MoGOP’s Book Patrol
07 Saturday May 2022
Posted in Uncategorized
07 Saturday May 2022
Posted in Uncategorized
06 Friday May 2022
Posted in Resist
Tags
#resist, abortion, missouri, protest, Roe v Wade, Supreme Court, Warrensburg
From 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. today a grassroots pro-choice demonstration, organized online and by word of mouth, took place on the Johnson County Courthouse lawn in downtown Warrensburg. Over 100 individuals participated. There was a constant law enforcement presence. Most passing traffic signaled their support by honking their car horns. A few anti-choice individuals shouted what appeared to be unintelligible talking points which were usually meet with sharp retorts.
This was a much younger crowd and mostly female. They are awake and motivated. It would be a big mistake to ignore or discount their activism.
They were fearless.

“…trying to decipher what your little mythical book has to say about these very real political issues…”
Several large trucks trolled the demonstration with drive-bys. One truck, with a barely readable sign (“abortion is murder”) and a defaced American flag trailing from its bed made several passes over the course of the demonstration. The occupants were greeted with jeers and shouts about compensation.
Two anti-choice counter-protesters across the street were met with a constant stream of heckling.
Observing from across the street:
After pro-choice demonstrators took over the northeast corner the two anti-choice protesters, one with an unreadable sign (“baby lives matter” – come on, can’t they think of anything else?), crossed to the southeast corner to stand next to the police. Two pro-choice protestors crossed to the same corner. A police officer tried to move them back across the street. They refused to move (it’s a public sidewalk) and the main body of pro-choice demonstrators on the courthouse sidewalk jeered and shouted from across the street. The police officer eventually relented.
After 6:00 p.m. the remaining demonstrators marched down the sidewalk toward the University of Central Missouri campus.
Previously:
Stare decisis don’t mean shit (May 2, 2022)
Into the streets (May 2, 2022)
Gleeful handwringing (May 3, 2022)
It’s the GOP’s world, now you just get to live in it> (May 3, 2022)
Into the streets, part 2 (May 3, 2022)
A statement (May 3, 2022)
Into the streets, part 3 (May 3, 2022)
BREAKING NEWS: Pearl-clutcher clutches pearls (May 3, 2022)
Heartland POD: SCOTUS Abortion Case (May 3, 2022)
Into the streets, part 4 (May 4, 2022)
Into the streets, part 5 (May 5, 2022)
McCullen v Coakley (2014) gently weeps (May 5, 2022)
05 Thursday May 2022
Posted in Uncategorized
From the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014:
[….]
In 2007, Massachusetts amended its Reproductive Health Care Facilities Act, which had been enacted in 2000 to address clashes between abortion opponents and advocates of abortion rights outside clinics where abortions were performed. The amended version of the Act makes it a crime to knowingly stand on a “public way or sidewalk” within 35 feet of an entrance or driveway to any “reproductive health care facility,” defined as “a place, other than within or upon the grounds of a hospital, where abortions are offered or performed.”[….]
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court.
A Massachusetts statute makes it a crime to knowingly stand on a “public way or sidewalk” within 35 feet of an entrance or driveway to any place, other than a hospital, where abortions are performed. Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 266, §§120E½(a), (b) (West 2012). Petitioners are individuals who approach and talk to women outside such facilities, attempting to dissuade them from having abortions. The statute prevents petitioners from doing so near the facilities’ entrances. The question presented is whether the statute violates the First Amendment.
[….]
Petitioners wish to converse with their fellow citizens about an important subject on the public streets and sidewalks—sites that have hosted discussions about the issues of the day throughout history. Respondents assert undeniably significant interests in maintaining public safety on those same streets and sidewalks, as well as in preserving access to adjacent healthcare facilities. But here the Commonwealth has pursued those interests by the extreme step of closing a substantial portion of a traditional public forum to all speakers. It has done so without seriously addressing the problem through alternatives that leave the forum open for its time-honored purposes. The Commonwealth may not do that consistent with the First Amendment.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Today, at the United States Supreme Court:
ABC News @ABC
A new, imposing eight-foot-high fence was erected overnight at the U.S. Supreme Court in the wake of protests over a bombshell draft opinion on abortion.
[….]
1:16 PM · May 5, 2022
Apparently the First Amendment doesn’t apply.
“…Petitioners wish to converse with their fellow citizens about an important subject on the public streets and sidewalks—sites that have hosted discussions about the issues of the day throughout history…”
“…by the extreme step of closing a substantial portion of a traditional public forum to all speakers. It has done so without seriously addressing the problem through alternatives that leave the forum open for its time-honored purposes…”
Apparently the First Amendment doesn’t apply to criticism of the Supreme Court. Snowflakes.
Previously:
Stare decisis don’t mean shit (May 2, 2022)
Into the streets (May 2, 2022)
Gleeful handwringing (May 3, 2022)
It’s the GOP’s world, now you just get to live in it> (May 3, 2022)
Into the streets, part 2 (May 3, 2022)
A statement (May 3, 2022)
Into the streets, part 3 (May 3, 2022)
BREAKING NEWS: Pearl-clutcher clutches pearls (May 3, 2022)
Heartland POD: SCOTUS Abortion Case (May 3, 2022)
Into the streets, part 4 (May 4, 2022)
Into the streets, part 5 (May 5, 2022)
05 Thursday May 2022
Posted in Uncategorized
Tags
Late on Monday night an extensive U.S. Supreme Court draft majority opinion by Samuel Alito was leaked indicating the court will reverse Roe v Wade (1973). On Tuesday the Supreme Court confirmed that the document was authentic.
The time is now.
Welcome to 21st Century America.
Previously:
Stare decisis don’t mean shit (May 2, 2022)
Into the streets (May 2, 2022)
Gleeful handwringing (May 3, 2022)
It’s the GOP’s world, now you just get to live in it> (May 3, 2022)
Into the streets, part 2 (May 3, 2022)
A statement (May 3, 2022)
Into the streets, part 3 (May 3, 2022)
BREAKING NEWS: Pearl-clutcher clutches pearls (May 3, 2022)
Heartland POD: SCOTUS Abortion Case (May 3, 2022)
Into the streets, part 4 (May 5, 2022)
04 Wednesday May 2022
Posted in campaign finance
Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission:
C201444 05/04/2022 Legal Missouri 2022 MO Retail Products Group Inc 1868 Glenstone Springfield MO 65804 5/2/2022 $10,000.00
C201444 05/04/2022 Legal Missouri 2022 GL Partners LLC 10777 Barkley Street Suite 200 Overland Park MO 66211 5/2/2022 $100,000.00
C201444 05/04/2022 Legal Missouri 2022 BD Health Ventures LLC 2807 S Ingram Mill RD Springfield MO 65804 5/2/2022 $100,000.00
C201444 05/04/2022 Legal Missouri 2022 V3 Holdings Missouri LLC 9200 Litzinger RD Saint Louis MO 63144 5/3/2022 $12,500.00
[emphasis added]
An apparent unending supply.
Previously:
Campaign Finance: Green? Green. (March 16, 2021)
Green? Green? Green! (October 7, 2021)
Campaign Finance: it’s where the money is (October 26, 2021)
Being Green (November 11, 2021)
Campaign Finance: Greenish (November 14, 2021)
Campaign Finance: almost enough to rent a blimp (December 16, 2021)
Campaign Finance: Friends in Pennsylvania (March 16, 2022)
Campaign Finance: all the money in the world (March 21, 2022)
Campaign Finance: persistence (April 4, 2022)
Campaign Finance: not exactly pocket change (April 6, 2022)
Campaign Finance: anticipation (April 10, 2022)
Campaign Finance: just another day (April 14, 2022)
Campaign Finance: yet another day (April 15, 2022)
Campaign Finance: rinse, repeat, repeat (April 18, 2022)
Campaign Finance: Requested Requested (April 19, 2022)
Campaign Finance: “I spent a week in Buffalo, Missouri one day…” (April 23, 2022)
Campaign Finance: “Grassroots” (April 24, 2022)
Campaign Finance: joint ventures (May 1, 2022)
04 Wednesday May 2022
Posted in Uncategorized
Tags
Late on Monday night an extensive U.S. Supreme Court draft majority opinion by Samuel Alito was leaked indicating the court will reverse Roe v Wade (1973). Yesterday the Supreme Court confirmed that the document was authentic.
Previously:
Stare decisis don’t mean shit (May 2, 2022)
Into the streets (May 2, 2022)
Gleeful handwringing (May 3, 2022)
It’s the GOP’s world, now you just get to live in it> (May 3, 2022)
Into the streets, part 2 (May 3, 2022)
A statement (May 3, 2022)
Into the streets, part 3 (May 3, 2022)
BREAKING NEWS: Pearl-clutcher clutches pearls (May 3, 2022)
Heartland POD: SCOTUS Abortion Case (May 3, 2022)
03 Tuesday May 2022
Posted in Uncategorized
Lindsey Simmons, former candidate for Congress, attorney, and Missouri native joins Adam for a chat to get deep into the legal realities if the leaked draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization becomes the final law passed down by SCOTUS.
Previously:
Stare decisis don’t mean shit (May 2, 2022)
Into the streets (May 2, 2022)
Gleeful handwringing (May 3, 2022)
It’s the GOP’s world, now you just get to live in it> (May 3, 2022)
Into the streets, part 2 (May 3, 2022)
A statement (May 3, 2022)
Into the streets, part 3 (May 3, 2022)
BREAKING NEWS: Pearl-clutcher clutches pearls (May 3, 2022)
03 Tuesday May 2022
Posted in Josh Hawley, social media
Late last night an extensive U.S. Supreme Court draft majority opinion by Samuel Alito was leaked indicating the court will reverse Roe v Wade (1973). Today the Supreme Court confirmed that the document was authentic.
This evening:
Josh Hawley @HawleyMO
It should go without saying that if a Justice leaked this, he or she should face impeachment
9:35 AM · May 3, 2022
Think about that for just a second. Apparently participating in an insurrection is just peachy.
Clarence Thomas. Ginni Thomas. We rest our case.
There is the usual hilarity in the responses:
For all the anger releasing this broke no law.
Congress never wrote a law to make this sort of thing illegal,
Didn’t we JUST have a new justice sworn in? Timing is coincidental…[….]
Too stupid to remember to breathe.
Funny that you assume the leaker isn’t one of the conservative Justices, Josh.
And if it wasn’t a SCOTUS Justice, there are plenty of theories why it might have been someone with ties to the GOP.
Hope you’ll stand by your convictions (and we have screenshots)
It should go without saying that if Josh Hawley was involved in the Jan 6th attacked to democracy he should face consequences.
Never happened before that I remember.
New hyper radical justice is seated. 1st major review of RvW and 1st leak takes place.
Too stupid to remember to breathe.
It should also go without saying that plotting to overthrow the government should bar you from being in politics.
This will age well. Have you looked at Ginni Thomas?
So the Supreme Court decisions no longer belong to the American people? We pay their salaries. We pay yours.
Civil Servants decisions that affect all of us
Should be transparent. What kind of Authoritarion crap are you suggesting now?
Unless the leaker is Ginni Thomas in which case Republicans will circle the wagons.
Tell us more of your thoughts on what it’s proper for a civil servant to do or not do
What would be the grounds for impeachment? Any law broken? No. Violate the norms of the institution? Yes. Cause damage to the court’s reputation? Yes.
But let’s look at the sitting justices: committed perjury to get their seats? Yes (4). Conflicts of interest? Yes (1+).
You are the last person I can think of who would be an authority on who should versus who should not be impeached.
And I’m willing to bet a dime to a dollar that if it was Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh or Barrett you will renege on this statement.
Now do Clarence Thomas
It goes without saying that anyone involved in an insurrection shouldn’t have a say in anything.
It’s not the leak of the draft, it’s the absurdly flawed logic behind the draft that has people screaming.
But not when they are involved in an attempted coup ?
Why ? Was national security jeopardized ?
Can you point readers to the code of ethics that SCOTUS has for their behavior? That should help your case here right? So far my money is on Justice Alito since this is playing right into his hands
But not if they perjured themselves in the Senate?
It should go without saying that if a senator supported insurrectionists they should be removed from office immediately.
So not the three that lied under oath when confirmed then?
On what grounds? Seriously what crime against the state would this represent? The shadow docket decisions alone should get 3 of the 5 GQP justices tossed. Where’s the due process?
It should go without saying that if a judge perjures himself and claims to believe Roe is settled law he should be impeached.
It should go without saying that if a justice is engaged in sedition he should be impeached.
You first …. Let’s see ALL your emails, phone calls, and texts leading up to and on Jan. 6th …. We’ll wait. [….]
I wonder if ANYONE has considered the latest appointment to SCOTUS as a possible individual “involved” in the leak ?
Too stupid to remember to breathe.
Ya but let’s keep Clarence who voted while in conflict of interest.
Constitutional lawyer …ya I don’t think so!
Why? Is there a specific law that’s been breached here? It’s not like this is a super confidential document. It’s a draft of something that the Court will presumably publish for all to see. Who cares?
It should go without saying that three Supreme Court justices lied about their support of Roe v. Wade.
With a new Joe Biden appointee. Making the court more 5-4.
Too stupid to remember to breathe.
What about justices whose wives actively plotted to overturn a democratic election?
Maybe the three justices who all lied during their hearings should face impeachment first? Roe is settled law? Ring a bell?
What’s your take on Senators who foment and/or facilitate an insurrection?
Imagine if they promote an insurrection! Let’s pin this quote.
You incited a deadly insurrection. People died, bro.
Imagine being more worried about a leak than the decision that will take body autonomy away from over half the population & set the stage to strip other freedoms from all Americans. Shame on you!
It’s 2022! We will not go backwards.
Based on what?
cc: drunken beer guy
Most probably the newest justice that was confirmed but just guessing.
Too stupid to remember to breathe.
It is a requirement.
and in my opinion it is the newest appointed and confirmed judge.
Too stupid to remember to breathe.
Previously:
Stare decisis don’t mean shit (May 2, 2022)
Into the streets (May 2, 2022)
Gleeful handwringing (May 3, 2022)
It’s the GOP’s world, now you just get to live in it> (May 3, 2022)
Into the streets, part 2 (May 3, 2022)
A statement (May 3, 2022)
Into the streets, part 3 (May 3, 2022)
03 Tuesday May 2022
Posted in Uncategorized
Tags
Late last night an extensive U.S. Supreme Court draft majority opinion by Samuel Alito was leaked indicating the court will reverse Roe v Wade (1973). Today the Supreme Court confirmed that the document was authentic.
Now is the time.
Previously:
Stare decisis don’t mean shit (May 2, 2022)
Into the streets (May 2, 2022)
Gleeful handwringing (May 3, 2022)
It’s the GOP’s world, now you just get to live in it> (May 3, 2022)
Into the streets, part 2 (May 3, 2022)
A statement (May 3, 2022)
03 Tuesday May 2022
Posted in Uncategorized
Late last night an extensive U.S. Supreme Court draft majority opinion by Samuel Alito was leaked indicating the court will reverse Roe v Wade (1973).
Statement by President Joe Biden
MAY 03, 2022We do not know whether this draft is genuine, or whether it reflects the final decision of the Court.
With that critical caveat, I want to be clear on three points about the cases before the Supreme Court.
First, my administration argued strongly before the Court in defense of Roe v. Wade. We said that Roe is based on “a long line of precedent recognizing ‘the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty’… against government interference with intensely personal decisions.” I believe that a woman’s right to choose is fundamental, Roe has been the law of the land for almost fifty years, and basic fairness and the stability of our law demand that it not be overturned.
Second, shortly after the enactment of Texas law SB 8 and other laws restricting women’s reproductive rights, I directed my Gender Policy Council and White House Counsel’s Office to prepare options for an Administration response to the continued attack on abortion and reproductive rights, under a variety of possible outcomes in the cases pending before the Supreme Court. We will be ready when any ruling is issued.
Third, if the Court does overturn Roe, it will fall on our nation’s elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman’s right to choose. And it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this November. At the federal level, we will need more pro-choice Senators and a pro-choice majority in the House to adopt legislation that codifies Roe, which I will work to pass and sign into law.
Apparently the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a statement, in high dudgeon, that the draft opinion is authentic.
Previously:
Stare decisis don’t mean shit (May 2, 2022)
Into the streets (May 2, 2022)
Gleeful handwringing (May 3, 2022)
It’s the GOP’s world, now you just get to live in it> (May 3, 2022)
Into the streets, part 2 (May 3, 2022)