Brian Kemper

Those are statements of opinions, which in the US cannot be defamation.

Trump's well aware of that as he's had a number of defamation lawsuits, including 2 against CNN, thrown out because the statements at issue were deemed statements of opinion.

You act like he's never been sued. He has repeatedly. And a number of them have been laughed out of court.

He doesn't care when they are. Hell, at this point, he may not even know when those suits happen.

Why are you posting that?

I'm rewatching Babylon 5 (currently on season 3) and it's hitting so much harder right now than it had in the past.

I know that it was referencing historical precedent on a number of issues, but it was still prescient on the same things.

I’ll note that I was in law school in the ‘90’s and in our discussions re: Roe, there was no “certainty” that a more conservative SCOTUS with “better” vetting would not overturn Roe, especially when it remained a plank of the Republican party to do so.

orginally mentioned was in the context. of the “certainty” above re: birthright citizenship now that the issue is in front of the Court.

So the “certainty” re: Roe comment has to be about when Dobbs was before or approaching SCOTUS.

And there was no such “certainty” at that time.

enough votes.

Further, even “settled law” does not mean it’s not overturnable. All it means is that SCOTUS had addressed the issue before and settled it then for the lower courts.

Hell. Plessy v Ferguson was settled law at one point too.

Finally, as I noted elsewhere, the “certainty” ….

In the ‘90’s it was not considered untouchable.

FFS, it barely survived the Planned Parenthood decision in ‘92, and that was because the conservative O’Connor surprisingly voted in support of keeping Roe.

And then we saw state efforts to undermine Roe as mush possible if/until they got ….

Okay, I’ve had three more follow me since this post.

Yeah, I think it was because I mentioned the line in my writing rather than what the shot said.

It explains it the best especially due to its inconsistencies like claiming that paragraph only addresses “licenses” when it is explicitly mentions “broadcast licenses” for the CBS cases analogous to Halleck.

So even during the 2016 campaign, such certainty wasn't present when you have the winning guy stating that any appointees he chose would be done with the intent of overturning Roe v. Wade.

Trump: I'll appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion case Trump says he wants abortion legality to be decided by individual states, while Clinton vows to defend abortion rights.

I mean, FFS, Donald Trump came right out during the Presidential debate in 2016 that he would appoint judges to overturn Roe.

www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/t...

Oh, look they blocked me rather than attempting to back up their nakedly wrong assertions.

What a fucking surprise.

nakedly partisan.

I don't remember (and haven't seen) neutral commentators saying she was crazy on this point. In fact, I remember many of those agreeing with her.

ESPECIALLY given McConnell's shenanigans surrounding the Gorsuch nomination.

certainty when Dobbs was in front of SCOTUS. I've shown that there wasn't.

B) I've addressed your point in another reply pointing out, with regard to "voters" being told (I assume in 2016) that Roe was untouchable, that the people who "torpedoed" Hilary weren't credible because they were ....

A) As I stated, my original comments that you replied to was made to someone whose statement was in the context of the current certainly about the Court case in front of SCOTUS and comparing that to the "certainty" to Roe. In such a comparison, you have to look at whether there was such ...

They both like jerking off two men at once?

Okay, that's just a guess with the Village People, but Trump's dance is proof for him.

But wait ...

JC is my sockpuppet account.

Pure chaos here.

There was a reason, after all, why a number of states started passing abortion laws that outright defied Roe as opposed to laws passed in the prior two or more decades that were dancing along the grey areas of Roe.

They knew that it wasn't certain that Roe would be upheld. Quite the opposite.

outcome or belief in a likelihood that Roe would be overturned, or limited so much that it would be practically overturned (like allowing states to prohibit abortions after 15 weeks).

I'd also note that the context of the original statement was with regard to the certainty being shown now with the birthright cases before the courts and in particular SCOTUS.

If you look at articles at the time when Dobbs was in front of SCOTUS, many express either uncertainty of the ....

Here's ABC News right after Ginsburg's death:

And the whole leaking thing didn't help either.

Correction: "that Roe wouldn't be overturned" not the gibberish I wrote.

And given that there were a number of those whose opinions on the matter expressed that point (and who weren't clearly politically motivated in the campaign), I don't think that there was an overall "certainty' on the matter.

A) I asked the question to someone else about their memory of such certainty.

B) And what I thought does matter, as much as the person I was replying to did, as my thought processes were also supported by those legal professionals (that I had previously mentioned) who did have such uncertainty.

But what pundits were doing it? I know that Republicans were saying that re: Hilary but they were against her winning anyway and didn't want to give any ammunition to anyone for voting for her.

Their statements shouldn't have been credible in the least.

Google's AI says that the listener is "typically a woman."

But it also told me an hour ago that yes, you can sue the federal government for defamation.