“Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito last night mocked Prince Harry for wading into domestic US politics during his first public remarks since the decision to overturn Roe v Wade.

Alito, one of the conservative judges on the bench, was speaking at the University of Notre Dame Law School in Rome last week.

He roasted the foreign leaders who weighed on the SCOTUS decision, and joked that it was Harry's disapproval which 'wounded' him most.

'I had the honor this term of writing I think the only Supreme Court decision in the history of the institution that has been lambasted by a whole string of foreign leaders who felt perfectly fine commenting on American law.

'One of these was former PM Boris Johnson, but he paid the price. Others are still in office, President Macron and PM Trudeau are two.

'But what really wounded me was when the Duke of Sussex addressed the UN and seemed to compare the decision - whose name may not be spoken - with the Russian attack on Ukraine,' he said, prompting laughs from the audience. 

Alito added: 'Well, despite this temptation I am not going to talk about cases from other countries. …”

More in DailyMail article.
https://mol.im/a/11060589

Well done!

And he did not even refer to Harry as a spoiled little twit!

He had so much to work with but showed amazing restraint.

Too bad he didn’t light into the petulant Trudeau

The Prince is, after all, a noted legal scholar.

It is the thing that bothers me most about almost all commentary on the case. Almost all commenters, both pro and con, want to only talk about the merits of pro or anti-abortion policy. In other words, they want to talk about the substantive merits of abortion policy.

They don't want to talk about the legal decision, and what the constitution says about abortion as a legal matter. The case is about the legal question, after all. It is not about abortion policy.

(This is especially true of the left, which is to be expected, because it is much harder to argue there was ever a legal basis for the original Roe v. Wade decision. But even the anti abortion folks tend to focus on the merits of the policy question, not the legal decision.)

All the hard creds Harry developed through the Invictus games, he lost in that address to the UN.The lesson the fallen prince should’ve remembered is that “we don’t raise ourselves through the lowering of others”.

If they stay in the States, they could end up being mocked and humiliated on a regular basis.

Harry, have you and the missus ever considered buying a Piper Saratoga? Give it some thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...nedy_Jr._plane_crash

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
The Prince is, after all, a noted legal scholar.

It is the thing that bothers me most about almost all commentary on the case. Almost all commenters, both pro and con, want to only talk about the merits of pro or anti-abortion policy. In other words, they want to talk about the substantive merits of abortion policy.

They don't want to talk about the legal decision, and what the constitution says about abortion as a legal matter. The case is about the legal question, after all. It is not about abortion policy.

(This is especially true of the left, which is to be expected, because it is much harder to argue there was ever a legal basis for the original Roe v. Wade decision. But even the anti abortion folks tend to focus on the merits of the policy question, not the legal decision.)

100% agree with all points.

Didn’t Harry renounce his royal titles?

Don't start none, won't be none. Oh, and Harry? You might want to consider this a sign from heaven that Meagan isn't the best PR counselor or buisness partner you could possibly hope for.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Harry, have you and the missus ever considered buying a Piper Saratoga? Give it some thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...nedy_Jr._plane_crash

That’s unkind. I like it!

The Saratoga is a fine airplane though, all it needs is a pilot that doesn’t get in over his or her head. Harry seems to have demonstrated the ability to get in far over his head…

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
The Prince is, after all, a noted legal scholar.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
It is the thing that bothers me most about almost all commentary on the case. Almost all commenters, both pro and con, want to only talk about the merits of pro or anti-abortion policy.
...

... The case is about the legal question, after all. It is not about abortion policy.

Agree entirely.

And, if you try to haul the discussion on-track, both sides will haul it right back off-track again.

The decision was not about abortion policy. It was about a poorly-made decision that weakened the Constitution.

Yeah, the SCOTUS that ruled on Roe v. Wade is the same SCOTUS that struck down execution, both rulings in 1972, and both bad decisions. IOW, it's perfectly fine to murder the innocent, but immoral to terminate the lives of people who've murdered, tortured, etc. Fucking brilliant.

The death penalty ruling lasted not even five years but it took 50 years to figure out that the government has no business being involved in the murder of innocents.

quote:

They don't want to talk about the legal decision, and what the constitution says about abortion as a legal matter. The case is about the legal question, after all. It is not about abortion policy.

I ended an argument with - 'Let's treat abortion the same as another right that is actually specified in the constitution as 'shall not be infringed'. Before you can get an abortion: you must be 21, never had a felony conviction, no drug use, pass a background check and in some cases, there is a waiting period. Then, to walk around with your abortion, you must have a permit that may or may not be honored in other states. Oh, and depending on the size, shape & capability of your planned abortion, you might have to pay a 200$ tax and have a 2nd background check which can take up to a year.'

She was holding my 22lr AR pistol with a suppressor & brace. I didn't even get to the part about making you a felon if you held an abortion a certain way or switched parts around that had different lengths.

10-15 years from now Megan will have left Harry, live with a new boy toy from the Dominican Republic and Harry will slink back to the UK to rehabilitate himself in Prince Andrew's spare bedroom.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
Didn’t Harry renounce his royal titles?

No, he stepped down as a Senior Royal.

He is no longer referred to as HRH, but retains his Dukedom

That's not how I would address him. He's nothing to me. Nepotism at it's obscene worst. Fuck him and fuck his loudmouthed busybody bitch of a wife.

Seriously, Harry, consider a night flight over the ocean. Take your hole of a wife with you.

I'd dance a jig in the middle of the street.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

And, if you try to haul the discussion on-track, both sides will haul it right back off-track again.

Yes, they certainly will. It happens all the time.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

It is the thing that bothers me most about almost all commentary on the case. Almost all commenters, both pro and con, want to only talk about the merits of pro or anti-abortion policy. In other words, they want to talk about the substantive merits of abortion policy.

They don't want to talk about the legal decision, and what the constitution says about abortion as a legal matter. The case is about the legal question, after all. It is not about abortion policy.

I have to disagree with your statement that "almost all commentary on the case... both pro and con, want to only talk about the merits of the pro or anti-abortion policy."

Most of the commentary I've heard supporting the latest SCOTUS decision is that it returns the decision back to the individual states, not that abortions are bad. I'm even surprise you have that impression since I would think you're a lawyer talking with others in your industry and they would have the right perspective on this issue as you described it.

quote:

Most of the commentary I've heard supporting the latest SCOTUS decision is that it returns the decision back to the individual states, not that abortions are bad. I'm even surprise you have that impression since I would think you're a lawyer talking with others in your industry and they would have the right perspective on this issue as you described it.

I think you’re misinterpreting jhe’s assessment. He’s saying essentially the same thing, the Constitution doesn’t say anything about abortion, therefore it is up to the states or legislature to codify it into law or not.