Conservative Supreme Court Justice Alito's Sharp Legal Mind

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, in the leaked draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, cited Sir Matthew Hale as one of the “eminent common-law authorities.” Alito cites him to show how abortion was viewed historically not as a right, but as a criminal act.

Hale wrote about abortion in the late 1600s, but cites no precedents for his claims because there were none. Hale also believed in witches and personally sentenced three women to death (before the Salem Witch Trials) for that crime. He had a very dim view of women, considering them useless, feeble-minded, squanderers of estates, and who occupied themselves with makeup, fashions, and gossip. 

Hale was somewhat of an extremist even in his own time, holding some views that were regarded as anachronistic. This is the eminent authority on abortion that Alito uses to justify his own opinions.

Alito wrote, “Two treatises by Sir Matthew Hale likewise described abortion of a quick child who died in the womb as a ‘great crime’ and a ‘great misprision.’” Even before quickening (when movement is detected, usually between the 16th and 18th week), Hale believed an abortion could qualify as homicide if the woman died as a result, and Alito quotes Hale on this.

I'm not sure how much, if any, of this draft made it into the Supreme Court's final decision overturning Roe v. Wade. But the draft itself is damning enough. Alito cites Hale as an authority. A judge from the 1600s who sentenced women to death for witchcraft, who had scathing views of the nature of women, and who wrote legal treatises with opinions pulled out of thin air.

https://www.propublica.org/article/abortion-roe-wade-alito-scotus-hale, May 6, 2022

Deists, Not Christians

The Founding Fathers were Deists, not Christians. They fought against state-sponsored religion (especially The Church of England). Nowhere in The Constitution is there anything about Christianity, Jesus, sins, an afterlife, etc. 

Freedom of Religion is in the Bill of Rights. You are allowed your religion. You are not allowed to impose it on others. 

You want a theocracy? There are plenty of Fascist, autocratic, theocratic countries you can move to. You want to ban books? Go there. You want a preacher standing between a person and their doctor? Go there. You want to execute people for not following YOUR religious beliefs? Go there. 

You want to worship an antiChrist? Go there. You want to invade peaceful countries and spread lies as justification? Go there. You want to arrest and try opposition leaders who have not had evidence presented to and indictments issued from Grand Juries? Go there. 

You want to lie about scientists proving that zygotes or fetuses are human just after conception? (Hint: they proved that zygotes and fetuses have human DNA. Not that they were people.) Argue and shove your religion down your fellow "Christian" brethren's throats; I'm sure all the myriad of other Christian sects will choose to follow YOUR beliefs. 

Take your Christian Nationalists out behind your Churches and hold barbeques with them and listen to them endorse a lying, cheating, con artist who mangles sentences, gets basic facts wrong, mispronounces words, and claims he can hear one fact about a subject and suddenly be the world's smartest man on that subject. (He said, "That's the way my whatever works," while pointing to his head.)

Go ahead, we are waiting.

Taking Money From The Pockets Of The Rich?

Individual Responsibility is acceptable, but there also needs to be Social Responsibility.

If people are not paid living wages, they end up needing government assistance. That means taxpayer funds are subsidizing wages. And that is corporate welfare.

Infrastructure is a Social Responsibility.

Companies don't like paying an equal portion of Social Security because they think it is their money. In reality, it is the cost of employing someone. Social Security taxes are 12.4%, whether paid by the self-employed or by splitting costs between employees and employers. Splitting means employees have other taxes taken only on half the 12.4%. Do you think if companies did not have to pay ½, employees' pay would increase so they could pay the 12.4%?

How about universal healthcare? The US system is third-world and profit-driven. A deductible of $6,000? 20-50% co-pays? How many have insurance they can't afford to use? Single-payer is not socializing healthcare. Hospitals, clinics, and labs wouldn't be nationalized. It's like car insurance—spreading the costs by having a bigger pool paying in.

40 years of trickle-down and a refusal to adjust rates have left Social Security with a 10-year solvency instead of 75 years. It's a manufactured crisis. 

Greed—the refusal of people to give employees any of the rewards for productivity increases. It's class warfare on the middle- and lower-classes by the wealthy and their corporations.

People are not asking to take money out of your pockets. They are asking for their fair share up front so they don't have to beg for assistance.