Schiff: ‘Codifying Roe Isn’t Enough. We Must Expand the Court’
Schiff lets it all out. It’s all about packing the court, impeaching the six conservative justices, and allowing infanticide.
I guess the House Intelligence Committee won’t do anything about someone leaking Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade.
Chairman Adam Schiff doesn’t “care how the draft leaked.” He considers it a “sideshow.”
It’s all about allowing women to murder their unborn babies and…expanding the court and going after justices who “lied.” Oh, so Schiff wants to impeach them? We know Schiff is obsessed with impeachment.
I don’t care how the draft leaked. That’s a sideshow.
What I care about is that a small number of conservative justices, who lied about their plans to the Senate, intend to deprive millions of women of reproductive care.
Codifying Roe isn't enough. We must expand the court.
— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) May 4, 2022
Because no one is allowed to change their mind. We must keep all rulings valid for the rest of time.
Imagine if SCOTUS relied on precedent when it came to slavery and segregation. Imagine if everyone relied on precedent when it came to civil rights and women voting.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
What a flair for the dramatic encased in a whole cloth wrap of lies
It shows us what a sham “oaths” have become:
“I, Adam Schiff, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Speaking of shams, does anyone really think a weak man like Kevin McCarthy is the ‘warrior’ we need as GOP Speaker?
MORE info on McCarthy’s weakness:
SECRET RECORDING: McCarthy Said 25th Amendment “Takes Too Long” in Newly Leaked Audio
Imagine if democrats accepted precedent in 2nd amendment law….
“….intend to deprive millions of women of reproductive care.”
Millions of pregnant illegal mothers have babies for free in American hospitals every year. If Roe is overturned they will be competing with millions of pregnant mothers who are citizans—perhaps the maternity wards will be crowded. Is that what he’s talking about?
There have been 63 million abortions since Roe vs Wade. If all those babies lived we wouldn’t have 63 million illegals coming here to work.
Ironically, with those 63 million children, many of whom were Black, because abortion has a much heavier proportion of Blacks, the Democrats would long since have controlled all of government …. Trump would never have won and SCOTUS would be dominated by progressives.
Out of 63 million children who were aborted, one of them may have been another Mozart or Einstein. It’s conceivable that one of them may have discovered a cure for cancer. We’ll never know.
Well we need to kill more babies then.
Actually we probably would, because as Julian Simon demonstrated over and over, people are our most valuable resource. Most of those babies, assuming they didn’t become gangsters or welfare bums, would go to work and produce value, which would create more economic activity and thus more jobs, which would attract people from other countries. And we’d all be better off for it.
I don’t think now would be a good time to try that.
I guess Pencil Neck thinks that SCOTUS should have never changed its mind and reversed Dred Scott v Sandford or Plessy v Ferguson.
They would need bigger robes, wider chairs and perhaps have to reinforce the maximum weight bearing capacity of the floor joists.
Sorry. This should be under “Expand the court”
Here’s a point few understand = the Supreme Court isn’t supreme.
Take a look at the Supremacy Clause to see what isn’t there. Namely, Supreme Court opinions. Its opinions are not “law” as that term is defined in Article I.
The leak has given us a silver lining. The left won’t be able to crank it up a second time, in June, when the actual opinion is published. Washington Redskin Warren won’t be able to screech any louder the second time.
Not quite. The supremacy clause says that the constitution, statutes, and treaties, are the supreme law of the land. But Article 3 says that the “judicial power” lies with the federal courts, and the judicial power by definition is the power to say what the law is. Not to make new law, but to decide what existing law means. So the supreme law of the land is really what the court say the constitution, the statutes, and the treaties mean.
“is really what the court say the constitution, the statutes, and the treaties mean”
And when the Constitution is silent on a matter, like abortion, then there is nothing over which any part of fedgov has any jurisdiction. Alito has it right: Roe was wrong from the outset. Blackmun et alia arrogated to the USSC that which wasn’t there.
“We must expand the court”
One way to expand the court without passing legislation is to put all the justices on the same diet as Sotomayor.
Full of Schiff shares the REAL motive for the leak.
It had little to do with the Roe case in particular
It was about a pretextual justification for a preferred political outcome in EVERY CASE before the court.
Ah, back to pretending to not be a Politico troll now I see.
Salty about getting schooled on the topic?
Sorry slick, I’m one of the ones doing the schooling.
There is nothing difficult about refuting your talking points
I can keep dunking on the so called “pro life” moral argument by pointing out that they really don’t have a leg to stand on in light of things like Judges 11 – 30 – 40.
That comparison in Judges is out of context and stupid even for you.
That has nothing to do with pro life or abortion- that has to do with not making vows or oaths ( you will be held accountable for them).
Or as we say “Don’t write a check with your mouth you are not ready to cash with your ass”.
Another slam dunk on the “pro life” moral argument is in 1 Samuel 15:2-3.
Its all in that book that peole like to wave around but don’t bother reading.
Damn, you really are that stupid aren’t you?
First, 1 Samuel 15:2-3 is not in context with the subject at hand. This is regarding actions in time of war.
‘Pro life” defined as “anti abortion” is in no way in conflict with that. (If you actually UNDERSTOOD what you read, you would know that)
There is a big difference between murder (unjustified as defined in Exodus 20:13) of a person innocent of a crime under the law and the killing of a combatant/host citizen in a time of war.
Plus if you want to look at it philosophically, the Law ( with God as the ultimate authority and Judge) ordered a legitimate EXECUTION in time of war so its not “murder” or “unjustified” as it was ruled by proper authority with Sovereignty.
Yeah boy, bring your whiney smart ass to me and I’ll tear you a new one.
You are wasting your time with an honest-to-God moron.
You can take a single quote from any book and do what you are doing. Misrepresenting the whole. Context, it matters. Read the whole book, or at least the whole chapter before you take it as meaning something that is not contextual.
He knows that. Its a textbook liberal technique because if they actually presented a case properly- they would never win.
Its deliberate and don’t expect the troll to change.
Wow, what a maroon. That is not an argument at all. First of all, the pro-life movement is not a religious movement at all, and Alito’s proposed decision is not based in any way on the Bible.
Now if you want to argue from a religious basis, the commandment to destroy Amalek does not imply in any way that the Amalekites were not human! The same God who commanded us not to murder people, made an explicit exception to that rule and commanded us to wipe out the entire nation of Amalek. Since the definition of good is obeying Him, and the definition of evil is defying Him, whatever He says goes.
He made us all, including the Amalekites, and if He says to kill them then that is right and just, for the exact same reason that killing other people is wrong and evil. We don’t need to know His reasons. If He had commanded us to kill unborn babies that would make it right. But He didn’t; He commanded us not to kill anyone except where otherwise ordered. Which includes in defense of self or others, and also Amalek.
If the first leak of its kind from one of the highest levels of government is considered a sideshow, I think we’ve got a serious issue with the swamp.
The swamp is going to double and triple down. Martial law is coming.
“Chairman Adam Schiff doesn’t “care how the draft leaked.” He considers it a “sideshow.”
If you can’t trust a freak to recognize a sideshow, American culture is doomed.
He is running for Pelosi’s seat and attempting to get the squad to be his stormtroopers.
I think a 208 term abortion should be codied pertaining to shiftless adam schiff.
I’ll self-identify as his healthcare provider.
No need. Do it in Connecticut, where any fry cook or small engine mechanic is qualified.
They had 50 years to codify abortion but didn’t do it. Probably to keep the threat of having it repealed a great way to raise money. Now it’s the main argument for packing the Supreme Court.
Watching a major party collapse into oblivion. Screeching children demanding, demanding, demanding. Wahhhhhhh!!!!
Schiff is in denial of witches and warlock hunts past, present, and progressive, and stuck on a wicked solution, a final solution, to a purportedly hard problem: Jews… grannies… babies or life deemed unworthy of life.
We must keep all rulings valid for the rest of time.
But only if those rulings advance the democrat, liberal leftists agenda. If they in any way oppose that or benefit Republican conservatives then they must be immediately overturned stare decisis and precedent be damned.
I agree with Alan Dershowitz
Prior to the release of the opinion, Chief Justice Roberts is going to pull at least one vote away from Alito (likely Kavanaugh) so that the case only decides the Missippi statute and Roe will live to fight another day.
Gee an appeal to authority fallacy.
Apparently, you don’t understand how those work either.
It’s important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However, it is entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.
Oh you idiot.
I understand fully.
I wasn’t disregarding Dershowitz, I was disregarding YOU and your claim.
The difference is that he and i know what we are doing and are qualified- you are just another Politico troll spouting talking points attempting to appear knowledgeable.
You weakness is the lack of depth you show. ( something people who actually know the subject matter can see immediately but trolls such as yourself cant see under any circumstances)
You have to admit, that argument sounds a bit like an Ad Hominem fallacy. But then, of course, there’s the Dismal Fallacy (or Fallacy Fallacy). Just because an argument is based on a fallacy doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
Roberts plays ball, or his Epstein videos get released.
Maybe Elon Musk could offer a hefty incentive for some kevlared professionals to liberate those videos, and then broadcast them over Starlink to neuter the blackmailers’ power once and for all.
Dershowitz repeats the “switch in time” myth. That doesn’t say much for his credibility. There was no “switch in time that saved nine”. The vote was held before FDR announced his court-packing plan, so it could not have been affected by it.
“I agree with Alan Dershowitz”
And so did Jeffery Epstein
If Schiff and the rest of the leftist democrats actually go through with packing the court and impeaching Conservative justices we can say good-bye to the independent judiciary. The democrats will control all three branches of government and there will be nothing stopping them from imposing whatever laws they wish on U.S. citizens.
I think that is the result they are aiming for.
“…we can say good-bye to the independent judiciary.”
Talk about understatement. We can say goodbye to the good old USA. That would be grounds for secession by numerous states.
I have no interest in a country run by the Adam Schiff’s of the world. The man doesn’t have a moral fiber in his body and will lie, cheat, steal or far worse to achieve his end goals.
Do we have an independent judiciary now? They won’t punish government functionaries who lie to them, they help executive agencies undermine the will of Congress and the President by blessing consent decrees, and district court judges make rulings purporting to have national rather than district jurisdiction.
Can we give Schiff and Schumer a couple of Louisville Sluggers and unleash them in a cockfighting ring against each other?
Even if you did, there wouldn’t be a cock in the ring.
Plus, Schiff and Schumer wouldn’t fight. They’d re-enact “The Abner Louima Story” and probably make a musical out of it to boot.
We must pray the plan is not to expand the court the breadth of Schiff’s ignorance. That would require the seating of dead souls as well as the living.
Praying is good. Action is best.
Unfortunately the “SchiffBird” is my Congress critter. And the voters in my district will keep sending this clown to Congress until he dies. He’s a fairly disgusting piece of congressional carrion, but he’s survivor. If you put Schiff’s ego on Guam it would tip over—hat tip to Hank Johnson.
Demonstrating why we shouldn’t take a thing they say about extremism or norms seriously as anything besides a hypocritical insult.
Even if SCOTUS did “lie to the Senate”, since when does SCOTUS report to them?
The progressive fascists on the SC lied when they swore to respect and defend the constitution.
The only point of packing the court is to allow the progressive fascists to ignore the constitution. Anything that is an obstacle to their power must be destroyed! This would turn the USA into a progressive fascist stat, just like the USSR, Venezuela and China and just as evil. It would allow them to exterminate anyone who opposes them.
You have to admit, this could get interesting.
Everybody here thinks the Democrats will take over everything and we will be doomed. But the worm always turns, the other shoe falls, and the tables get turned. It happens all the time. What goes around, comes around.
Just imagine. The Democrats eliminate the filibuster and create 4 new supreme court justice positions and fill them. The voters get pissed, so the next time Republicans have the power, they create 4 more. And then, the next time the Democrats win, they create 10 more, and then ….. you get the idea. At some point, the Supreme Court has to move to a massive high-rise office building to house all the justices, the Supremely Gigantic Court. Cases that make it to the Supreme Court take years to get sorted out and decided, by which time, the activists aren’t even sure what or when to protest. Leaks are not a problem, because there are 100 draft opinions leaked on every case, so nobody can make heads-or-tails of what is real.
Mary Chastain: Imagine if SCOTUS relied on precedent when it came to slavery
OldProf2: reversed Dred Scott v Sandford
Slavery wasn’t ended and the Dred Scott decision wasn’t overturned by the Supreme Court overruling precedent, but by constitutional amendment following a civil war.
I agree Mr. Schiff, and we should start with every lie you told about Russiagate as a felony for purposely misleading the American People.