Opinion on the Roe v. Wade Leak

[JimFoxvog]

After thinking about this bit, I wonder how likely a Roe overturn actually is. My memory is that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch clearly stated they accept Roe as established precedent and are not looking to undo this type of ruling. Barrette was less committed. I guess we will see.

Yes, this is a test of their honesty during Congressional questioning. While I think Roe v. Wade should be overturned, I don't like lying before Congress in order to promote one's agenda, which I suspect here.

[temporal1]

My opinion is that the leak is destructive to the working of the Supreme Court. They should be able to deliberate in private, without public pressure on them in the midst of the discussions.

Whoever leaked this, whether for or against the opinion, should be penalized.

i hope there is no disagreement on this. ^^^

After thinking about this bit, I wonder how likely a Roe overturn actually is. My memory is that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch clearly stated they accept Roe as established precedent and are not looking to undo this type of ruling. Barrette was less committed. I guess we will see.

Yes, this is a test of their honesty during Congressional questioning. While I think Roe v. Wade should be overturned, I don't like lying before Congress in order to promote one's agenda, which I suspect here.

i believe you are wrong.
as HK has sometimes described, there may be questions posed to potential nominees that are out of line, esp those attempting to pin judges into political corners.

[temporal1]

^^ also on Page 13:

Nothing is sadder than seeing women outside the Supreme Court, campaigning for the right to kill their children.

Why does anyone have to witness this? i ask God.

The protestors have now gone beyond the Supreme Court, but someone gave the home addresses for the Justices and they are now protesting outside the justices homes. Yesterday Jen Psaki, the Biden administration's press secretary, would not even denounce protesters descending on the homes of justices to harass and target them and their families.

[Josh]

After thinking about this bit, I wonder how likely a Roe overturn actually is. My memory is that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch clearly stated they accept Roe as established precedent and are not looking to undo this type of ruling. Barrette was less committed. I guess we will see.

Yes, this is a test of their honesty during Congressional questioning. While I think Roe v. Wade should be overturned, I don't like lying before Congress in order to promote one's agenda, which I suspect here.

Exactly how did they lie?

[barnhart]

I've been trying to form an opinion on the issue of leaking aside from Roe, and I think I'm generally in favor of leaks. Where malfeasance is revealed, leaking is a form of honorable civil disobedience. So far that doesn't seem to be the case here, but I'm still not bothered too much by the threat of leaks, it holds power to account. Sunlight is a good disinfectant on some level.

[HondurasKeiser]

After thinking about this bit, I wonder how likely a Roe overturn actually is. My memory is that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch clearly stated they accept Roe as established precedent and are not looking to undo this type of ruling. Barrette was less committed. I guess we will see.

Yes, this is a test of their honesty during Congressional questioning. While I think Roe v. Wade should be overturned, I don't like lying before Congress in order to promote one's agenda, which I suspect here.

They didn't lie before congress...read the transcript Barnhart posted.

[temporal1]

I've been trying to form an opinion on the issue of leaking aside from Roe, and I think I'm generally in favor of leaks.
Where malfeasance is revealed, leaking is a form of honorable civil disobedience. So far that doesn't seem to be the case here, but I'm still not bothered too much by the threat of leaks, it holds power to account. Sunlight is a good disinfectant on some level.

It’s of great importance to distinguish between WHISTLEBLOWERS and SCOTUS LEAKS.
Whistleblowers are important, and deserve protections. This is recognized even at high levels of U.S. government.
True in churches, private industry, clubs+organizations, etc.

Too bad there is no SCOTUS justice available here to spell it out for you.

[Heirbyadoption]

Having been adopted at birth after my bio-mom was talked out of aborting me, and now being involved in the foster system with active intent to adopt (potentially more than once), I have a bit of a vested interest in this subject and would just like to put in a bit of a clarifying plug.

There is no shortage of adoptable children in the United States, nor does it have to cost $40K to do so. Can we please not suggest that again? From the foster system side, many of these children have challenges, whether emotional or physical, though certainly not all of them! I realize different families are able (or willing) to deal with different levels of these challenges, but if there lies any fault with the Church in America on this topic, it's when we encourage the selfish mindset that encourages families to simply seek the healthy, "undamaged" infant or toddler that will easily and conveniently fit into their family, their church, or their ethnic or social contexts. Other than some of the nonsense like Oregon (which RZehr mentioned), folks need to seriously re-examine their motives (and their resources) if they're continually finding roadblocks to taking in children. There are literally 1000s upon 1000s of children available. Our family receives calls bi-weekly, if not weekly, for placements and potential adoptions, and that's just in PA, and frankly, they will pay me rather well to take them. I believe adoptkids.us had a 2021 stat that there were 400K children in the foster system and around 120K available for adoption.

I realize that there are some states that DO make it tough for conservative Christian families to adopt, and I realize not everybody is able (or at the stage of life) to take the risks of foster rather than straight adoptions (actually, both have risk). However, the idea that multitudes of families are sadly pining away waiting to adopt and hindered by unavailability of children or exorbitant adoption costs seems a bit disingenuous to me when I am personally aware of the above information... If you know somebody who would like to adopt (for whatever reason) and is willing to be flexible in what they receive, tell them to look around for Christian agencies involved in foster/foster-to-adopt programs. For that matter, tell them to look outside their own states. Just a few things to chew on. Sorry (sort of) for the bunny trail.

[Szdfan]

Having been adopted at birth after my bio-mom was talked out of aborting me, and now being involved in the foster system with active intent to adopt (potentially more than once), I have a bit of a vested interest in this subject and would just like to put in a bit of a clarifying plug.

There is no shortage of adoptable children in the United States, nor does it have to cost $40K to do so. Can we please not suggest that again? From the foster system side, many of these children have challenges, whether emotional or physical, though certainly not all of them! I realize different families are able (or willing) to deal with different levels of these challenges, but if there lies any fault with the Church in America on this topic, it's when we encourage the selfish mindset that encourages families to simply seek the healthy, "undamaged" infant or toddler that will easily and conveniently fit into their family, their church, or their ethnic or social contexts. Other than some of the nonsense like Oregon (which RZehr mentioned), folks need to seriously re-examine their motives (and their resources) if they're continually finding roadblocks to taking in children. There are literally 1000s upon 1000s of children available. Our family receives calls bi-weekly, if not weekly, for placements and potential adoptions, and that's just in PA, and frankly, they will pay me rather well to take them. I believe adoptkids.us had a 2021 stat that there were 400K children in the foster system and around 120K available for adoption.

I realize that there are some states that DO make it tough for conservative Christian families to adopt, and I realize not everybody is able (or at the stage of life) to take the risks of foster rather than straight adoptions (actually, both have risk). However, the idea that multitudes of families are sadly pining away waiting to adopt and hindered by unavailability of children or exorbitant adoption costs seems a bit disingenuous to me when I am personally aware of the above information... If you know somebody who would like to adopt (for whatever reason) and is willing to be flexible in what they receive, tell them to look around for Christian agencies involved in foster/foster-to-adopt programs. For that matter, tell them to look outside their own states. Just a few things to chew on. Sorry (sort of) for the bunny trail.

Well said. Legal abortion did not prevent Christians from adopting children. We'll see if post-Roe makes any difference.

[wesleyb]

Having been adopted at birth after my bio-mom was talked out of aborting me, and now being involved in the foster system with active intent to adopt (potentially more than once), I have a bit of a vested interest in this subject and would just like to put in a bit of a clarifying plug.

There is no shortage of adoptable children in the United States, nor does it have to cost $40K to do so. Can we please not suggest that again? From the foster system side, many of these children have challenges, whether emotional or physical, though certainly not all of them! I realize different families are able (or willing) to deal with different levels of these challenges, but if there lies any fault with the Church in America on this topic, it's when we encourage the selfish mindset that encourages families to simply seek the healthy, "undamaged" infant or toddler that will easily and conveniently fit into their family, their church, or their ethnic or social contexts. Other than some of the nonsense like Oregon (which RZehr mentioned), folks need to seriously re-examine their motives (and their resources) if they're continually finding roadblocks to taking in children. There are literally 1000s upon 1000s of children available. Our family receives calls bi-weekly, if not weekly, for placements and potential adoptions, and that's just in PA, and frankly, they will pay me rather well to take them. I believe adoptkids.us had a 2021 stat that there were 400K children in the foster system and around 120K available for adoption.

I realize that there are some states that DO make it tough for conservative Christian families to adopt, and I realize not everybody is able (or at the stage of life) to take the risks of foster rather than straight adoptions (actually, both have risk). However, the idea that multitudes of families are sadly pining away waiting to adopt and hindered by unavailability of children or exorbitant adoption costs seems a bit disingenuous to me when I am personally aware of the above information... If you know somebody who would like to adopt (for whatever reason) and is willing to be flexible in what they receive, tell them to look around for Christian agencies involved in foster/foster-to-adopt programs. For that matter, tell them to look outside their own states. Just a few things to chew on. Sorry (sort of) for the bunny trail.

Yes! We adopted 2 through the foster system and everything you have said here rings true to me.