Judge Boxwine Furious With People Who Have 63 Million Abortions Per Year, That's TOO MANY!
Pour out a box of Franzia, everyone, because Judge Jeanine Pirro is slurring her way through abortion math.
Jeanine Pirro: "And my stats that I have are that there are 63 million abortions a year in this country. Those are the stats that I heard! That's a little too much!"\n\nMaybe because those are the estimated abortions total since Roe v. Wade passed in 1973!pic.twitter.com/PCRy7USP9F— Justin Baragona (@Justin Baragona) 1651613530
"Those are the stats that I heard!" said Pirro, who had Done Her Own Research to learn there are one hundred BILLION US America abortions a year. "That's a little too much!" Just a little. Considering that's approximately the number of women in America between 15 and 44, the idea that every one of them would have to have one abortion per year to keep the numbers up, that's just a little too much for Judge Jeanine!
The clip above begins with the judge angrily shuffling her papers and saying Alito's opinion DOES NOT EITHER open the door to ban gay marriage, because Alito CLEARLY SAYS there's a difference. She believes him, we suppose, because why would a proven liar lie? "And let me read one last statement by the Court here!" Then she read Alito's completely sneering and dismissive line about how "women are not without political and electoral power" with a straight face, like it was a good thing.
And then she said, you know, look, 63 million American abortions per year are "a little too much."
AND YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE? JUDGE JEANINE IS MAD ABOUT ANOTHER THING, YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS, SHE'LL TELL YOU WHAT IT IS, JUDGE JEANINE IS MAD ABOUT ANOTHER THING YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS, SHE'LL TELL YOU WHAT IT IS IF YOU JUST LISTEN, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE, JUDGE JEANINE IS MAD ABOUT ANOTHER THING AND IF YOU JUST STOP INTERRUPTING HER SHE'LL TELL YOU WHAT IT IS, YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS?
Jeanine: Whoever leaked this, we have to find out who the person is and charge them with a crime. I don\u2019t know what the crime is would be whether it\u2019s some kind of fraud of government property.pic.twitter.com/WSQoTrk3qB— Acyn (@Acyn) 1651612091
BOXWINE: Whoever leaked this, we have to find out who the person is and charge them with a crime, I don't know what the crime would be, whether it's some kind of fraud on government property, I've heard there's a statute, fraud on the government that's very broad that could include this kind of act ...
What crime? Any crime, she's sure there's a statute, she heard of one, some kind of fraud, any fraud, she doesn't know what kind of fraud. What about a RICO? That's a popular crime these days, the RICO. Should we charge the leaker with RICO? What about Suave? Is he busy? Can we charge the leaker with RICO? Can we charge him with Suave? It's bananas! The whole world is bananas. You know what I say? Live your life cause the world is gonna blow up! Have two glasses of wine, have 10 glasses of wine. What do I care? What am I? The police or something? You know what I say? Smoke ’em if you got ’em. You know what? At least the weather's turned. Sweater weather! Finally, sweater weather! It's about time, sweater weather!
This woman was a real judge at one point, in the state of New York.
Needless to say, Supreme Court opinions, finished or not, are not classified, and leaking them is not a crime. Leaking them before the judges are ready to see them, as Colbert pointed out last night, might be considered a violation of privacy, which seems a bit AHEM! AHEM! AHEM! considering the reason we're talking about all this.
In summary and in conclusion:
[with kind thanks to "Saturday Night Live" for letting us slur Judge Jeanine's monologue into a segment from "Bronx Beat," not that we asked first or anything]
Follow Evan Hurst on Twitter right here!
Wonkette is funded ENTIRELY by a few thousand people like you. If you're not already, would you pls consider being the few thousandth and one?