Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

BREAKING: Leaked US Supreme Court Draft that would overturn the rulings that have led to 63+ million abortion deaths in the US since 1973

Categories
Academic Freedom
Defending our Civilization
Ethics
Geo-strategic issues
News Highlights
rhetoric
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

This, seems worth pondering on the state of the US’s ongoing 4th generation civil war as a civilisation level issue:

A draft Supreme Court opinion overruling Roe v. Wade has been leaked to the press in one of the greatest scandals to ever hit the nation’s highest court and a possible attempt to intimidate one or more justices to reverse their vote or to ignite a liberal brushfire to pack the Supreme Court before Democrats lose Congress in November.

“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives,” the possible draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito reads, making the case that where the Constitution is silent, the American people govern themselves through elections and elected leaders, not federal judges. It quotes the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who said, “The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.” It then adds, “That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand.”

The document published by Politico that claims to be a draft opinion appears to be authentic, but it is not a binding decision of the court unless at least five justices sign it, and this looks like a transparent and unprecedented betrayal by one of the 45 or so people with access to a draft Supreme Court opinion to prevent this decision from becoming law by scaring off moderate justices and attempting to whip the political left into a frenzy.

Of course, the global pattern, with the US as a trend setter, has seen 800+ million [statistically 1.4+ billion] deliberately inflicted deaths on our living posterity in the womb. An associated picture is that in certain asian countries, devaluation of girls has led to widespread sex selection abortions and a preponderance of boys and now young men in population statistics.

To all of this, I make two self-evident assertions. 1: A human child is precisely that, human. 2: The first right is life, without which there are no rights.

Let’s add, 3: there can be no right to take innocent life at will.

Our civilisation is in the dock. END

U/D, Blaze TV discussion:

U/D, May 10, as Vivid has pointed it out, let us embed a video of testimony by a former abortionist regarding second trimester abortions:

F/N May 7: As tangential objections to the design inference have been taken up (in obvious subject switching) I pose p. 5 from Sir Francis Crick’s March 19, 1953 letter to his son:

Crick’s letter

And, here is the protein synthesis process in outline:

Protein Synthesis (HT: Wiki Media)

Together with a summary of the information communication system involved, as outlined by Yockey:

Yockey’s analysis of protein synthesis as a code-based communication process

F/N, May 8: As the tangent continues, it seems a further illustration is advisable:

It seems more is needed, so here is how this fits into protein synthesis and the metabolic network and how we see prong height coding:

In for a penny, in for a pound, here is a video:

Notice, we are actually dealing with a storage register. Say, each shaft with pins is set for five positions, four elevated, one on the ledge. This is directly comparable to GCAT, and as the video shows there are five digits:

| X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | X5 |

The key is encoded to the correct string of digits that in combination will open the lock, say 13213. The resting fully locked position is of course 00000.

Comments
Is depravity on display here? Is this just a microcosm of the greater world? If one is anti ID, are they depraved? But I’m seeing an almost 100% correlation.        Why is that so? jerry
May 4, 2022
May
05
May
4
04
2022
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PST
FH & Seversky, I have to call red herring. The substantial issue on the table is not personalities but a 50 year old ruling stained with a lot of innocent blood. The question is was it well founded. Clearly, not. So, it is due for reform, not "subver[sion]," and if so the issue is that the reform needs to itself be sound. That change seems to be, restore status quo of 1972, so the political process will decide through legislation and debate. I suspect, that is what is a feasible compromise, not an ideal solution. But, that means we need to address foundational principles of duty, law, rights, freedoms. And, how will we ever address the guilt of the past 50 years that taints so many things. None of this is going to be easy but we can already see that, on the premise that billion dollar pro abortion lobbying and PR etc are a few clicks away, there is a balance on actual merits that does not favour abortion on demand, once it is recognised that right to life is the first right and that we are, painful though this is, dealing with enabling killing at will. Dehumanisation, demonisation, distraction don't cut it. KFkairosfocus
May 4, 2022
May
05
May
4
04
2022
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PST
As for not being able to read the minds of the nominees, that is obviously true but abortion has long been a contentious and divisive issue and it is absurd to think that all three nominees had not studied Roe in advance and already formed opinions which they were unwilling to divulge at the Senate hearings.Seversky
May 4, 2022
May
05
May
4
04
2022
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PST
If Barret, Kavanagh and Gorsuch all had the clearly-formed intention to overturn Roe if the opportunity arose but gave evasive or non-committal answers at their Senate confirmation hearings, then while that may not rise to the level of blatant lies then they were. at the least, dishonest and misleading. It also makes worthless any assurances from Alito that this will not affect any other legislation.Seversky
May 4, 2022
May
05
May
4
04
2022
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PST
Politico on the leaked Alito opinion: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/03/supreme-court-abortion-privacy-rights-00029871Fred Hickson
May 4, 2022
May
05
May
4
04
2022
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PST
Vivid
But let’s assume she said that she had no plan to subvert Roe only a mind reader could say she lied. I have no plan for a lot of things that I later do, that is not subversion.
As I conceded earlier, she was evasive in her replies regarding Roe vs Wade, not necessarily lying. I agree that a lie is a statement by someone who knows it to be false at the time they make it. "I am not a murderer" does not necessarily become a lie if you later murder someone, providing the decision to murder post-dates the statement.Fred Hickson
May 4, 2022
May
05
May
4
04
2022
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PST
PS, for record, Justice Alito's opening remarks on the Constitution and foundations of law question, via OCR:
For the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each State was permitted to address this issue in accordance with the views of its citizens. Then, in 1973, this Court decided Roe v. Wade, 410 US. 113. Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one. It did not claim that American law or the common law had ever recognized that American law or the common law had ever recognized such a right, and its survey of history ranged from the con-stitutionally irrelevant (e.g. its discussion of abortion in antiquity) to the plainly incorrect (cg, its assertion that abor-tion was probably never a crime under the common law). After cataloguing a wealth of other information having no bearing on the meaning of the Constitution, the opinion concluded with a numbered set of rules much like those that ‘might be found in a statute enacted by a legislature. Under this scheme, each trimester of pregnancy was reg- ulated differently, but the most critical line was drawn at roughly the end of the second trimester, which, at the time, corresponded to the point at which a fetus was thought to achieve “viability,” ie, the ability to survive outside the womb. Although the Court acknowledged that States had a legitimate interest in protecting “potential life,” it found that this interest could not justify any restriction on previ-ability abortions. The Court did not explain the basis for this line, and even abortion supporters have found it hard to defend Roe's reasoning. One prominent constitutional scholar wrote that he “would vote for a statute very much like the one the Court ended up drafting” he were “a legislator,” but his assessment of Roe was memorable and brutal: Roe was “not constitutional law” at all and gave al-most no sense of an obligation to try to be.” At the time of Roe, 30 States still prohibited abortion at all stages. In the years prior to that decision, about a third of the States had liberalized their laws, but Roe abruptly ended that political process. It imposed the same highly restrictive regime on the entire Nation, and it effectively struck down the abortion laws of every single State. As Justice Byron White aptly put it in his dissent, the decision was the “exercise of raw judicial power,” and it sparked a national controversy that has embittered our political culture for a half-century. Eventually, in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the Court revisited Roe, but the members of the Court split three ways. Two Justices ex-pressed no desire to change Roe in any way.® Four others wanted to overrule the decision in its entirety.s And the three remaining Justices, who jointly signed the controlling opinion, took a third position” Their opinion did not en-dorse Roe's reasoning, and it even hinted that one or more of its authors might have “reservations” about whether the Constitution protects a right to abortion. But the opinion concluded that stare decisis, which calls for prior decisions to be followed in most instances, required adherence to what it called Roe's “central holding" —that a State may not constitutionally protect fetal life before “viability’—even if that holding was wrong. Anything less, the opinion claimed, would undermine respect for this Court and the rule of law. Paradoxically, the judgment in Casey did a fair amount of overruling. Several important abortion decisions were overruled in toto, and Roe itselfwas overruled in part. Ca-sey threw out Roe’s trimester scheme and substituted a new rule of uncertain origin under which States were forbidden to adopt any regulation that imposed an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to have an abortion." The decision pro- vided no clear guidance about the difference between a “due” and an “undue” burden. But the three Justices who authored the controlling opinion “call[ed] the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national divi- sion” by treating the Court’s decision as the final settlement of the question of the constitutional right to abortion.” As has become increasingly apparent in the intervening years, Casey did not achieve that goal.
So, Roe and Casey both overrule and sweep away precedents so the how dare you repudiate precedent argument fails, coming out the starting gates. Then there are issues over quality of its argument.kairosfocus
May 4, 2022
May
05
May
4
04
2022
12:25 AM
12
12
25
AM
PST
“The lie was in clearly stating she had no plan to subvert Roe vs Wade and now she has signed on with Alito” I did a google search could not find that quote so if you would please let me know where to find it. But let’s assume she said that she had no plan to subvert Roe only a mind reader could say she lied. I have no plan for a lot of things that I later do, that is not subversion. Vivid.vividbleau
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PST
Withdraw "lying" explicitly. Just evasion.Fred Hickson
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PST
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096108319/roe-v-wade-alito-conservative-justices-confirmation-hearingsFred Hickson
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PST
Bear with me on Coney Barrett and Kavanaugh. I'm on my phone and it's late.Fred Hickson
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PST
“C. Alito is an anachronism who could be tolerated until McConnell’s machinations resulted in a Supreme Court so reactionary it is beyond belief” Still waiting for your critique of Alto’s opinion and why it is so reactionary FYI I do understand that to the left the constitution itself is reactionary and for a Supreme Court justice to actually base their opinion on the constitution and allow the people to decide is a threat to democracy. Vividvividbleau
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
11:37 PM
11
11
37
PM
PST
FH, A: Constitutional, lawful democracy is not three wolves and a lamb holding a vote on what is for lunch. B: We both can see the Dred Scott case as a classic example of precedence as claimed going to absurdity, but so significant that a whole amendment was passed to make sure such would not come up again. C: Ad hominem, not a substantial answer on merits. With Google a click or two away, we can take it as granted that you could neither compose nor clip nor summarise a cogent and decisive rebuttal to what Mr Alito has put on the table in summary of majority opinion. KFkairosfocus
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PST
Vivid The lie was in clearly stating she had no plan to subvert Roe vs Wade and now she has signed on with Alito.Fred Hickson
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PST
A. Because it's a mockery of democracy. I'm amazed at your views, coming from the Caribbean. B. Reform your question into something clearer. C. Alito is an anachronism who could be tolerated until McConnell's machinations resulted in a Supreme Court so reactionary it is beyond belief. The optimist in me says this will not stand. We'll see.Fred Hickson
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PST
FYI: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/dred_scott_v_sandford_%281857%29
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) Primary tabs The U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, were not citizens of the United States and therefore did not have the right to sue in federal court. In so holding, the Court also ruled that the federal government could not prohibit slavery in the territories. The decision was a prime factor leading to the Civil War, but the Fourteenth Amendment—which provides that anyone born or naturalized in the United States is a citizen of the nation and of his or her state—eventually rendered the case moot. Dred Scott was an African American man who was born a slave in the late 1700s. In 1832, Scott’s owner, Emerson, took him into the Wisconsin territory, which outlawed slavery, to do various tasks. While there, Emerson allowed Scott to get married, and left Scott and his wife in Wisconsin when Emerson traveled to Louisiana. Emerson died in 1843, and Scott attempted to purchase his freedom from Emerson’s widow, but she refused. Scott then sued in federal court against Sandford, the executor of Emerson’s estate for his freedom. He argued that, since he became a permanent resident in the federal territory of Wisconsin, which prohibited slavery, he became a freeman. The district court applied the laws of Missouri to find Scott was still a slave, and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court, in a contentious opinion written by Chief Justice Taney, held that persons of African descent were not citizens of the United States. The Court reasoned that, at the time of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, persons of African descent were brought to the U.S. as property, and, whether later freed or not, could not become U.S. citizens. Even though many states granted citizenship to African Americans, the Court distinguished state citizenship from federal citizenship, and found the later precluded to African Americans because of whom the Court believed the founders meant to include in the original Constitution. Native Americans, on the other hand, were considered free and independent residents of North America at the time of the founding, so they could be federal citizens of the United States. As this applied to Dred Scott, he could not sue for his freedom from his time spent in the (at the time) federal territory of Wisconsin because, as the Court interpreted the Constitution, African Americans could simply not become federal citizens. However, as horrifying as this opinion is for Scott, he fortunately eventually became a freeman when Emerson’s widow had a change of heart after marrying an abolitionist. The aftermath of this case is seen to have inflamed the tensions between abolitionists and southerners. Previously, the Missouri Compromise tenuously kept the nation together by keeping federal territories north of Missouri freed. However, after this opinion, that was meaningless since slaveholders could bring their slaves into nominally free federal territory and not worry about the free status of that territory impacting their ownership over their slaves. Commentators nearly unanimously agree that this case was a blemish on the history of the High Court.
This is the territory we are looking at. KFkairosfocus
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PST
From ABC news “During her confirmation hearings in October 2020, Barrett was careful in her comments but told senators she believed the decision on Roe v. Wade was not a "super-precedent" when asked directly by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.” She said she did not find the case to be "so well-settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling." Where is the lie? Vividvividbleau
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PST
FH, it has been settled by imposition for half a century. As was chattel slavery for centuries. A reflection of the hardness of hearts vs reformation balance. Now, a serious argument is on the table that puts it on the hardness of hearts side of the balance and the justices you smear as liars have a sworn duty to justice to soundly evaluate on merits. Your due grounds for holding that this 1973 ruling is not subject to reformation i/l/o the interests of what Mr Biden admitted is the child in the womb are? A: _______ Your grounds for rejecting stare decis in regards to say Dred Scott, in that light, are? B: _____ The substantial matter on the table is Alito's draft. Let us know why, informed by first duties, first rights, first built in law, it is wrong: C: ______ I predict, you cannot fill in C especially. KFkairosfocus
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PST
“I agree that you can’t change your chromosomes. So what?” So a biological man cannot be a woman. This is a question I asked some of the other interlocutors on this thread screaming about women's rights when they could not answer what a woman is on a different thread a few weeks ago. You were not part of that conversation. Personally I am thrilled that all of a sudden everyone knows what a woman is. Vividvividbleau
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PST
@ Vividbleau. Have you not heard of Google? Try Coney Barrett lie. There are videos.Fred Hickson
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PST
Well what would you call stating Roe and Wade is settled then voting to repeal it, KF?Fred Hickson
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PST
“Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett lied to the judiciary committee.” Don’t know so please give us chapter and verse with full context. Vividvividbleau
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PST
I agree that you can't change your chromosomes. So what?Fred Hickson
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PST
FH, take that back, now. Justice Alito has laid out what a wrong decision did over half a century. There is a duty of justices to rule aright, and that is what is properly on the table. The accusatory projections underscore the issue of confession by projection, what are you telling us about yourself and what you advocate. KFkairosfocus
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PST
Yes biogically men are deficient women. The testosterone just makes things worse. Men fight, men go to war, rape and pillage. Women, not so much.Fred Hickson
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PST
“What is a woman? Biologically someone whose somatic cells contain two sets of X chromosomes.” Alleluia!! Which means a biological man cannot be a woman, bravo. Vividvividbleau
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PST
Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett lied to the judiciary committee.Fred Hickson
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
11:01 PM
11
11
01
PM
PST
What is a woman? Biologically someone whose somatic cells contain two sets of X chromosomes.Fred Hickson
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PST
Vivid, updated to embed the vid. FH, And blatantly the sort of interracial marriage that irresponsible slanderers are pretending on no evidence, is to be banned. Sitting there on the court. KFkairosfocus
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PST
KF “So, we are at kairos.” Indeed but we have been there for awhile The one thing you know ( from first hand experience) about the left is that they will employ violence and unleash their brown shirts (Antifa, BLM, etc) to get their way. We have been in a cold civil war for awhile and I expect it to go hot if indeed Roe is ruled unconstitutional. The problem for our side is all the military and police power resides in the hands of the fascist left, we cannot win. Vividvividbleau
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
10:54 PM
10
10
54
PM
PST
1 12 13 14 15 16 19

Leave a Reply