for the need to protect deliberative materials and processes as a threat to impartial evaluation. Using the appropriate exemption to justify withholding information.
I don't like Republican leaders nor policy, but what is good for the goose....
I can't say that I don't like the way things turned out, but it is still much like an Act of God until the leaker is identified. So, events over which no one seems to have control works to my advantage, should I be upset?
The leaker betrayed a confidence whether it is from the Left or Right, it is wrong. I have said that, but an opportunity has been opened and I have no doubt that the Right would exploit it under similar circumstances. So, what is wrong?
You are way off as compared to me. I know who was responsible for January 6th. Has anyone identified who leaked the deliberative material? There are not lives lost nor property damaged nor an attack on democratic institutions associated with the leak. I will not acknowledge such until it occurs. There is no comparison between the insurrection of January 6th and this leak revelation, not for me. That is unless the Right and Republicans are going to be intimidated by upcoming protests and activism. As long as these remain within the law, I guess that would be too bad for them.
I want you to be just as hard on Republicans and conservatives when they don't do the "Right thing". I will be watching....If you didn't first think it was a liberal leaker, then that's a chip at my perception.
The leak was like an act of God? That's a characterization I wouldn't have thought of, but taking advantage of it wasn't my point.
My comparison to Jan. 6th was my own. I wasn't talking about calculable physical damage but the incalculable institutional damage. If I were religious, I would say they were both blasphemies.
Are you really going to be watching, that will make me nervous?
GAWho knows? I have been hearing from more than a few sources that the leaks may have come from the Right.
I don't believe that there has been any threat to the Supreme Court, the real culprit or target will be Republicans, the state legislatures and the executive that they control, and GOP policy regarding this issue in general.
That is a confrontation and debate we all want to have and not be swept under the rug.
You don't have to be nervous, just keeping you on your toes regarding the consistency of your arguments and points of view.I think both possibilities have believable speculations. I did think liberal as a gut reaction but that quickly changed to a shrug. It could be either side.
The protests at the Justices' homes and the increased protection at the Court disagree with your thought about the danger.
I agree that debate and a legislative decision are necessary, it's time to stop battling about interpretations, it hasn't worked.
GA
Politics... there we have it.
Yes, it will be front page news every day from here until the midterms.
Won't matter if the economy collapses, nukes are dropped, food disappears off the shelves.... you are correct, for a certain part of the political spectrum this will be a priority to keep headlined going forward.But But But --- won't many of us be worried about what a mess America has become? LOL
I mean will grandma and PaPa be worried about abortion or their 401k's?
Or are those that live week to week (62 % of Americans) more worried about buying food or paying rent more than abortion? Or how about our boards, will many states being badly affected by the
overflow of migrants be more concerned about paying for all the new migrants than abortion? Not to mention crime, being bombarded with a leftist socialist wish list, and a Government t that is printing money so quick the presses can't keep up. And I can't leave out the threats of the new Disinformation Board?
I sort of think abortion won't even be considered by most Americans. I also think, most will become sickened at watching the left protest about abortion. I mean, not to be cruel, but no I won't go there.
In my view, all this political ploy has done is bring the Democrats into the light of day --- and their ploys have become pretty much so predictable,You underestimate the power of mass media propaganda. It steers enough of the people in the direction they want most of the time. Look how many threads are on the very topic in here, for instance.
They don't need to convince the majority, just their base, roughly the 33% or less of Americans that identify as Democrat, Liberal or Progressive.
In other words, they need to convince themselves... it unifies them, those not watching MSNBC, CNN, etc. aren't likely to know much about it.
And those are the people who, as you say, will be paying more attention to food and gas prices, or their disappearing retirement funds.I think most people are keenly aware of rights being taken away. It's not just a abortion, it's all of the rights that were predicated on Roe that are now likely to fall also. This country is becoming more authoritarian.
In my view, most likely a large majority of Americans are aware of the dangers of our very morals, values, and freedoms are under attack. As I have shared many times --- my faith is in Americans not to buy into what this current Government is pushing.
They can pull out all the stops, and dish up all their ploys...Americans at this point could recite their old worn-out playbook.
So pleased to see the nut jobs beating a baby doll outside a church this morning... So, shows how crazy and irrational the left is.
But in a way I am pleased with their stupidity, protesting outside our churches just shows what they will want to try to control next.
All I can say about their antics this morning --- Thank you, Jesus.
" This country is becoming more authoritarian."
No Americans are stamping out the seeds of authoritarians. And the liberals are truely making our job easy.
A Yahoo News/YouGov poll, one of the first to be conducted entirely after the leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s controversial draft opinion, suggests that Republicans risk overplaying their hand on abortion ahead of the 2022 midterms and that Democrats could benefit if the hot-button issue is on the ballot.
The survey of 2,577 U.S. adults, which was conducted from May 3 to May 6, found that registered voters initially preferred a generic Democrat (44%) over a generic Republican (39%) by 5 percentage points when asked how they would vote in their district if the congressional election were being held today.
when voters were asked to choose instead between a “pro-choice Democrat” and a “pro-life Republican,” GOP support fell to 31% while Democratic support held steady, more than doubling the gap between the two candidates, to 13 percentage points.
By the same token, 69% of Americans say they would “oppose Congress passing a law that bans abortion nationwide.” The Washington Post reported this week that conservative groups have already met with their congressional allies about a possible “nationwide ban on the procedure if Republicans retake power in Washington,” and several GOP senators have started sketching out policy details.
The new Yahoo News/YouGov poll also says a full 28% of pro-choice Americans, for instance, now say they will vote only for a candidate who “shares [their] view on abortion.”
This will be significant. A lot of folks just don't take kindly to their rights being taken away.Yahoo is a very liberal source of information, very biased.
As much as I try to avoid all American news sources I do use their Financial webpage as one of my tools to track stocks and information related to them.
But, as I said, they will keep this issue as the headline topic until after the mid-terms because it serves their interests to do so. CNN, MSNBC, NPR, etc. they will avoid talking about gas prices, food prices, Biden fumbling through the day as much as possible, deflecting and shifting blame for this Administration's gross failures to the American people wherever they can.Thanks for sharing. The Democrats are desperate, they have nothing to run on, and they have a president with polls that show him to be failing in his job. The left media has become a joke to many, and won't carry water for this administration. Sorry abortion will do nothing to help the Dems. Nothing but point out they are spinning out of control and needed the abortion issue, which actually is at the bottom of the list of concerns that Americans have.
I actually think the left's crazy protests work to make them look foolish, and more Dmes will not want to be associated with their antics.
Hey, Nov will be very telling. And you said a mouthful Americans do not like their rights being taken away.
Abortion is and always has been an important issue, and will be, forever---- But it will not sway an election. That will be about if I can use one word --- Confidence. (the feeling or belief that one can rely on someone or something; firm trust.)
In my view, I have never witnessed an administration that has been more
inept to handle --- anything.I have heard other opinions that this abortion fight will not sway an election. That may be right. Or, it may be generally right at different levels of elections.
Thinking as I go, it is probably state seat elections that will be most affected. The closer to the grassroots the stronger the passion.
Yep, that's where I'm going. I think your thought is right relative to Federal elections, (Congress), but I think it will play hell with state-level elections, (statehouses).
GAThe Republicans have wanted to overturn Roe for 50 years. Some see this coming full circle and a win. So yes, this could play differently in individual states. I feel many red states hope to really put detours in their abortion laws, and make it harder, and harder to get an abortion. But is this what their constituents want, that is more the question? Let's face it blue there is no question about what will occur in blue states.
I truely feel if abortion laws are left up to states, the voters by majority will be heard, and ultimately each state will have abortion laws they truely want and can live with --- Will it take another 50 years? Who knows.
I don't think there is a chance this will spill into our 2024 Presidential election. We have too much going on that I feel most Americans' are much more concerned about.
This morning I viewed many of the abortion protests, as an American, )and I can only speak for myself) what I viewed sickened me. To see these nut jobs on church steps, when many are celebrating Mothers Day, is a wonderful tradition... We have this type of not respecting others' right to worship in peace and celebrate a long tradition. Many showed up with their children, to be welcomed by chants, grotesque posters, and actually obscene scantly dressed women... What happened to "our rights?
A picture is worth a thousand words... And ya know what --- I think many Americans feel as I do. This kind of crap is disgusting and disrespects many of us. I think when this bunch tries to threaten Christianity, it will work to wake up Americans to what they hope to go after next.
I think you are right about the state's majority finally forcing moderation after living through a couple of election cycles of zealots. They will be voted out. (hopefully)
I am not saying that period of pain is the right way to go, but I think that's what it will take.
As for criticisms of your pro-abortion protester, I would compare that to what I, (and my family), have seen from anti-abortion protesters: A sunny morning family walk on our local resort town's beach boardwalk; Kids in tow when our path is blocked by half-a-dozen single-file protesters with 4'x4' placards showing graphic photos of bloody and butchered fetuses.
GAOne difference -- the ugly costume this woman decided to wear certainly did not represent or depict any form of truth. I know of not one state where abortion is not legal at this point.
Hate to say it those graphic photos of bloody and butchered fetuses were a result of abortion, those ugly photos show a form of truthfulness.
I truely do become upset with any type of protest when they bring it to a church's steps. That is just my view.It is a first amendment right though.
Yes, it is a right. So, how do you think it goes over with Christens when they see their place peace and of worship disturbed.
They dig in deeper, and boy will they vote... Hopefully, these protesters keep up their protests. It will certainly make many think about what is threatened, and it is not abortion rights --- but Christianity,Not everyone is Christian in this country though. Are you supporting just a Christian vision?
The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The number of American citizens who identify as Christian is decreasing year by year.
"But is this what their constituents want, that is more the question? "
How far are you willing to go to let voters decide the rights of others? Should we ban gay marriage? What about when parents don't want transgender children in the classroom? Should we let voters decide to take away the right to birth control because it's their belief? Deny the rights of parents to make family decisions, such as whether their children are home-schooled or go to religious schools? The right to privacy also supports an adult’s right to decide their medical care, and an adult’s right to die, by rejecting medical care in certain circumstances. Further, the right to privacy supports artificial insemination.
Then there are several justices who seem to believe that no privacy right can be implied in the Constitution.
All of the above mentioned rights/scenarios were implied from the same precedent as Roe.
I just cannot get to the place where I believe fundamental human rights protected by the Constitution should now be decided on the popular vote."How far are you willing to go to let voters decide the rights of others?"
This belief would fit in well in such places as China, North Korea, Cuba, Russa. There are people around the world who are also against people's right for self-governing.I think I was very clear --- I feel red states have every right to vote for representatives that promote, and will uphold their wishes using the majority.
It means banning abortion or gay marriage in a given state.
Here is where only honesty will do --- Do you realize many Americans
do not approve of gay marriage for one reason or another. They oppose it. Many oppose abortion, and yes letting transgender children in classrooms with their children.
These are not my beliefs, but just where our society is. It's time the left face these truths...
Yes, we should let the majority rule, yes our votes need to matter in red states as well as blue.
MY gosh, Faye --- this country is divided, and much of the divide has come about due to ideologies that are stepping on religious values.
Many Christians are not going to bend to what they find threatens their values, their morals.
So, let blue states do what they please, just don't think you have the right to dictate the many that are not willing to become dictated to, especially when you are talking about ideologies that touch on our religion, our values.
It seems you just don't feel abortion should be left up to the states. Not even sure why it should so upset you.
You go on and on about fear that many freedoms could be taken away by states. We are talking about at this point abortion. You give little thought or credit to American citizens for knowing what they want in their given states.Religion or religious values should not have anything to do with government. Christians aren't going to bend? What about Jews? Beyond being a violation of the human rights of pregnant people, limiting access to abortion is an imposition of governmental Christianity on us all. And it infringes on the religious liberty of every American Jew. For Jews, it is no exaggeration to say that access to abortion services isn’t just tolerated, it is a religious requirement, and has been for thousands of years. Surprised? The Torah couldn’t be more explicit: A fetus is not the same as a human life.
You're right, ideologies are stepping on religious values.
No, states should not dictate what has already been determined as a constitutional right. Freedom of choice should be a constitutional amendment. Government does not have the ability or right to take away bodily autonomy. And yes, many other freedoms that were built upon the precedence of Roe can and most likely will be taken away. I don't think most people are realizing it's an intricate house of cards. What American citizens "want" Should never come at the cost of limiting the rights of others."Religion or religious values should not have anything to do with government."
This latest left cause is a Government problem - The Judicial part of our federal government the Supreme Court. maybe keep their protest where it belongs at this point.
I am a Christain, I have respect for other religions. Hopefully, others will respect my right to worship as I choose.
Many of us are Christians and don't appreciate protesting on our church steps. Take it to the steps of the Supreme Court Building."maybe keep their protest where it belongs at this point."
Well the Supreme Court would have to roll back some of our first amendment rights for that. Some probably have their fingers crossed though. We have an awful lot of folks in this country who want to see a more authoritarian, strong man government dictating what is right and what is wrong. I guess it's okay until they come for a right that you value.
"it is a religious requirement, and has been for thousands of years. Surprised? The Torah couldn’t be more explicit: A fetus is not the same as a human life."
I would like you to quote, exactly in the Torah, where it accepts abortion.
In the Talmud, Sanhedrin 57b, defines “a man in a man” as a preborn baby in his mother’s womb. This specifically makes abortion a capital crime in the Jewish tradition.The Talmud explains that for the first 40 days of a woman’s pregnancy, the fetus is considered “mere fluid” and considered part of the mother until birth. The baby is considered a nefesh, Hebrew for “soul” or “spirit”. Once its head has emerged, and not before.
a verse in Exodus 21 that institutes a financial penalty against a man who injured a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry. As Rashi, the 11th-century commentator notes, that the consequence is only monetary indicates the Torah’s view that a murder has not been committed. Modern scholars extrapolate from Rashi that abortion is at worst not a capital crime.
Orthodox Judaism’s view of abortion does not align with the Catholic church or the Christian right of today. While there is a range of opinions in the sources, the halachic system shows tremendous compassion for the circumstances of the mother, family and the viability and health of the fetus. In Judaism, a fetus is not regarded as an independent being; it is part of the body of the person carrying it.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/articl … ewish-law/That is all an opinion. There are many jews who are against abortion. Many members of the orthodox Jewish community condemn abortion. Most members of the Conservative Jewish community are against abortion. I imagine the pro choice views would probably be held by the Reformed Jewish community.
Yes, Just as there are Christians who support the woman's right to choose.
Catholics’ views on abortion are not always aligned with the guidance of their church. Like U.S. adults overall, the majority of U.S. Catholics say abortion should be legal at least in some cases.
And in terms of opinion, what else do we have in terms of the Bible other than reasoned scholarly interpretation and opinion?
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 … -abortion/It doesn't make an interpretation right or wrong, it just comes down to who has the opinion you follow.
Depends on if you believe the scripture refers to a miscarriage or premature birth. There are good arguments for each point.
"MY gosh, Faye --- this country is divided, and much of the divide has come about due to ideologies that are stepping on religious values."
This is somewhere we differ, for the insistence that MY religious values must apply to YOU and everyone else is not reasonable. We are a country with religious freedom and that most definitely includes the freedom FROM religion. Whether the majority, up to 99% of the population, or a minority of 1%, that freedom should be inviolate.
That includes gay marriage, it includes transgender children in a public classroom, it includes both in the workplace. It includes allowing different faiths in a public business to do commerce, it includes everyone in the military. Religious beliefs cannot be forced onto other people; that is a very basic right in our country.
Abortion, though...abortion is another matter for it is the murder of children that is a concern, not a religious belief. Murder is not accepted in our country, whether by the religious or other. Until we settle whether abortion is murder or not that debate and fight will continue. Unfortunately, in today's climate of "I am always right and if you don't agree you are wrong, and I refuse to compromise at all), it is not likely to be settled.House State Affairs Committee Chairman Brent Crane, R-Nampa, said he would hold hearings on legislation banning emergency contraception and abortion pills during a Friday interview with Idaho Public Television.
Why though? The "morning after" pill can be you used even hours before fertilization would actually take place. Why are we seeing this kind of overreach by government? This is a step beyond and completely unacceptable. This is trying to exert power and control over women. It's getting awfully extreme, awfully quick isn't it? I'm just currently waiting on the first far right radical to advance the idea of the death penalty for abortion. It's coming. Now won't that just be the height of hypocrisy?
https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/pol … 07007.html"Why though? "
The answer was in the link you gave: "he said that he has heard of safety concerns with emergency contraceptives, like Plan B, and abortion pills, and would therefore be willing to hold hearings about them."
The answer then is not about abortion but about the negative health affects on the mother. Personally, I find it hypocritical - my wife nearly died from using the ordinary pill (she is not alone there), yet he isn't concerned about it at all. It kind of gives the lie to his statement, at least IMO.
More likely, I think, is that the "morning after" pill can be, and is, used to rid the body of a fertilized egg - a human being in the eyes of the far, radical, right.Plan b has been around for 20 years. It has been used safely and is FDA approved. He has a problem just now with it? Hard to believe. I'm more inclined to believe it's a cover to further limit women's rights.
Well, while I pretty much agree that it is a cover for something else, we both know that it isn't about women's rights. Not unless you consider it a right to murder her children.
Why does the pro-choice group pretend that that is not the primary objective of the pro-lifers and instead claim the objective of their opponent is something it simply is not?
"This is somewhere we differ, for the insistence that MY religious values must apply to YOU and everyone else is not reasonable"
To clarify my statement -- - this country is divided, and MUCH of the divide has come about due to ideologies that are stepping on religious values."
And it is unfortunate and a pain on some sides,
but many religions find abortion a sin, period. I am pointing out that the abortion issue to many is all about religion, and morals. I am not saying anyone's religious values should be
I in no way wanted to indicate one religion was better or should stand out. should apply to another. I am simply saying religion is a huge part of the abortion issue. Christianity is still the most prevalent religion in the
world. In the US not so much...
All are reasonable, so, let's realize that includes Christianity. We are not about to be pushed to the side, and not demand respect for our beliefs.
I in no respect said or feel one religion must be thought of greater than another. Just sharing I feel -- this country is divided, and MUCH of the divide has come about due to ideologies that are stepping on religious values." I feel a great part of what has caused our great divide has to do with some feeling very unhappy having religious values displaced with what some view as abhorrent ideologies. Some may not want to hear this, but in my view, it rings true.
I doubt very much if the two sides pro life and pro-abortion supporters could ever come together. In my view, pro-lifer values are morally based, and they will not ever see abortion as anything but killing. They are very much differently wired than pro-choice supporters. Their beliefs are based on religion, faith... Why should they compromise their religious beliefs?
Should it bother Pro-choice supporters so much to feel a red state will have different abortion laws? Should it bother them that pro-lifers do not agree with or will settle for having their rights respected in their own states? When the hell is people going to realize, that this country is split, and split by sheer idelogies.
Will this be our next war, people feeling they can dictate to the other half?
Because in my view, this is what we are headed for. I certainly will not give up my values, my right to believe what is right and what I consider wrong. I have no problem admitting I have little to no respect for most left ideas. But, could care less what they do in their states. Let the people in red states dictate their own abortion laws. I believe in majority rules..."Why should they compromise their religious beliefs?"
This is a good conversation striking at the root. I do not expect anyone to compromise their morals or religious beliefs. They should not be imposed, forcefully onto others though. The right to a safe legal abortion should be there for those who choose to exercise that right. Why should one group withhold a right from another group? I'm just missing the logic in this. If you oppose abortion, don't have one. But to exert control over another in such a way, especially based on a particular religion, I find problematic.
It is very traditional in more orthodox Jewish communities to cover your hair after you are married as an issue of modesty. Should you be forced to wear a head covering in public because others find a show of hair a immodest? In terms of religious-based practices, All of us have things we would find offensive. Yes, this is a more inconsequential example I am giving but I'm trying to strike at the notion of applying our deeply held beliefs to others that don't have the same view. Who is to sort this out? Whose views or morals become more important?
The only difference I see, is one group attempting to prevent another from autonomy over their own body.
As far as majority rules and to vote, We are talking about a civil right, a right protected by the constitution. It's not a budget issue , a ballot measure or simply voting for a politician. We are talking about a protection guaranteed by our constitution.
I don't think this debate should involve religion whatsoever."I certainly will not give up my values, my right to believe what is right and what I consider wrong."
Nearly all of your post comes down to this one statement. The problem, in the abortion issue, is that that belief is being demanded of everyone else. The opinion that life begins at conception (or any other particular time) must be shared by all, and that means no abortions for anyone, not just those that share the same belief.
The religious do not acknowledge that their opinion is just that, instead insisting that whether it comes from the church, from God or from their own observations it is not fact but only an opinion. No other opinion is acceptable as the religious conclusion is taken as factual and therefore all must agree and follow the same path.
The rights to believe as you wish are not trampled on; what IS trampled is the right of others to believe as they wish. The trampling, therefore, is not being done by non-believers but by the religious. IMO this is not uncommon; the religious have, throughout history, followed the same path; "I make the rules, according to my religious beliefs, and you must follow them". Whether blue laws, prohibition, creationism or abortion it always seems to be the religious attempting to force their beliefs onto others via the law. All while complaining that their beliefs are being trampled when there is opposition and it doesn't work.
The religious are quite free to follow their beliefs (with the except of when those violate our laws, such as enforcement and punishment according to Sharia law)...but they are not free to force others to do the same. You mentioned gay marriage; the religious are quite free to refuse to marry the same sex, but they do not have the right to force others to do the same. That does not mean their beliefs are being compromised; it means that they may not compromise the beliefs of others.Your last statement gets at what a lot of this is about; that a certain group wants to apply their belief system to others. To make others adhere to their system of beliefs. And yes this is compromising or suppressing the beliefs of others.
"Your last statement gets at what a lot of this is about; that a certain group wants to apply their belief system to others. To make others adhere to their system of beliefs. And yes this is compromising or suppressing the beliefs of others."
Yes, this does sound like the democrat/communist party. This is a political party that is okay with breaking the law such as protesting at places of worship, homes of Supreme Court Justices, and fire bombing counseling centers. This is no surprise since this is a party okay with burning and looting major US cities and causing over a billion dollars in damage. Yeah, it is a good description of the democrat/communist party.States would be voting on the referendum in regards to abortion laws as Mississippi has done. The voice of their citizens will be heard. A majority would rule. This is a very fair way of making abortion laws.
Yes, naturally red states would have a minority that is not pleased with restrictive abortion laws. As it would be for many conservative pro-life women that lived in a blue state to live with very liberal abortion laws.
I feel the Supreme court has had to split the baby so to speak, due to such a hotbed issue. No side should have their beliefs nullified by the other.
As I mentioned before Republicans have wanted Roe overturned for many years. I think the Supreme Court has come up with a fair solution when it comes to the issue of abortion laws.
If the SC does send abortion laws back to the states, I myself feel it is a fair way for both sides to be heard, and dictate the abortion laws in red/blue states.
You seem to assume Republican states will ban abortion, I think differently. I feel yes red states will have very well-thought-out abortion laws. I also will trust women in red states to be heard and have laws they find fair.The problem is that constitutionally protected rights aren't meant to go to the states for votes. Again, If that's the case then a whole lot of other Rights will be on the chopping block. So I assume you are saying that you believe abortion is not protected under the constitution as it has been decided and carried out over the last almost 50 years?
Also in Mississippi, they did not put this to the voters. It was an act completely taken upon by their legislature. This is the case with all of the states who have currently enacted abortion bans. They have basically rushed to construct laws and punishments regarding abortion as they will go into effect immediately when Roe falls. Have you seen the extent of the laws that have been put on the books in red States already Just waiting for that decision?
Replace the word religious with the word "democrat/communist" with what you just wrote, and it is pretty much an accurate description of the current day democrat/communist party.
I still feel I have not made myself clear. Abortion has always been gridlocked.
I am acknowledging I am for letting states make their own abortion laws. This actually does give some relief to both sides. Yes, red states would most likely restrict abortions. This is a problem the people if unsatisfied can handle in individual states. Blue states will naturally have very liberal abortion laws.
You can not remove religion from the abortion issue. Many religions consider abortion a sin. So, it would seem impossible to remove it altogether.
I don't think those that do not see abortion as killing, have the right to impose that ideology on me. Perhaps they could keep their beliefs to themselves, and not condemn the many that see abortion as a sin. Why in the world should the pro-lifers not be considered when abortion laws are made?
"That does not mean their beliefs are being compromised; it means that they may not compromise the beliefs of others."
This goes both ways..."I don't think those that do not see abortion as killing, have the right to impose that ideology on me.
They're not though. There is no action attached. There is an action attached to pro-lifers beliefs though. The action is to prevent abortion therefore effectively forcing their views onto a whole group. Your belief that abortion is wrong remains completely untouched.
You seem to be saying that views that are different from the majority should be subverted. No one is asking you to give up anything but it would seem that you are looking to take away the rights of others that are guaranteed under the constitution because they don't align with your beliefs. If we want to start sending constitutionally protected rights to the states for votes we may as well set that document on fire now.
Are you so deeply offended at the thought of abortion that you must really force a 12-year-old to carry her stepdaddy's baby to term, a woman to carry her rapist baby to term, The woman's baby who is catastrophically, physically or developmentally damaged must be carried to term? The woman who now knows she is forced to carry a baby to term so she plans to leave it in the firehouse drop box? Send a woman to jail for escaping her state boundaries to seek an abortion? I am very much having a difficult time how this is affecting pro-lifers to the point that they must limit safe and legal abortion. Limit the rights of others in favor of their beliefs.I am not asking to take away anyone's rights I am just saying that currently, it appears the SC has come up with a good solution. Let states, and the citizens that live in a state make the laws by vote.
Not all will be winners. Women that live in red states may be disappointed to live with the majority type of abortion laws, as women that live in blue states end up displeased with liberal abortion laws.
It would seem you feel it "my way or the highway"... This does not work with abortion. Abortion to many is a sin, and will never accept abortion. Just as many pro-abortion will never accept their right to have an abortion.
Many women do not approve of abortion, they need to be heard, and they need to be considered by the SC when they rule and offer a solution.
I am all for each side to have rights --- Right in their own state.
This will bring a good solution to this long-time problem.
Are you so afraid to see what women in red states do with such a vote? Do you feel that they should not have the right to make up their own minds in regards to abortion laws?
In some respect will this threaten pro-choice women, and put a spotlight on them, will it truely show how many women may not approve of abortion.
It would seem liberals are very upset at the prospect of women all women's voices being heard, in the form of a vote.
In my view, we have come to the point where states are divided, and all have the right to dictate laws that suit their citizens. It has clearly come to that... We have a nation divided by ideologies.I think we're losing track of the fact that the Supreme Court is essentially saying this is not a right protected by the constitution. This has nothing to do with pro-life or pro-choice. Sin or not. There's nothing to do with Any religious briefs. It's a statement about the constitution and as such you have other unenumerated rights that were given with Roe as a foundation, along with others that were used as a foundation for Roe. I don't think people are realizing the slippery slope we are now on as these are all intertwined. It is a scaffolding of rights that is having structural elements knocked out.
I can see your concerns in regards to the "slippery slope". This could open debate on many other hot issues, all of which you have shared.
We are a Democracy, and I would hope we could work through any problems. If we can't, this would be unfortunate. But, in my view, the country is now split, and we will at some point adjust to having a split society. We have no choice, do we?
Well, Ken, nobody is dismissing the other concerns you mentioned. It is just that when you threaten personal freedoms and rights, people tend to pay attention.
The ease at which you can dismiss the significance of this matter has to confirm that we cannot be on the same side."It is just that when you threaten personal freedoms and rights, people tend to pay attention."
This is so true... However, have the Republican's not been fighting to overturn Roe for 50 years? You may want to consider there is another side to all of this. Many Republicans are pro-life, they don't look at abortion as a right. They do not feel or believe abortion is an issue that threatens the personal freedoms and rights of women They feel it threatens the unborn child's rights and freedoms.
There are two sides, and both have their beliefs. Both have the right to their beliefs.Yes, Sharlee, Republicans have spent half a century in the attempt to undermine a compromise made on a contentious issue. They want it ALL their way and that is going to be fought and resisted by our side to the maximum extent possible using all tools available in what I like to think is still a society with free speech as its foundation.
Louisiana is talking about criminalizing abortion at the point of conception. Do you know what that means? Now we are moving into the purview of contraception and birth control, restricting women's access to self medications and any number of things. It would all be part of the squeamish Rightwing playbook of controlling sexual activity among consenting adults. Who can believe that other Red States when presented with the opportunity would not do the same?
Rightwing jurors on the Supreme Court seem to have a problem with the concept of privacy and of being left alone. Just how many more rulings would they attempt overrule that we all thought was settled law?
It is at the point where I say that what goes on in your private boudoir is none of anyone's business.
If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. This allows people who want and need a choice to have it. Consequently, conservatives need to keep their beliefs to themselves and mind their own business.
Relative to the speculation about the leaker's politics, conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, I stumbled across a blurb that described the opposing camps:
The speaker isn't important, I just liked the description'
It came from a Hill article that describes the competing theories, even noting that the WSJ may have been tipped first, and the draft leak was a retaliation.
Supreme Court leak becomes new top political mystery
GAI don't know, from the standpoint of the Right, what the left sees as "Constitutionally protected rights, is just more "liberal licentiousness".
What rights are protected by the Constitution still have far too much play in regards to interpretation when I would be happier with a clear demarcation.
Conservatives, even today, have been known to question the appropriateness of Connecticut ruling regarding contraceptives (1966)Miranda (1966), Loving vs the State of Virginia (1967) and even the ground mark Brown vs the Kansas Board of Education (1954). This all came from what conservatives would call the activist Warren Court. One that created new rights and would challenge state legislatures and their laws. A court that would make law rather than interpret them.
Recently, conservatives now confess that they would have found all these rulings as suspect.
As a Black person, where was MY protection? Was I to be content with racist and bigoted state legislatures that clung to tradition and the status quo as the basis of their law? Was it licentious to insist on equal rights and equal protection under the law? After all, this is America, could Alabama just legislate it away?
There are limits to States Rights and we need to more accurately determine where they are.
If Roe is overturned with the explanation that abortion, female contraception and sexuality can be legislated by the state, how far does it go?
Red states can legislate restricted laws, while blue states can approach this issue in a liberal fashion. But, we are going to have a divide, much like slave state vs free states and an overground convoy rather than an Underground Railroad. Rubio of Florida has already threatened the big retailers Apple, Amazon, etc. with reprisals regarding tax exemptions if they agree to support women who seek abortions elsewhere, and this is just the beginning. So, conservatives will also be at odds with corporate America, when they were once bedfellows.
While most of us agree with the appropriateness of those 1960s rulings now, the process of having to overturn every state law should not be something we have to repeat every time.
Those rights need to be defined by the court if not already by the Constitution, otherwise conservatives will grab the lever of the time machine and take us back to the 19th century."Conservatives, even today, have been known to question the appropriateness of Connecticut ruling regarding contraceptives (1966)Miranda (1966), Loving vs the State of Virginia (1967) and even the ground mark Brown vs the Kansas Board of Education (1954)."
You can relax. There is not any real support for any of this. These things aren't going to change anytime soon.
Like I said before, these issues don't involve the taking of an innocent unborn life. So, there is no passion behind changing any of these laws. This argument is a red herring.
Related Discussions
- 28
We Must Rise Up To Force Accountability Using A Diversity Of Tactics
by Sharlee 2 years ago
Left-wing activist groups are planning to send protesters to the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices following a leak indicating the court may soon overturn Roe v. Wade.The activists are organizing under the moniker "Ruth Sent Us" and have published the supposed home addresses of...
- 129
The Hill. Opinion: The 'Scared Majority'.
by Tim Mitchell 2 months ago
The ‘scared majority’ could deliver a landslide victory for Trump by Douglas MacKinnon, opinion contributor published at The...
- 31
How can any American support the Republican Party???
by Thomas Byers 11 years ago
How can any American support the Republican Party???They are out of touch with reality and really don't care about the middle class and poor. We can only hope that the Hispanic people will vote for the Democrats and keep a Republican President out of office any time in the near future. Have you...
- 13
The Right, Conservatives, Republicans prefer Autocracy over Democracy?
by Credence2 2 years ago
I find this topic most disturbing as it is a reflection of the goals and aspirations of the American Right wing movement. There is no such thing as it being "fringe" as Trump, Carlson and many Republican Senators avoided direct answers or said that the Orbanz authoritarian regime in...
- 160
What is YOUR analysis, opinion, and synopsis of President Barack Obama
by Grace Marguerite Williams 11 years ago
in light of the current sociopolitical and socioeconomic situation regarding the United States of America? Do you believe that President Obama is doing the best job he can under the circumstances? Do you maintain that President Obama can do a much better job as President? Do you contend that...
- 342
Better hang on to your MAGAT hats, Rightwingers!
by Credence2 2 years ago
Republicans feign outrage over Biden's recent comments?It's enough to make you dizzy, isn't it? Here we have evidence of Republicans routinely calling Democrats fascists (and communists and even pedophiles etc.) yet they are, once again having a hissy fit over Biden using the same word to describe...