Putting abortion itself aside, these are the problems with overturning Roe v Wade...

[Darkwind]

There are few examples in the court's history of the court undoing its own precedent. But when it does happen, it has always been as an expansive view of personal liberties. By overturning Roe, the court is reversing itself to limit the scope of personal freedoms for the first time, ever.

Overturning Roe is not conservative. Of course, almost nobody knows what it means to be conservative anymore. The real essence of conservatism is strength through stability, wisdom over passion, contemplation over activism. What the court is now doing is embarking on a new era where stare decisis is no more, and the court oscillates back and forth on hot button issues as ideological balances shift.

The court is establishing itself as a political institution and begging for political interference into the court's activities and composition. Essentially, the court is waging war on it's long standing traditional self. The lifetime appointments that are intended to protect the court from political influence are now being weaponized by members of the court in order to solidify its own political objectives, which is a form of tyranny.

Where nominees to the court in recent decades have been (possibly inappropriately) asked litmus-test like questions during confirmation hearings (questions which they artfully avoided answering with generic deference to stare decisis), as justices these same individuals have shown that such questions were indeed necessary even if inappropriate, as will be the need to demand firm and unambiguous responses. The justices have proven that their own perfunctory responses could not be trusted, and therefore those of future nominees should not be trusted.

This paves the way for EVERY SINGLE LIBERTY PRESERVING PRECEDENT EVER to be overturned. Free speech, religious freedom, gun rights....all of it is now 100% at the mercy of the current court's willingness to uphold it for the individual at bar. The court will become superior to the bill of rights.

Overturning Roe does not, in any way, limit the scope of personal freedoms.

It simply returns the issue to the States.

There is no FEDERAL right to kill.

 

[Darkwind]

Wrong.
The "right to life" was never unlimited, as you could always kill bankrobbers.
The question of Roe Vs Wade has NOTHING at all to do with a right to life or not.
It is entirely about who gets priority in the conflict of rights between an adult woman and a blob of cells.
And obviously only the adult woman can even begin to make decisions, so has total say.
If you end Roe vs Wade, then you allow involuntary servitude.
When an unconscious blob of cells can dictate the rest of your life, that is slavery.

Dehumanizing a life does not speak well for you.

 

[scruffy]

Wrong.
The "right to life" was never unlimited, as you could always kill bankrobbers.
The question of Roe Vs Wade has NOTHING at all to do with a right to life or not.
It is entirely about who gets priority in the conflict of rights between an adult woman and a blob of cells.
And obviously only the adult woman can even begin to make decisions, so has total say.
If you end Roe vs Wade, then you allow involuntary servitude.
When an unconscious blob of cells can dictate the rest of your life, that is slavery.

Roe has nothing to do with "life".

Roe is about who gets political rights in this country, and who doesn't.

 

[Meister]

Did this ruling (If holds true) outlaw the ability to get an abortion? No, it did not.

All it did was pass it down to the individual states where it should have always been.
Even Ginsberg agreed with that.

This ruling is not going to send abortions back 60 years. We know which states
will pass laws to legalize it. And, we know which states will put regulations on it,
maybe so there isn't the 9th month abortion.

It ain't the 'end of the world as we know it' scenario that the pinheads are hearing from their
masters.

 

[JoeMoma]

If you end Roe vs Wade, then you allow involuntary servitude.
When an unconscious blob of cells can dictate the rest of your life, that is slavery.

The pregnancy will be over in 9 months, give or take a few days. Drop the baby off at a local fire dept or hospital and get on with the rest of your life.

 

[Rigby5]

You sound like a triggered leftie.

Listen up: Roe should never have existed in the first place. It was entirely un-Constitutional from the moment it was decided. It represents the WORST form of judicial activism, it's a blatant violation of the separation of powers.

Wrong.
You clearly know nothing about law.
The reality is that inherent individual rights are the only source of any legal authority in a republic.
NOT government or legislators, who only temporarily borrow on that authority from individuals, when necessary, in order to resolve conflict between individuals.
And since individual inherent rights are infinite, it is and always was judges who decide law really.
It is not legislators, who frequently are corrupt and always have to make imperfect generalities.
You clearly do not at all understand law, because with law, judges are always supposed to completely and totally superior to the legislative branch. When judges make mistakes, it is other judges who fix it.
And in fact, when legislators or executive make mistakes, it is judges who fix it.
Judges are top dog, and the 3 branches were NEVER supposed to be equal.

 

[Meister]

Wrong.
You clearly know nothing about law.
The reality is that inherent individual rights are the only source of any legal authority in a republic.
NOT government or legislators, who only temporarily borrow on that authority from individuals, when necessary, in order to resolve conflict between individuals.
And since individual inherent rights are infinite, it is and always was judges who decide law really.
It is not legislators, who frequently are corrupt and always have to make imperfect generalities.
You clearly do not at all understand law, because with law, judges are always supposed to completely and totally superior to the legislative branch. When judges make mistakes, it is other judges who fix it.
And in fact, when legislators or executive make mistakes, it is judges who fix it.
Judges are top dog, and the 3 branches were NEVER supposed to be equal.

WOW!!!!!! Really??????

 

[Mac-7]

There are few examples in the court's history of the court undoing its own precedent. But when it does happen, it has always been as an expansive view of personal liberties. By overturning Roe, the court is reversing itself to limit the scope of personal freedoms for the first time, ever.

Overturning Roe is not conservative. Of course, almost nobody knows what it means to be conservative anymore. The real essence of conservatism is strength through stability, wisdom over passion, contemplation over activism. What the court is now doing is embarking on a new era where stare decisis is no more, and the court oscillates back and forth on hot button issues as ideological balances shift.

The court is establishing itself as a political institution and begging for political interference into the court's activities and composition. Essentially, the court is waging war on it's long standing traditional self. The lifetime appointments that are intended to protect the court from political influence are now being weaponized by members of the court in order to solidify its own political objectives, which is a form of tyranny.

Where nominees to the court in recent decades have been (possibly inappropriately) asked litmus-test like questions during confirmation hearings (questions which they artfully avoided answering with generic deference to stare decisis), as justices these same individuals have shown that such questions were indeed necessary even if inappropriate, as will be the need to demand firm and unambiguous responses. The justices have proven that their own perfunctory responses could not be trusted, and therefore those of future nominees should not be trusted.

This paves the way for EVERY SINGLE LIBERTY PRESERVING PRECEDENT EVER to be overturned. Free speech, religious freedom, gun rights....all of it is now 100% at the mercy of the current court's willingness to uphold it for the individual at bar. The court will become superior to the bill of rights.

“Putting abortion aside” is a little like saying that arresting criminals who murder store clerks during a robbery causes social welfare problems for their family when the breadwinner is taken away

 

[EvilCat Breath]

If Roe was a bad decision and unconstitutional from the day it was written

Why didn’t the Conservative judges pronounce that at their confirmation hearing?
They were asked

Not being a mind reader, I cannon say. Ruth Bader Ginsberg said many times that Roe was bad law. Possibly these justices felt that no one would DARE oppose Roe. It was settled law. Or, perhaps the briefs written and submitted were persuasive. A judge that will not change his or her mind is not a judge but an ideologue. The opinion does NOT make abortion illegal. It is still legal in most states. Change the law if you don't like it,

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I would like to know when the 10th amendment was overturned? It seems like much of our modern constitutional law/rulings disregard the 10th amendment.

10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It looks to me that overturning Roe/Wade (if it happens) is simply a step back to adhering to the 10th.

Exactly.

 

[Rigby5]

It's not about someone's concept of "personal freedom", it's about the Constitution. There is no such "right to privacy" in the Constitution and even if there was it surely can't be interpreted as a right to kill an unborn child.

Wrong.
The Constitution is NOT the source of any rights and never tried to at all list rights, which are infinite.
The Constitution was ONLY to separate between federal jurisdiction and all other.

The right to privacy comes from long standing Common Law precedent, and obviously is the single most important right.
The laws against rape and murder actually come from and are part of the right to privacy.

And a fetus is NOT an unborn child.
It is an unconscious blob of cells.
Whether or not it has rights, it certainly has no feelings, opinions, or concerns.
So there is nothing there to protect.
The ONLY value of an unborn actually comes from the value the woman puts on it.
There is no other source of value at all.

If you believe in religion, then you believe in immortal souls, so then it is wrong to put a physical blob of cells above the feelings of the woman, which obviously must remain supreme.

 

[scruffy]

Wrong.
You clearly know nothing about law.
The reality is that inherent individual rights are the only source of any legal authority in a republic.
NOT government or legislators, who only temporarily borrow on that authority from individuals, when necessary, in order to resolve conflict between individuals.
And since individual inherent rights are infinite, it is and always was judges who decide law really.
It is not legislators, who frequently are corrupt and always have to make imperfect generalities.
You clearly do not at all understand law, because with law, judges are always supposed to completely and totally superior to the legislative branch. When judges make mistakes, it is other judges who fix it.
And in fact, when legislators or executive make mistakes, it is judges who fix it.
Judges are top dog, and the 3 branches were NEVER supposed to be equal.

Excuse me. I know more about US law than you will EVER know

The simple and most basic fact is that JUDGES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE LAW.

Not now, not ever.

You have a terribly ignorant legal education. Crack a book and stop spouting nonsense.

 

[rightwinger]

Not being a mind reader, I cannon say. Ruth Bader Ginsberg said many times that Roe was bad law. Possibly these justices felt that no one would DARE oppose Roe. It was settled law. Or, perhaps the briefs written and submitted were persuasive. A judge that will not change his or her mind is not a judge but an ideologue. The opinion does NOT make abortion illegal. It is still legal in most states. Change the law if you don't like it,

They lied until they had the votes

 

[Rigby5]

Did this ruling (If holds true) outlaw the ability to get an abortion? No, it did not.

All it did was pass it down to the individual states where it should have always been.
Even Ginsberg agreed with that.

This ruling is not going to send abortions back 60 years. We know which states
will pass laws to legalize it. And, we know which states will put regulations on it,
maybe so there isn't the 9th month abortion.

It ain't the 'end of the world as we know it' scenario that the pinheads are hearing from their
masters.

Wrong.
States were originally created as crown charters and were totally corrupt, massacring natives and forcing millions into slavery.
States are NEVER supposed to dictate individual rights at all.
It is supposed to be the other way around, where inherent individual rights authorize and delegate legal power to the states.

This IS the end of the republic because it is an attempt to allow a religious minority to dictate their insane emotional power play over inherent individual rights, which is where government is supposed to be borrowing its authority from.
So this is totally backwards.
Government is supposed to be inferior to individuals, and this puts government above individuals.
So this makes government completely and totally dictatorial, arbitrary, and draconian.

 

[scruffy]

Wrong.
States were originally created as crown charters and were totally corrupt, massacring natives and forcing millions into slavery.
States are NEVER supposed to dictate individual rights at all.
It is supposed to be the other way around, where inherent individual rights authorize and delegate legal power to the states.

This IS the end of the republic because it is an attempt to allow a religious minority to dictate their insane emotional power play over inherent individual rights, which is where government is supposed to be borrowing its authority from.
So this is totally backwards.
Government is supposed to be inferior to individuals, and this puts government above individuals.
So this makes government completely and totally dictatorial, arbitrary, and draconian.

Sorry, that's just nuts.

Our Constitution is EXCEEDINGLY clear.

Anything that isn't specifically granted to the feds, belongs to the States and to the People

If the People want abortion, they can elect representatives to make it law.

But Rights REQUIRE a Constitutional amendment. And there is that option too - an amendment will FORCE the judges to adhere.

And if you disagree with any of this, you simply don't know how our system works

 

[Esdraelon]

How do you justify Amy Barrets conformation ten days before the election?

It followed the same pattern SCTUS justice confirmations have always followed. Who sits in the Oval Office always gets to NOMINATE but those who control the Senate are given the power to approve or disapprove. Obama's choice was no different. The people's representatives in the Senate determined both of those questions. If the next Republican president is trying to work with a hostile Senate, it won't matter how soon an election is, they will just refuse to have a hearing or they'll vote the person down. The real reason for those extra Conservative Justices is Harry Reid.

 

[Meister]

Wrong.
States were originally created as crown charters and were totally corrupt, massacring natives and forcing millions into slavery.
States are NEVER supposed to dictate individual rights at all.
It is supposed to be the other way around, where inherent individual rights authorize and delegate legal power to the states.

This IS the end of the republic because it is an attempt to allow a religious minority to dictate their insane emotional power play over inherent individual rights, which is where government is supposed to be borrowing its authority from.
So this is totally backwards.
Government is supposed to be inferior to individuals, and this puts government above individuals.
So this makes government completely and totally dictatorial, arbitrary, and draconian.

Oh brother,

Life is hard.
It's even harder if you're stupid.

Not sure where you got your ill informed messaging. sad

 

[rightwinger]

It followed the same pattern SCTUS justice confirmations have always followed. Who sits in the Oval Office always gets to NOMINATE but those who control the Senate are given the power to approve or disapprove. Obama's choice was no different. The people's representatives in the Senate determined both of those questions. If the next Republican president is trying to work with a hostile Senate, it won't matter how soon an election is, they will just refuse to have a hearing or they'll vote the person down. The real reason for those extra Conservative Justices is Harry Reid.

The precedent was always the President had the authority to fill vacant seats as he saw fit

The Senate rarely disapproved

McConnell seized the authority to fill vacant seats
A Judge was never denied a hearing

 

[Rigby5]

Excuse me. I know more about US law than you will EVER know

The simple and most basic fact is that JUDGES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE LAW.

Not now, not ever.

You have a terribly ignorant legal education. Crack a book and stop spouting nonsense.

That is completely wrong.
Judges are who are supposed to always make law, and NOT legislators at all, in any way.
Legislators are supposed to reflect the will of the people and know how to correctly identify generalities, but that is NOT actual law.
The "will of the people" often is totally wrong and would be mob rule.
The generalities of legislators are obviously never perfect, and often can be totally wrong in the particular circumstances of any one individual case.
So it is totally and completely up to judges to temper bad generic legislation to fit the actual reality.
Legislation is NOT actual law, but merely guidelines.
Each actual case creates law for that case, and it comes entirely from the judge.

And it is obvious the legislators are becoming totally corrupt and ignorant, as they are trying to MANDATE sentences, which is totally illegal!
Anyone who does not understand that sentence mandates totally violate the 6th amendment, should not be allowed to practice law or serve on any government.
{...

Amendment VI​

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
...}
If sentences are "mandated", then the accused is totally denied the most important rights of a fair trial, based on the actual facts of the case.

 

[Meister]

That is completely wrong.
Judges are who are supposed to always make law, and NOT legislators at all, in any way.
Legislators are supposed to reflect the will of the people and know how to correctly identify generalities, but that is NOT actual law.
The "will of the people" often is totally wrong and would be mob rule.
The generalities of legislators are obviously never perfect, and often can be totally wrong in the particular circumstances of any one individual case.
So it is totally and completely up to judges to temper bad generic legislation to fit the actual reality.
Legislation is NOT actual law, but merely guidelines.
Each actual case creates law for that case, and it comes entirely from the judge.

And it is obvious the legislators are becoming totally corrupt and ignorant, as they are trying to MANDATE sentences, which is totally illegal!
Anyone who does not understand that sentence mandates totally violate the 6th amendment, should not be allowed to practice law or serve on any government.
{...

Amendment VI​

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
...}
If sentences are "mandated", then the accused is totally denied the most important rights of a fair trial, based on the actual facts of the case.

Wrong, judges don't make law, that is called legislating from the bench.
The Justices interpret the law.

Holy Cow, son.