Supreme Court Lives Put at Risk by Biden, Pelosi January 6 Lies, SHOCKING Ashli Babbitt Documents...

Thank you my friend MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D. for posting the perspective from Judicial Watch weekly update with Tom Fittin.

Abortion advocates off the rails
By Terry A. Hurlbut
The Supreme Court let slide its opportunity today to release an opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Now the country must wait, likely until next month. Meanwhile, those who want the government to permit abortion at all stages have gone off the rails. When they do that, they show that they cannot defend abortion as a sound principle of law or social action.
Supreme Court puts off abortion decision.
As above, the Supreme Court released two opinions and a slew of orders, none having to do with abortion. On the case that prompted the draft leak, the Court released no opinion today. Chief Justice Roberts must still be vainly trying to build consensus by brokering a fractured decision. While he dithers, protesters still parade in front of his and his colleagues’ houses. (When they do that, they break the law: Title 18 USC § 1507). The White House eggs them on, and now even Bill Maher can’t support that. For that matter, 75 percent of the country, including 67 percent of Democrats, don’t support parading in front of Justices’ houses, according to the latest Trafalgar polls.
That hasn’t stopped House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) from calling the Supreme Court dangerous to freedom, and even to families. How the Court is supposed to pose a danger to families, she doesn’t explain. Maybe Democrats don’t explain; they emote.
Obviously the Democrats have drawn the battle line. They think they can drum up support for themselves at Midterms – which they won’t, actually. Any enthusiasm they drum up for their side, pales in comparison to the enthusiasm on the other side. But their defenses of abortion itself shows that they are defending the indefensible.
Abortion as a way to fight inflation?
The worst single argument today in favor of abortion comes from Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.). She actually told MSNBC Host Lawrence O’Donnell, on his show, that inflation justifies abortion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQm-4__YCcI
O’Donnell asked her which issue she held more important: abortion or inflation? And she said:
Well, I don’t think they compare, I think they actually reinforce each other. So the fact that things like inflation can happen, and it can become more expensive to feed your kids and to fuel your car, is exactly why people need to be able to be in charge of how many mouths they’re going to have to feed.
Wow. Lifeboat ethics writ large. Never mind that governments and their central banks cause inflation. By the logic of Rep. Porter’s remarks, government should let parents line up their children and shoot one or more of them to save the rest.
One expects better than that from doctors – and we’re not getting it. The journal Lancet carried a letter on May 14 actually criticizing Justice Sam Alito for relying on the Constitution.
What is so shockingly [in]human and irrational about the Court’s decision is that it bases its decision upon an 18th century document ignorant of 21st century realities for women.
Excuse me? That “eighteenth century document” is our governing charter. Justice Alito did his job. And those doctors have come within an inch of not doing theirs.
Reproduction harder on women than men?
Then we have Sherry Colb, who occasionally writes for the site Justia, which pretends to be neutral. This one quote from her post on the unashamedly leftist philosophy-of-law site Dorf on Law states her best case:
[F]or the most part, women’s role in reproduction is far more demanding, physically and psychologically, than men’s. Specifically, men ejaculate and thereby complete their role. Women, by contrast, endure forty weeks of some combination of nausea and vomiting, difficulty sleeping, difficulty breathing, the risk of gestational diabetes, the risk of life-threatening pre-eclampsia, the potential need to experience bed rest (which is anything but restful), the most physically painful experiences at the end, including the risk of vaginal tearing and of more serious complications, followed by the production of milk that can sometimes cause very painful mammary gland blockage (if she misses a feeding or pumping) and risks of an abscess.
Your editor isn’t a lawyer, but he does have a medical degree. Toxemia of pregnancy (“pre-eclampsia”) is a risk, but a low risk for most. Gestational diabetes is even rarer. If we all decide to be as risk-averse as she advocates, the species will die out. (Is that what she wants?) Everything she mentions, people can manage.
And forbidding abortion, or denying it federal judicial protection, does not mean absolving men of the responsibility for supporting the lives they help create. CNAV would welcome the child-support debate. Let the “young studs” “sowing their wild oats” step up to the plate.
The real issue
But of course that avoids the real issue. The real issue is a fanatical desire to make abortion and even infanticide lawful. The arguments people advance for it turn out to be specious. And when people aren’t even interested in arguing, they indulge in such vulgar expressions as calling an unborn child “a good snack.” As some did at a pro-abortion rally in Phoenix, Arizona.
This shows that abortion advocates have gone off the rails. The very prospect of the Constitution snapping back from “mere thing of wax” to its proper form, has unhinged them. So don’t let them fool you. As Justice Alito said, if that’s their best, they’ve got nothing.
https://rumble.com/v14zkcu-abortion-advocates-off-the-rails.html

Background from {[theguardian.com/law/2022/may/15/us-supreme-court-abortion-nancy-pelosi
Nancy Pelosi: supreme court ‘dangerous to families and to freedoms’
House speaker rails against conservative judges appointed by Trump as justices prepare to finalize draft abortion ruling.
The supreme court is “dangerous to families and to freedoms in our country”, Nancy Pelosi said on Sunday, as justices prepare to finalize a draft ruling stripping almost half a century of abortion rights in the US.
The House speaker railed against conservative judges appointed by former president Donald Trump in an interview on CNN’s State of the Union, in which she urged Democrats to keep their “eye on the ball” to protect other freedoms she sees as under threat.
“Beware in terms of marriage equality, beware in terms of other aspects,” she said.
“Understand this. This is not just about terminating a pregnancy. This is about contraception, family planning.
“This is a place where freedom and the kitchen table, issues of America’s families, come together. What are the decisions that a family makes? What about contraception for young people? It’s beyond just a particular situation. It’s massive in terms of contraception, in vitro fertilization, a woman’s right to decide.”
Speaking the day after hundreds of protest events took place nationwide, Pelosi insisted Democrats had done what they could in terms of protecting abortion rights through legislation. She pointed out the House had passed a bill before the Women’s Health Protection Act failed in the Senate on Wednesday, and she said she was still optimistic of a resolution with the support of pro-choice Republicans.
But she said the 60-vote requirement in the Senate was “an obstacle to many good things”, and that Democrats needed to rally ahead of November’s midterm elections to “get rid of the damage” caused by conservative justices, including Trump’s three appointments, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
“Whoever suspected a creature like Donald Trump would become president, waving a list of judges he would appoint, therefore getting the support of the far right and appointing those anti-freedom justices to the court?” she said.
“This is not about a long game. We played a long game, we won Roe v Wade a long time ago, we voted to protect it over time. Let’s not take our eye off the ball. The ball is this court, which is dangerous to families, to freedoms in our country.
“The genius of our founders was to have a constitution that enabled freedom to expand. This is the first time the court has taken back a freedom that was defined by precedent and respect for privacy.”
The independent Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, on NBC’s Meet the Press, said he remained hopeful that abortion rights legislation could be resurrected before the midterms.
“Nobody should think this process is dead. We should bring those bills up again, and again and again,” he said.
“People cannot believe you have a supreme court and Republicans who are prepared to overturn 50 years of precedent. What we should do is on this bill end the filibuster, do everything that we can to get 50 votes on the strongest possible bill to protect a woman’s right to control her own body.”
An NBC News poll conducted after the leak of a draft opinion and reported by the network on Sunday showed six out of 10 voters were in favor of abortion rights, and that 52% of voters were “less likely” to support a candidate who backed the supreme court’s draft ruling.
But the poll found that inflation and the economy remained the biggest concerns for voters as the midterms approach.

FYI SGT James Murphy Sgt (Join to see) SPC Nancy Greene PO3 Phyllis Maynard Lt Col Charlie Brown SMSgt David A Asbury SMSgt Lawrence McCarter Maj Kim Patterson SGT Mary G. CSM Charles Hayden CSM Bruce Trego SGM Major Stroupe 1SG Joseph Dartey LCDR Joseph Richter Lt Col (Join to see)
Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. Maj William W. 'Bill' Price SSG William Jones SFC (Join to see)

Play this on the major networks simultaneously brother Dale.

Question: Should SCOTUS (as a self-governing body) require the resignation of the Justice who employed the individual who leaked the draft RvW decision?

As a further response to this horrendous act of violence (the leak can be considered an act of violence, as well as the silence regarding the horrible threats to some of the SCOTUS Justices) should Congress REDUCE the number of Justices to 7, and dismiss Sheala Jackson Lee (who would no longer be required in the instance above, should it be done)?