# Collins: Won't support SCOTUS pick hostile to abortion rights



## McRocket (Jul 1, 2018)

'Washington (CNN)Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.

"I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law," Collins said on CNN's "State of the Union."'

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Interesting.


----------



## OldLady (Jul 1, 2018)

McRocket said:


> 'Washington (CNN)Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.
> 
> "I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law," Collins said on CNN's "State of the Union."'
> 
> ...


However, she did vote to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Appellate Court; they say Barrett is a pro-lifer.  Of course, that doesn't mean a good Justice would make a decision based only on their personal opinion.  So if she is someone who respects established decisions of the Court, I can see our senator confirming her again.  Senator Collins is, after all, a conservative.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 1, 2018)

McRocket said:


> 'Washington (CNN)Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.
> 
> "I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law," Collins said on CNN's "State of the Union."'
> 
> ...


What else is new???

Susan Collins, John McCain, and the rest of the riffraff. 

Democrats in sheep's clothing.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jul 1, 2018)

It's not going to stop the pick. You loons are fugged beyond belief


----------



## task0778 (Jul 1, 2018)

OldLady said:


> McRocket said:
> 
> 
> > 'Washington (CNN)Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.
> ...



Collins said:

_“I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade,” she continued, “because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law.”_

Don't know if anyone on Trump's short list has expressed hostility to Roe v Wade, but you can bet whoever gets nominated isn't going to say anything close to that.   What they do if/after they get confirmed is another story though.   I wonder if the SCOTUS would return the question of abortion back to the states, _Stare Decisis _appears to be somewhat less important to the Court these days.


----------



## jillian (Jul 1, 2018)

McRocket said:


> 'Washington (CNN)Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.
> 
> "I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law," Collins said on CNN's "State of the Union."'
> 
> ...


We’ll see if she actually sticks to her guns. She didn’t say boo about the last pick or when mitch stole our judge


----------



## protectionist (Jul 1, 2018)

Two more SCOTUS Democrats are in their 80s.  How  many more picks will Donald Trump get ?

Could be 7-2 before long. Goodbye Roe vs Wade.  Goodbye Same Sex marriage.  Goodbye Affirmative Action.  Goodbye gun-free zones.  Hello nationwide CCW.


----------



## JGalt (Jul 1, 2018)

I couldn't even read past the title. Abortion is not a "right". There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says a woman has the "right" to an abortion.


----------



## protectionist (Jul 1, 2018)

I don't see abortion as killing a chemical thing. I see it a the equivalent of a mother sitting next to her offspring, putting a gun to that 30 year old, well established PERSON, and executing him/her.

Only difference is. as an aborted fetus, he/she didn't get to live the 30 years.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2018)

Doesn't matter what the Alt and Far Right think: they are anti-American.

It will matter with the nominees think.


----------



## task0778 (Jul 1, 2018)

JGalt said:


> I couldn't even read past the title. Abortion is not a "right". There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says a woman has the "right" to an abortion.



The SCOTUS says otherwise, by a 7-2 majority.   It's not federally enforceable though, a doctor can legally decline to perform an abortion, and if I'm not mistaken the states can enact certain limitations for when an abortion may or may not be done.   Basically, I think this case says the states cannot legally criminalize all abortions.


----------



## OldLady (Jul 1, 2018)

task0778 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > McRocket said:
> ...


A conservative somewhere this morning said that with Roe v Wade standing, compromise about abortion rights (such as a 19 week on demand threshhold) is impossible.  That R v. W needs to be thrown out before a more acceptable compromise can be legislated.  I had never heard that one before.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2018)

Some arguments have that abortion should not be permissable after 12 weeks.

Others argue that an abortion should not be performed even in case of pregnancy by rape or incest.


----------



## OldLady (Jul 1, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> Some arguments have that abortion should not be permissable after 12 weeks.
> 
> Others argue that an abortion should not be performed even in case of pregnancy by rape or incest.


From a purely logical standpoint, the argument that abortion murders a child cannot justify excluding rape or incest.  Those children have as much right to live as any other child.  Rape and incest exclusions show this argument for what it is--passing moral judgment on women's behavior.


----------



## task0778 (Jul 1, 2018)

OldLady said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Some arguments have that abortion should not be permissable after 12 weeks.
> ...



Understand the thought, but one might also say that excluding rape or incest shows compassion for a young woman who has been brutalized.   Many of whom are underage.    Should we then not allow her that choice?


----------



## protectionist (Jul 1, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> Some arguments have that abortion should not be permissable after 12 weeks.
> 
> Others argue that an abortion should not be performed even in case of pregnancy by rape or incest.


Lots of people argue for/against all sorts of things. What's you opinion ?


----------



## protectionist (Jul 1, 2018)

OldLady said:


> From a purely logical standpoint, the argument that abortion murders a child cannot justify excluding rape or incest.  Those children have as much right to live as any other child.  Rape and incest exclusions show this argument for what it is--passing moral judgment on women's behavior.


No. Has nothing to do with that.  It's simply that if one is raped, they shouldn't have to parent a kid whose face looks just like the rapist. Would you want to ?  Every time you look at the kid whom you should love, you're going to see the rapist whom you hate.


----------



## Defiant1 (Jul 1, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> Some arguments have that abortion should not be permissable after 12 weeks.
> 
> Others argue that an abortion should not be performed even in case of pregnancy by rape or incest.




I hold that view.
What did a baby who is a product of rape or incest do to be executed?


----------



## OldLady (Jul 1, 2018)

jillian said:


> McRocket said:
> 
> 
> > 'Washington (CNN)Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.
> ...


Actually, she did say boo rather loudly about Mitch stealing that seat, bless her.  I believe she was one of the first and only senators to meet with Garland.

GOP senator ‘more convinced than ever’ that Garland should get hearing


----------



## OldLady (Jul 1, 2018)

task0778 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


They should ALL be allowed that choice, in my opinion.


----------



## OldLady (Jul 1, 2018)

protectionist said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > From a purely logical standpoint, the argument that abortion murders a child cannot justify excluding rape or incest.  Those children have as much right to live as any other child.  Rape and incest exclusions show this argument for what it is--passing moral judgment on women's behavior.
> ...


That is still an emotional, not a logical, argument.


----------



## Lysistrata (Jul 1, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Two more SCOTUS Democrats are in their 80s.  How  many more picks will Donald Trump get ?
> 
> Could be 7-2 before long. Goodbye Roe vs Wade.  Goodbye Same Sex marriage.  Goodbye Affirmative Action.  Goodbye gun-free zones.  Hello nationwide CCW.



Goodbye, civil rights of Americans. We will survive only as a fascist state.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2018)

OldLady said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Some arguments have that abortion should not be permissable after 12 weeks.
> ...


Current regulations governing bortion of a fetus is not murder if a mother so decides, according to the law.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2018)

Defiant1 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Some arguments have that abortion should not be permissable after 12 weeks.
> ...


It's a fetus not a human baby.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2018)

OldLady said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


And an acceptable one.


----------



## task0778 (Jul 1, 2018)

OldLady said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



What about the unborn fetus?   Where's your compassion for them?   Why shouldn't they also have a right to life?


----------



## OldLady (Jul 1, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


I know, Jake, I know.


----------



## OldLady (Jul 1, 2018)

task0778 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...


I came back here to make a contribution on the Supreme Court pick, not to get entangled in an abortion thread.  I know I stuck my foot in, but I am now taking it out.  We can talk about Roe v. Wade somewhere else.


----------



## DarkFury (Jul 1, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> Doesn't matter what the Alt and Far Right think: they are anti-American.
> 
> It will matter with the nominees think.


*And if the nom refuses to reply? Then what?*


----------



## OldLady (Jul 1, 2018)

There is nothing the Democrats can do about the fact that they have lost the Supreme Court.  They blew that when they lost the 2016 election.  They made choices about Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, about their candidate, about a lot of things, and they blew it.  They lost to Donald Trump, for Goddsake.  Think about that for a minute.  smh

Anyway, on Meet the Press this morning, Kim Atkins said something sane about all the Dem's brave talk about  "blocking" the nomination and perhaps getting a couple of Republicans to reject whoever is nominated by the Pres next week.  She said, rightly I think:
_for Democrats, the fight was in 2016. They missed the fight. That is when there was a Supreme Court justice being held up. But maybe because Merrick Garland wasn't the progressive firebrand that really stirred them up, or maybe they missed the fact that there was a path to Donald Trump to 270, they didn't fight that fight then. Now it's too late and they can only message the way we saw Senator Cantwell do as best as she could. But that's all Democrats have right now._

It's too late.  There is nothing the Dems can do to stop this train.  It's time to start pulling themselves together and planning how to survive.  Resist and Reject are not going to get us anywhere.  It hasn't gotten us anywhere yet.


----------



## task0778 (Jul 1, 2018)

OldLady said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



Okay.   Back to RvW, in the eyes of some people the SCOTUS seems to have exercised quite a bit of judicial discretion in this case.   Using the right to privacy does seem a stretch to me.   OTOH, I am also not sure we should have a federal law that says abortion is illegal either.   Obviously I am somewhat conflicted on this, because we have the question of the rights to consider of the unborn person.  Maybe it would be best left up to the individual states to decide.

In any event, I would not want to confirm a person who has already made their decision on this issue, independent of the situation and circumstances of the case brought before the Court.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 1, 2018)

Great opportunity here for people in Maine and Alaska to learn the true meaning of:  "To suck hind tit".  Count on RINOs Collins and Murklownski to fuck over their own voters.


----------



## task0778 (Jul 1, 2018)

OldLady said:


> There is nothing the Democrats can do about the fact that they have lost the Supreme Court.  They blew that when they lost the 2016 election.  They made choices about Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, about their candidate, about a lot of things, and they blew it.  They lost to Donald Trump, for Goddsake.  Think about that for a minute.  smh
> 
> Anyway, on Meet the Press this morning, Kim Atkins said something sane about all the Dem's brave talk about  "blocking" the nomination and perhaps getting a couple of Republicans to reject whoever is nominated by the Pres next week.  She said, rightly I think:
> _for Democrats, the fight was in 2016. They missed the fight. That is when there was a Supreme Court justice being held up. But maybe because Merrick Garland wasn't the progressive firebrand that really stirred them up, or maybe they missed the fact that there was a path to Donald Trump to 270, they didn't fight that fight then. Now it's too late and they can only message the way we saw Senator Cantwell do as best as she could. But that's all Democrats have right now._
> ...



Take heart - the GOP will find a way to screw it up, they can't seem to get their act together.   The question is whether the Dems will have a viable candidate to oppose Trump, assuming he runs for re-election.   Right now the Dems appear to be moving further to the Left and that isn't going to win them many votes out there in flyover country.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 1, 2018)

Democrats DO have viable candidate to oppose President Trump.  Her friends call her "Hillary".  Both of them.


----------



## OldLady (Jul 1, 2018)

task0778 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...


My greatest hope is that any individual chosen for the Supreme Court would do exactly that--make their decision based on the situation and the circumstances of the case brought before the Court.  And I still have hope that indeed most of the Justices, realizing the gravity of their positions and the historic responsibility of their decisions, do exactly that.  We know Scalia had said, "It's a law.  It's a stupid law, but it's a law."
I am hoping that a lot of this screeching is fear mongering to get the Dems inspired to vote, although voting isn't going to do a damned thing for them, so I'm not sure why it would.
I'm going to pull the old lady routine and hope my government and my Court are far better people than the politicians will admit.


----------



## OldLady (Jul 1, 2018)

HenryBHough said:


> Great opportunity here for people in Maine and Alaska to learn the true meaning of:  "To suck hind tit".  Count on RINOs Collins and Murklownski to fuck over their own voters.


Go soak your head.


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 1, 2018)

I see some people are pretty upset at the possibility we can't kill babies at will.


----------



## OldLady (Jul 1, 2018)

task0778 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing the Democrats can do about the fact that they have lost the Supreme Court.  They blew that when they lost the 2016 election.  They made choices about Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, about their candidate, about a lot of things, and they blew it.  They lost to Donald Trump, for Goddsake.  Think about that for a minute.  smh
> ...


Nor among Independents, if I'm any indication.  While I wholly support universal healthcare and investing more in bringing the poor out of poverty, there is an awful lot of theatrics going on right now that is way beyond what brings out my sympathy.  Maybe it's more the radical rhetoric than the underlying ideals, but I've never completely agreed with the Dems, anyway, and it is becoming harder to say yeah, I like that.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 1, 2018)

jillian said:


> McRocket said:
> 
> 
> > 'Washington (CNN)Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.
> ...


She’s a gullible dope. Or she has diminished capacity.


----------



## OldLady (Jul 1, 2018)

saveliberty said:


> I see some people are pretty upset at the possibility we can't kill babies at will.


Who's that?  I must have missed it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 1, 2018)

McRocket said:


> 'Washington (CNN)Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.
> 
> "I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law," Collins said on CNN's "State of the Union."'
> 
> ...


Interesting? That is all that you can say? "Interesting," after posting the blurb without a valid link.


----------



## OldLady (Jul 1, 2018)

Synthaholic said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > McRocket said:
> ...


I repeat, Senator Collins did:
Actually, she did say boo rather loudly about Mitch stealing that seat, bless her. I believe she was one of the first and only senators to meet with Garland.

GOP senator ‘more convinced than ever’ that Garland should get hearing


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 1, 2018)

JGalt said:


> I couldn't even read past the title. Abortion is not a "right". There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says a woman has the "right" to an abortion.



Is it possible that you do not understand that there is such a thing as unenumerated rights? Rights that are implied or that have been established by case law.....which is in fact constitutional law.


----------



## task0778 (Jul 1, 2018)

OldLady said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



Well, if the Dems can regain control of the Senate then they can block future SCOTUS justice confirmations, so that's a big deal.  I don't think the replacement for Kennedy will go all that smoothly, all the Dems need is one Repub to vote against it.   I wouldn't count any chickens if I were the GOPers.

As for being better people, I can't say that I'm all that optimistic about that.   Everything seems so tribal these days, which does not lend itself to real leadership and optimal governance.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Jul 1, 2018)

McRocket said:


> 'Washington (CNN)Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.
> 
> "I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law," Collins said on CNN's "State of the Union."'
> 
> ...



The Republican party is in the midst of realizing what will really happen if they in fact overturn Roe V Wade, stripping women of rights they have had their entire lives and thought were settled forever.

Blue Wave? You'll see the ocean get up on two legs and stomp Republicans guts out. You want to see what shit hitting the fan really looks like, wait for the moment this crooked Supreme Court actually overturns Roe V Wade. Republicans know what will happen. They've lost the popular vote for president the last 6 or 7 presidential elections and demographics are about ten years away from rendering them permanent runner ups in national elections. They are hanging by a thread right now. If Roe V Wade is overturned they will lose it all in one election.


----------



## JGalt (Jul 1, 2018)

task0778 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...



The Democrats are essentially powerless to prevent Trump's next SC Justice, and they know it. Their delaying tactics will fail, since McConnell will, if he has to, keep the Senate in session 24 hours a day, seven days a week until Trump’s pick is confirmed. Nor can they be optimistic about peeling off the two pro-abortion Republican senators (Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins); even if they succeed, some Democrats facing reelection in states that Trump won will likely defect in the opposite direction. Remember: Three Democrats and every Republican voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch, so whomever Trump picks will be a shoo-in.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2018)

task0778 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...


That is an emotional snow flake liberal argument type argument.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2018)

100% ^^^ right

the Dems blew it


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2018)

100% ^^^ right    the Dems blew it

They have lost SCOTUS for the time being


----------



## task0778 (Jul 1, 2018)

OldLady said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



_there is an awful lot of theatrics going on right now that is way beyond what brings out my sympathy.  

_No kidding.   You got some of that on your side, and I got Trump.   
_
Maybe it's more the radical rhetoric than the underlying ideals, but I've never completely agreed with the Dems, anyway, and it is becoming harder to say yeah, I like that_

   I do not agree completely with my side either, and in some cases it's getting harder to tell them apart.   What the hell happened "we gotta cut spending"?   Trump is talking about more tax cuts, but I can't support that;  we're supposed to be more fiscally responsible than the Dems are, but we ain't.   It's enough to drive a man to drink.

Well, not really.


----------



## OldLady (Jul 1, 2018)

task0778 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...


The tribalism is also being fed by the media, which is just out to sell it's brand.  Most of the people are somewhere in the sensible middle, and they're going to stay there because the majority of people are just not that political.

Anyway, back to the SC pick:
Even if the Dems regain the Senate in November, are they going to serially block every justice that Trump appoints until the end of 2020?  Do you really think the people will stand for that?  It is not even popular AT ALL for the Dems to try "ignoring" this one using the "McConnell rule."  I know it  is getting lip service, right now, but back at home the people are saying oh no you don't.  Really, one robbery is enough.  Having the Dems put on their ski masks and do the same thing is unconscionable and I'm not the only one who thinks it will backfire if they try it.


----------



## task0778 (Jul 1, 2018)

JGalt said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



You can bet what you like that all those Senate Dems up for re-election are going to make sure they know how vital that vote is going to be, and don't think the Repubs are going to make sure that vote happens at least a week before election day.   They won't vote against the person if they think it'll cost them their seat in the Senate, BUT they will if they think they can get away with it.   Gonna be an interesting campaign season.


----------



## OldLady (Jul 1, 2018)

task0778 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...


There's always "unaffiliated," and pray for a good third party candidate.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 1, 2018)

I would have a real problem with Roe v Wade being overturned that goes beyond my stance as pro-choice.  It's very much settled law with a huge amount of caselaw now supporting it.  If it could be overturned, then precedent and case law no longer matter and ANYTHING can be overturned at ANYTIME.  That should worry everyone.


----------



## task0778 (Jul 1, 2018)

OldLady said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



Actually, I am unaffiliated, always have been.  Matter of fact, I voted for a 3rd party candidate for President a couple of times cuz I couldn't stand either of the 2 major party nominees.   I wish we had a decent 3rd party that could garner enough seats in Congress to make a difference.   And eventually influence the presidential race too.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2018)

McConnell will wait until the lame duck season.  Either way, he wins.  BUT if some of the more sane senators lose or are retiring, they can vote as they really feel.

Fun times.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 1, 2018)

JGalt said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


I believe the Democrats will stick together.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2018)

Not a shoo in but eventually will be confirmed, yes

If Trump continues the way he is and the Mueller reports is absolutely damning for Trump when it is released on 15 Sep and t he result is a super majority Dem congress, then both Gorsuch and the new justice can be impeached, tried, and removed on political grounds that McConnell overreached his power. leaving the Court with a 4 to 3 liberal majority


----------



## DOTR (Jul 2, 2018)

Coyote said:


> I would have a real problem with Roe v Wade being overturned that goes beyond my stance as pro-choice.  It's very much settled law with a huge amount of caselaw now supporting it.  If it could be overturned, then precedent and case law no longer matter and ANYTHING can be overturned at ANYTIME.  That should worry everyone.



  Case law and precedent mattered not a white to Roe vs Wade. It overturned centuries of p[recedent and the laws of all 50 states. 

"Revolutionaries despise traditional authority until they gain power, at which point authority again becomes sacred. Since the legal arguments of Roe are virtually nonexistent, it can only be defended by the argument from authority, stare decisis, a principle which Roe itself thoroughly repudiated."

   Through the looking glass.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 2, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I would have a real problem with Roe v Wade being overturned that goes beyond my stance as pro-choice.  It's very much settled law with a huge amount of caselaw now supporting it.  If it could be overturned, then precedent and case law no longer matter and ANYTHING can be overturned at ANYTIME.  That should worry everyone.
> ...


Untrue.  It has stood up to numerous challenges.

Wonder if the Right will target Brown v Board of education next?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 2, 2018)

Roe v Wade has stood up to every challenge.


----------



## Lysistrata (Jul 2, 2018)

task0778 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...



Unfortunately, there are sitting justices who have already made up their minds and are willing to violate their oaths to do their judicial duties in cases dealing with the right to abortion.

The following is the transcript of the oral argument of _Whole Women's Health:

Transcript: Oral arguments in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt_

The argument of the Texas Solicitor General begins at page 36.

You will note that there are several justices who never asked even one question on the substance of the law at issue, even when he made what seemed to be ridiculous arguments, particularly in view of the information provided to the Court in amicus briefs. Please note the brief filed on behalf of amici American College of Obstetrics and Gynocology, et al.


----------



## DOTR (Jul 2, 2018)

Coyote said:


> Untrue.  It has stood up to numerous challenges.



  You ignoramus. I didnt say it hadnt. I said it overturned centuries of law, precedence and tradition when it was decided. So the newfound liberal worship of stare decisis doesnt impress me.


----------



## DOTR (Jul 2, 2018)

Coyote said:


> Wonder if the Right will target Brown v Board of education next?



  Dont know. As a free people we could. Slavery is ending and your world is upside down.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jul 2, 2018)




----------



## Marion Morrison (Jul 2, 2018)

Coyote said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



You don't really think that will come up as an issue, do you?


----------



## DOTR (Jul 2, 2018)

Marion Morrison said:


> You don't really think that will come up as an issue, do you?



  Marxists think, or choose to pretend, that free peoples cant be trusted in self government but must be ruled. If the people are allowed to govern themselves they may make a mistake and be racist or sexist or use wrong pronouns or something.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jul 2, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > You don't really think that will come up as an issue, do you?
> ...



Coyote is not a Marxist.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 2, 2018)

McRocket said:


> 'Washington (CNN)Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.
> 
> "I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law," Collins said on CNN's "State of the Union."'
> 
> ...



very interesting, an honest Republican.


----------



## DOTR (Jul 2, 2018)

Marion Morrison said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Marion Morrison said:
> ...



  I dont care if she is or isnt. She just vomited marxism all over me.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 2, 2018)

JGalt said:


> I couldn't even read past the title. Abortion is not a "right". There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says a woman has the "right" to an abortion.



There is nothing in COTUS allowing EO's by a President, or the power of Judicial Review by the Supreme Court, or that prevents a citizen from owning a nuclear weapon, or voting twice, or same sex marriage, or ...a myriad of things.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Jul 2, 2018)

McRocket said:


> 'Washington (CNN)Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.
> 
> "I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law," Collins said on CNN's "State of the Union."'
> 
> ...



I agree with her.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Jul 2, 2018)

Wry Catcher said:


> McRocket said:
> 
> 
> > 'Washington (CNN)Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.
> ...



Her and Snowe have been more honest than most give them credit. Snowe has been out of office for awhile but her and Collins have served Maine as very good Republican Senators...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 2, 2018)

McRocket said:


> 'Washington (CNN)Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.
> 
> "I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law," Collins said on CNN's "State of the Union."'
> 
> ...


Unfortunately most Republicans fail to have the same respect for the rule of law.


----------



## DOTR (Jul 2, 2018)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > McRocket said:
> ...



   They just think the Maine lobster tariffs are bad now....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 2, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Untrue.  It has stood up to numerous challenges.
> ...


And has stood up to numerous challenges since.


----------



## JGalt (Jul 2, 2018)

Synthaholic said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...



That's fine with me. Then they can fail together too.


----------



## karpenter (Jul 4, 2018)

Flake Is Holding Up Circuit Court Appointments
And Won't Support Any SCOTUS Appt's
Until McConnell Picks Up On His Pet Projects

Jeff Flake threatens to block Trump's court nominees - CNNPolitics


----------



## Care4all (Jul 4, 2018)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > McRocket said:
> ...


yes, they have....they both have known who they work for...us Mainiacs!  NOT the Republican Party line......


----------



## Care4all (Jul 4, 2018)

on a die note....

I think, though there have been no signs of it, that Trump will pick a WOMAN justice....  not that he really wants a woman, but the "show Business" of it, is what he likes.....and this could change the focus off of Stare Decisis....  and dare Dems to not vote for a woman, and dare Collins to not vote for a woman...



but what is most important for Trump, is NOT abortion rights, other than his promise to the evangelical supporters....

HIS PRIORITY is finding a Justice that believes the President, can not be charged with a crime, or be subpoenaed, or can pardon themselves of their own crimes and felonies....  he wants a justice that believes the President, is a King.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 4, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> Doesn't matter what the Alt and Far Right think: they are anti-American.
> 
> It will matter with the nominees think.


Only real Republicans like the Starkeys and their ilk  matter. Anyone to the right of Jake, like Chairman Mao, for example,  is an AltRighter


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 4, 2018)

Care4all said:


> on a die note....
> 
> I think, though there have been no signs of it, that Trump will pick a WOMAN justice....  not that he really wants a woman, but the "show Business" of it, is what he likes.....and this could change the focus off of Stare Decisis....  and dare Dems to not vote for a woman, and dare Collins to not vote for a woman...
> 
> ...


----------

