SCOTUS has the votes to overturn Roe vs Wade. Former President Donald Trump appointed 3 conservative justices to the Supreme Court of the United States which has given the SCOTUS a conservative leaning for the many years to come. Another example how political maneuverings affect the delivery of justice by the highest court in the USA (not uncommon to the USA). A leak of a draft opinion suggests SCOTUS will reverse Roe vs Wade, one of the biggest wedge issues ‘bubbling’ in the US public space; the right of a woman to have an abortion which the Roe vs Wade decision has protected for 50 years after SCOTUS issued a 7 to 2 decision in favour of Norma McCorvey 1973.
SCOTUS has the votes to overturn Roe vs Wade. Former President Donald Trump appointed 3 conservative justices to the Supreme Court of the United States which has given the SCOTUS a conservative leaning for the many years to come. Another example how political maneuverings affect the delivery of justice by the highest court in the…
418 responses to “SCOTUS Exposed: Roe vs Wade”
-
A thought just came to me- how are these damages to be assessed? People who are run over by a drunk driver have to prove damages in a very real way.
What will be the basis for these damages? In any proper court the Defendant should end up being awarded COSTS from the Claimant on account of the lawsuit being frivilous and without merit.
Unless the Claimant is the father who did not give written consent. Of course, he would need DNA to prove his paternity.
Ooops! Blob dun burn up in the incinerator!
-
-
How does one learn anything in life? Often we read books. Often we watch television. Now we have information overload on the internet.
MSNBC etc. present us with a bird’s eye view. We watch Americans present their views. Real people talking.
So Donna can listen and talk too.
Artax wants me to comment on the Barbadian economy and how to make it better. A much more complex matter. I am no expert. I guess I should wait until I am.
-
Under US Law
Baby has no Legal Rights
and is not even a US Citizen
until after birth and registration -
re That is not what you told WURA last week when you were cussing her and wanting DDD to join in.
YOU ARE MISTAKEN THAT I WANTED YOU TO JOIN IN DDD
I DONT NEED YOU OR ANY LIKE YOU TO HELP ME MAKE MY POINT. I AM QUITE CAPABLE.
YOU HAVE DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR DDD. DELUSIONS OF GRANDEURI paid you no mind as I knew you would soon be linking up with her to cuss me again. I WILL CUSS YOU WHEN YOU DESERVE IT DDD DUMMY
I DONT NEED YOU TO PAY ME MIND. I HAVE A LOVELY WIFE TO DO THAT. DDD.
She ain’t coming this time neither, it seems. NO SHE CANT HER WHITE SLAVE MASTER WONT LET THE BLACK SLAVE TO OPINE ON THIS TOPIC, AND SHE RARELY MAKES SENSE, AND CAN SING ONLY ONE TUNE
You are a very sick person.
ACTUALLY GOD HAS BEEN VERY GOOD TO ME HE HAS PROTECTED PRSERVED AND PROVIDED FOR ME AND MY HEALTH IS QUITE GOOD —–BOTH MENTAL AND PHYSICALDearest Darling Donna. We does cuss one another regular but I will always defend her because at least she has a brain and can cogitate. INDEED EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE. COGITATION ONLY MEANS THAT SOMETIMES YOUR WIRES WORK. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU ARE NOT MAD AS A HATTER.
Dah was las’ week! YES IT WAS. EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE AND I AM WILLING TO DEFEND GOD’S CREATURES…EVEN ONE SUCH AS YOU. EVEN ONE OF YOUR ILK THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PSYCHIATRIC DEFECTS THAT ONE CAN DETECT.
Oh dear! INDEED
THANKS FOR PROVIDING ME WITH THAT BIT OF MORNING MIRTH DDD
BU NEVER FAILS -
Rape Murder It is just a shot away Love Sisters it is just a kiss away
@ Dr GP representing the Trump Republicans Wingnuts
Where is the evidence there is a God up above or down below or in front behind or left of right of you
Put up or Shut up or act quiet and ignore the question like you always do like a throw a shade crew bitch
Lisa Fischer – Gimme Shelter- 8 Versions
-
Just look at what happened to the Haitians who got stranded here because they fell for the pay someone thousands of US dollars per person to migrate to Guyana or Brazil. I can’t understand how the Bajans immigration officials fell for that one and let them in.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
BRIBES AND KICKBACKS
OR YOU PULLING A DOMPEY
-
Baje…saw an article earlier this week where it’s well known that many are involved in HUMAN TRAFFICKING and just like with the minimum “monthly 3 tons of cocaine” or more and containers of guns passing through the region like clockwork., pretend they are not….it’s all well documented…kinda surprised that there was so much detail..
“if ya carrying weak weapons you will be RUN OVER…
“According to the old apologue, if you put a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will instantly leap out. But if you put it in a pot filled with lukewarm water and gradually heat it, the frog will remain in the water, unable to detect the gradual increase in temperature until it’s too late and boils to death.
This week, when Politico reported on the leaked Supreme Court draft decision set to overturn 50 years of precedent and relegate Roe v. Wade to the proverbial dustbin of history, the nation woke up finding ourselves in boiling water.
In truth, it should not come as a surprise.
Not only were they successful on offense, but Republicans also schooled Democrats on defense, effectively throwing their bodies in front of Democratic choices. Inexplicably, they always seemed to be victorious no matter the electoral makeup or circumstance. In recent years, Mitch McConnell has perfected the art of bringing a bazooka to the gunfight while Chuck Schumer shows up with a squirt gun. Never has our fecklessness been more on display or had more far-reaching consequences than Republicans’ successful blocking of Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court in President Obama’s last year in office — a political loss largely responsible for where we find ourselves today”
.
-
Republican Christians are low life Pagans who cheat to win.
They have no devotion in which they are a holy temple in the presence of God and just follow the mechanics of blind faith. -
Supreme Court closing in on leaker even as DHS refuses to investigate
By
Christine Favocci
on
May 7, 2022A draft opinion leaked from Supreme Court revealed that the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion is in jeopardy. However, the real story is how that leak happened — and what that means for the court.
The Supreme Court could proceed with an investigation to find the source of the leak even without the help of the Department of Justice, NBC News reported. President Joe Biden’s administration is claiming such a betrayal doesn’t violate federal law and therefore leaves the matter to the court’s marshal.
On Monday, Politico published the draft opinion penned by Justice Samuel Alito that argued for overturning the previous federal position on abortion. This was an unprecedented breach of security at the high court.
Almost immediately, Chief Justice John Roberts directed the court’s marshal Col. Gail Curley “to launch an investigation into the course of the leak.” The court has upheld that this draft was genuine but has not released any further information about how it got out to the public.
With nearly 70 people having access to the draft, Curley will likely have to interview all of them. Furthermore, it’s possible she and her law enforcement staff could comb through phone and email records as well as logs from printers and photocopiers, an unnamed former FBI official told NBC News.
A similar leak happened in 1973 when Roe v. Wade was first decided, though it was to a lesser extent. Before the Supreme Court publicized its decision, a Time magazine article outlined how the court would ultimately rule on the matter.
The Department of Justice has declined to move on this case, citing a slim allowance for whistleblowers. However, turning over a privileged government document to an unauthorized person is a clear federal law violation.
Democrats think this will be a win for them as their pro-abortion constituents rage about the coming decision. As per the usual arrangement, Biden’s administration will look the other way on how this happened because it suits their purposes.
POOR BIDEN HE CHEATED AND HE AND HIS COHORTS STILL SEEKING TO CHEAT
HE AND HIS COHORTS BROKE BUT HE CANT HOLD -
“Administration officials said the Justice Department’s view, at this early stage, is that the leak did not constitute a federal crime,” NBC News reported Thursday. “Accordingly, neither the FBI nor other federal law enforcement organizations are involved in any investigation, the officials said.”
“Some legal experts said the leak could be considered a technical violation of a federal law that prohibits giving a government document to someone not authorized to receive it. But under long-standing Justice Department practice, such actions are not prosecuted when the material is conveyed to a reporter for the purpose of making it public,” NBC added.
The outlet also said the DOJ’s stance could change if it thought “the document was obtained through some criminal action, such as trespassing or computer hacking,” the outlet said.
Former Attorney General William Barr, meanwhile, said it was certainly possible a crime had occurred.
“It could be obstructing the administration of justice, the due process of justice,” Barr told SiriusXM’s “The Megyn Kelly Show.”
“Obstruction means you’re attempting to influence, you know, through some kind of wrongdoing.”
The draft majority opinion showed that the court had voted to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 ruling that upheld Roe.
“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Alito wrote in the leaked draft.” “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
“The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions,” he added. “The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion.”
-
THESE ARE GREAT CARTOONS
WE NEED TO LAUGH
LAUGHTER IS THE BEST MEDICINE
I LOVE THE ONE IN THE LIBRARY BEST OF ALL -
You lie, as usual. You said you were leaving her for me to finish off.
I think that a person who needs to come here every day to rock and mock people who dared to “challenge” his expertise, one who carries such a grudge towards people who failed to “suitably” defer to his opinion, is the one who is mad as hatter.
What sane person responds to these petty annoyances for soooooo long?
Every day you come here reciting your BU “trauma”, dropping remarks at David for letting people “disrespect” you and accusing him of taking down your posts. And he does not take down the post that accuses him of taking down the post???????
Sane people move on!
-
-
RE You lie, as usual. You said you were leaving her for me to finish off.
I CHANGED MY MIND I WILL AND CAN DO M IT MYSELF ONCE ALLOWEDI think that a person who needs to come here every day to rock and mock people who dared to “challenge” his expertise, one who carries such a grudge towards people who failed to “suitably” defer to his opinion, is the one who is mad as hatter.
WHAT DID YOU THINK WITH ?
YOU WANT TO CONTROL IF I SHOULD ROCK AND MOCK NOW. BUT SORRY YOU CANT AND WONTWhat sane person responds to these petty annoyances for soooooo long?
I DO BECAUSE I CAN
I LIKE MOCKING AND ROCKING BU MORONS ITS FUNEvery day you come here reciting your BU “trauma”, ITS NOT TRAUMA….ITS FACTS AND WHAT YOU CALL TRAUMA ISITS SELF ROCKING AND MOCKING
dropping remarks at David for letting people “disrespect” you and accusing him of taking down your posts. THATS FACTS TOO AND ROCKING AND MOCKING TOO
And he does not take down the post that accuses him of taking down the post??????? NOT TRUE HE DOES TEK DUNG NUFF OF MY POSTS . IT DOES NOTY BOTHER ME
IT ONLY DEPRIVES THE READERS OF REAL GOOD STUFF WHICH I REFUSE TO SHARE THAT IS PERTINENT TO PEOPLE’S HEALTH IN BIM .WE NOW COUNTING FOR FUN AS WE WATCH TV HOW LONG IT TAKES FOR HIM TO TEK DUNG A POST
Sane people move on! SO THEN WHY DONT YOU?
I HAVE NEVER BEEN TO MAHY AS A PATIENT -
RE I think that a person who needs to come here every day to rock and mock people who dared to “challenge” his expertise, one who carries such a grudge towards people who failed to “suitably” defer to his opinion, is the one who is mad as hatter.
IT IS WRITTEN THAT LAUGHTER IS THE BEST MEDICINE
I LOVE TO LAUGHWHEN JOKERS dare to “challenge” MY expertise IT GIVES ME OPPORTUNITY TO QUICKLY GET INTO POSITION TO ROCK AND MOCK AT THE SOURCE OF THE MIRTH
people who fail to “suitably” defer to MY ACCURATE STELLAR opinion WHEN I AM NOT JUST FOOLING AROUND WILL BE SUITABLY MOCKED
IT IS NOT A GRUDGE
I DONT WORRY WITH THE DJ AS HE/SHE SEEMS TO BE DYSLEXIC OR APHASICYOUR EMOTIONAL RANTS ARE REALLY GOOD FULL TOSSES
I AM NOT GOING TO GO MAD AT SO CALLED CHALLENGERS AND THOSE people who fail to “suitably” defer to MY ACCURATE STELLAR opinion WHEN I CAN EASILY AND SIMPLY JUST ROCK AND MOCK THEMSO SEND ME SOME MIRTH
WHEN EVER I TAKE A BREAK I LOOK FOR MIRTH ON BU AND I MOCK
YUH WANT ME TO CRY?WHEN I CAN LAUGH.
THE WIFE CAN ALWAYS TELL WHEN I GO ON BU
NO COMEDY ANY WAY IS AS FUNNY -
Sucking Trump’s Dick
Suck something and become the sucking — just suck the air, but forget the air and become the sucking. What does this mean? You are sucking something; you are the sucker
Examining the content of the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion and its implications
https://text.npr.org/1096545805 -
When the courts break
By Garth Patterson
Rockabye Justice on the treetop, When ill winds blow her scales will rock, When the courts break, her scales will fall, And down will come Justice, sword, scales and all. In the perpetual struggle to defend this ethereal notion of “justice”, the court is the sentinel, the constitution its armour, and principles of natural justice the standard that it bears. In every civilised society, the legal systems that underpin it are built upon a foundation infused with principles of fairness, equality before the law and justice.
The bodies charged with responsibility for the administration and delivery of justice must, in order to achieve those objectives, adhere to fundamental and immutable tenets that tend to promote respect for, confidence in and obedience to the rule of law and the legal systems that support it. Judges, magistrates, arbitrators, and other decision-making bodies discharge their functions within an institutional framework that is unsustainable without the scrupulous recognition and protection of the rights of every citizen to equal and impartial justice delivered by fair and independent arbiters within a reasonable time.
The Barbados Constitution enshrines the natural justice precepts of fair hearing and freedom from bias, political or otherwise, and provides that every person who is charged with a criminal offence, or whose civil rights and obligations are being determined, shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court or authority established by law.
Principles of independence, impartiality, and expedition, therefore, are inextricably weaved into the fabric of the judicial robes. Those clothed with authority of a judicial nature must dispense justice in a manner that is above reproach in the view of reasonable, fair-minded and informed persons; and must seek to ensure that justice is not only uniform and transparent but also apparent, swift, consistent, and predictable.
Malicious intention
By a leaked draft of what will likely be the lead opinion in the case of
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organisation, the United States (US) Supreme Court has signalled its malicious intention to abort its landmark decisions in Roe v Wade, which was decided in 1973, and
Planned Parenthood v Casey,
decided in 1992. The court ruled in Roe that the Constitution of the US protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.
The anticipated ruling is momentous not only for its far-reaching effects, principally in reversing women’s constitutional rights that had been affirmed by the court and have held firm for the last 49 years, but also for the foul political stench that heralds it. The Supreme Court is populated by a 6-3 majority of justices who were appointed by Republican presidents (the last three appointed by Donald Trump), all of whom had run their political campaigns on an anti-abortion platform, and who had promised to appoint judges whose principal qualification was a deep commitment to the reversal of Roe.
If the majority of the Supreme Court have their way, then it will be one of the clearest recorded examples of political interference in the judicial process and will deal a fatal blow to the system of justice in the US, which had already been tottering on the brink of collapse in the wake of a spate of controversial decisions involving police killings of unarmed black people.
Bias, in any form, is insidious and anathema to the principles that underlie all judicial systems. “Equality before the law” – these words are emblazoned in stone above the entrance to the US Supreme Court. Yet, in one fell swoop, it has declared war on women’s rights, all in the name of advancing the agenda of angry, white, old, male politicians, eager to thrust their grubby fists up women’s reproductive systems with the single-minded goal of delivering their long-promised, deeply political anti-abortion spawn. It has affirmed that women (predominantly black and brown women) are less than equal, at least in the eyes of the law.
Clear warning
The anticipated (dreaded) ruling should be a clear warning to judicial systems around the globe that even the most revered and robust court systems can bend or break under the weight of political influence. And when that break occurs, it will open the floodgates of anarchy, because modern civilisation is founded on the concept of the rule of law, whose integrity depends on the existence and proper functioning of a judicial system that is universally accepted as fair and just. When trust in the judicial system is eroded or undermined by extraneous, political influences, then the rule of law will fail, justice will fall and mob rule, self-help and vigilantism will thrive.
Our court system in Barbados is, unquestionably, vulnerable to such external shocks. Section 81 of our Constitution provides that the “Chief Justice and other Judges of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President, by instrument under the Public Seal, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.”
The President has no discretion in the matter and, by virtue of section 34G of the Constitution, must act in accordance with the recommendation of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister must consult with the Leader of the Opposition before making the recommendation, but is, constitutionally, under no obligation to follow any advice or suggestion made by him/her. Moreover, as there is currently no Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister effectively has the power to direct the President to appoint a Chief Justice and any judges, without reference to any other person.
The tenure of judges is also the subject of political determination. While judges are appointed until they attain 65 years (70 years in the case of the Chief Justice), their tenure can be extended by up to two years by the President, acting on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. As with the appointment of judges, the Prime Minister is also involved in the process of investigation of the Chief Justice or a judge leading to their removal from office.
Misbehaviour
If the Prime Minister advises the President that the question of removing the Chief Justice from office for inability to discharge the functions of his office, for misbehaviour, or for delay of more than six months in delivering a judgment, ought to be investigated, then the President must refer the matter to a tribunal to investigate.
Similarly, the Chief Justice must consult with the Prime Minister before advising the President to investigate a judge for inability, misbehaviour, or delay. For all practical purposes, therefore, the Prime Minister wields almost unfettered discretion and power in the appointment, extension, or removal of judges, and this translates into significant control.
With such enormous potential for political influence over the process of appointment, extension or removal of judges, the notion of the independence and impartiality of our judges is illusory. Without immediate reform, then it is only a matter of time before decisions of our courts will be questioned and fidelity to our system of laws will be undermined.
To her resounding credit, Prime Minister Mia Mottley is alive to this reality and has proclaimed it as one of her goals to shepherd amendments to the Constitution to remove the level of political influence, imagined or real, that may be exerted over the judiciary and, by extension, the judicial process. Given the state of our political landscape, this should be an urgent priority of the current administration.
Reform of this critical significance should not be left to languish at the feet of the constitutional reform committee, whose broad and ambitious remit to produce a brandnew Constitution will not likely bear fruit any time soon. We ignore the unmistakable warning sent by the imminent reversal of Roe at our own peril.Garth Patterson is a Queen’s Counsel.
Source: Nation
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.