Most Americans want Roe v Wade to stay established law.

Originally posted by: tom

---

30 states (Ca for one) have laws that say if a pregnant woman is murdered it is a double homocide. How does that square with the liberal argument that a fetus is not human?  If a fetus can have a heartbeat & feel pain is it not alive and human?

 

The SC has overturned many prior decisions so the idea that the Roe case is cast in stone is weak

 

---

Originally posted by: Boilerman

---

No state will be successful in the long run of preventing folks from traveling to a neighboring state for an abortion.  I'm quite confident that this can't legally be enforced, so this is shouldn't happen.  They may write laws, but they would and should be struck down in court..............as long as judges don't decide to legislate from the bench.  And that won't be a problem, because only liberal judges believe that it's their job to legislate from the bench.

 

Suddenly, Liberals would cheer the conservative judges for following the Constitution.

---

Originally posted by: PJ Stroh

---

No - the conservatives agreed with the liberals.....ya know, the ones that weren't bought and paid for by an anti-abortion dark money group.    That was 50 years worth of verdict and reaffirmed verdict.

 

But thats how Republican Presidents pick their judges today.,..they even openly brag about it.  

Trump follows through on his promise to install pre-vetted,activist judges

 

 

 

---

Originally posted by: PJ Stroh

---

So th 14th ammendment is not in the Constituion ?    Cause thats what the non Federalist Society Court based their opinion on in 1973....and reaffirmed again in the 1980's with Kasey.   And this precedent was acknowledged and was said to be resepected at several of the hearing fo the current class of justices.    

 

They were obviously lying in their hearings about their respect for precedent and specifically the precedent of this particular issue.        

 

Liars dont make good judges. 

 

Trump's justices at their confirmation hearings.

 

 

Neil Gorsuch when asked if he agrees a fetus is not a human being as Roe-Wade decided. 

"That is the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes," Gorsuch replied 

 

"I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed," he said. "A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.

 

 

Brett Kavanaugh

"It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis," he said. "The Supreme Court has recognized the right to abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. It has reaffirmed it many times."

 

Amy Comey Barret

"Roe is not a super-precedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased. But that doesn't mean that Roe should be overruled. It just means that it doesn't fall in the small handful of cases like Marbury v. Madison and Brown v. Board that no one questions anymore," 

---

Originally posted by: Charles

---

lol.  Where did they lie?  They said it was settled as a precedent.  A first year law student could tell you that.  Did they say it wouldn't or couldn't be overturned?  Did they say they will always uphold established law?  Of course they did not.  There have been over 200 Supreme Court rulings that were eventually reversed or overturned by a later Supreme Court.  One of the most famous was Plessy being overturned by Board of Education.v. Brown.  I imagine that one got your panties in a wad too....because....established law. 

---

Originally posted by: Charles

---

lol.  Where did they lie?  They said it was settled as a precedent.  A first year law student could tell you that.  Did they say it wouldn't or couldn't be overturned?  Did they say they will always uphold established law?  Of course they did not.  There have been over 200 Supreme Court rulings that were eventually reversed or overturned by a later Supreme Court.  One of the most famous was Plessy being overturned by Board of Education.v. Brown.  I imagine that one got your panties in a wad too....because....established law. 

---

Originally posted by: PJ Stroh

---

Hilarious that you bring up  Brown ...the heart of that was the 14th Ammendment too.     Which is the same thing Roe was based on.   

 

But like Boilerman said - "ammendments are for pussies" or something.

---

Originally posted by: Boilerman

---

I like amendments and it's a great program.  What I don't like is when Libs can't pass an amendment, Lib judges believe that it's their job to ignore the Constitution and legislate from the bench.

---

Originally posted by: Boilerman

---

Does PJ understand that I don't have a problem with the law?  What I have a problem with is that it's being handled at the federal level where it should be handled at the state level.

 

The previous courts must have chuckled as they said that "privacy", which is a right addressed within the Constitution, somehow applies to abortion.

 

Now we PJ tells me how privacy has anything to do with abortion and why this should be handled at the federal level.  I no problem with Indiana or any other state allowing abortion, but it should be handled at the state level.  I'm sick of this and many other issues which "Constitutionally" should be addressed by the states are rammed through at the federal level.

 

The writers of this great document intened for this and other "rights" not specifically addressed to be handled locally.  Hell, they came out and said so.

---