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

[Rigby5]

You obviously haven't read the draft. It's specifically states that it only applies to abortion due to the unique implications of the act, and shall not be construed as applying to any other right, including privacy.

Secondly, there is no right to abortion enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Rather, it falls under the 10th Amendment as preserved for the states.

You either did not read or did not understand Stormy Daniel's argument.
What she is saying is that no conservative can be for over turning Roe Vs Wade because it is huge and deliberate increase in government intrusion into and control over individual rights.
For example, the premise of Libertarians is there should really be no coercive government at all.
So then to allow government to abridge individual rights to abortion, is totally against conservative ideals, which are to reduce government infringement, not increase it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

It's politics over reality.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What she is saying is that no conservative can be for over turning Roe Vs Wade because it is huge and deliberate increase in government intrusion into and control over individual rights.

You're lying.

 

[Thunderbird]

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.

The Supreme Court has pushed to limit rights!

Margaret Sanger’s extreme brand of eugenics

Even Planned Parenthood now seems embarrassed by Sanger’s support for forced sterilization, writes John J. Conley. Her targeting of the black population to reduce birth rates is equally troubling.

www.americamagazine.org

And protecting small humans is an expansion of rights.

 

[rightwinger]

The Supreme Court has pushed to limit rights!

Margaret Sanger’s extreme brand of eugenics

Even Planned Parenthood now seems embarrassed by Sanger’s support for forced sterilization, writes John J. Conley. Her targeting of the black population to reduce birth rates is equally troubling.

www.americamagazine.org

And protecting small humans is an expansion of rights.

fake

 

[ThisIsMe]

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.

Do you believe the courts have the right to make law, to grant rights, and force states to perform medical procedures?

 

[bendog]

Do you believe the courts have the right to make law, to grant rights, and force states to perform medical procedures?

Or maybe we have too many freedoms, and the Court should pull back some court created ones, like ... contraception, interracial marriage, gay marriage, gay sex, any sex with someone not your spouse,

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Not at all.

In fact, Sleepy Joe gave it back to him just this year. Did you miss the radical gal just appointed?

BTW, Obama appointed Merrick Garland- a proven liberal extremist- to replace a conservative stalwart Antonin Scalia.

No respect at all for the court's ideological balance by B. Hussein O.

And Trump had respect at all for the court's ideological balance when he replaced RBG?

 

[Polishprince]

And Trump had respect at all for the court's ideological balance when he replaced RBG?

The Republicans took a lot of heat in 2016 when they held up the nomination of the eminently unqualified hack, Merrick Garland, to the court.

Even though the Biden Rule suggested that they do that.

President Trump and Sen. McConnell didn't want to take that kind of heat again, so they pushed through someone tremendous and bipartisan.

 

[22lcidw]

You either did not read or did not understand Stormy Daniel's argument.
What she is saying is that no conservative can be for over turning Roe Vs Wade because it is huge and deliberate increase in government intrusion into and control over individual rights.
For example, the premise of Libertarians is there should really be no coercive government at all.
So then to allow government to abridge individual rights to abortion, is totally against conservative ideals, which are to reduce government infringement, not increase it.

Libertarians believe in not paying for all of this stuff also.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The Republicans took a lot of heat in 2016 when they held up the nomination of the eminently unqualified hack, Merrick Garland, to the court.

Even though the Biden Rule suggested that they do that.

President Trump and Sen. McConnell didn't want to take that kind of heat again, so they pushed through someone tremendous and bipartisan.

you are so cute when you play mindless partisan sheep. and you do it so damn well

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Or maybe we have too many freedoms, and the Court should pull back some court created ones, like ... contraception, interracial marriage, gay marriage, gay sex, any sex with someone not your spouse,

The courts didn't create those rights.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Or maybe we have too many freedoms, and the Court should pull back some court created ones, like ... contraception, interracial marriage, gay marriage, gay sex, any sex with someone not your spouse,

Yeah, the contraception one needs to be scrapped for sure. Scotus doesn't have the authority to make contraception a right.

The other ones, however, were civil rights issues, and the courts ruled that the constitution protected marriage equality under the due process and equal protection clauses. They didn't create or grant new rights, they just clarified that existing rights also apply to those other sexual identities.

 

[HikerGuy83]

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

That is what is amazing.

They were asked.

Why would a senator ask a judge to comment on a standing ruling ?

I simply don't understand that.

 

[HikerGuy83]

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

It was ten days before the election.

What's to justify ?

 

[Polishprince]

That is what is amazing.

They were asked.

Why would a senator ask a judge to comment on a standing ruling ?

I simply don't understand that.

The senator was just trying to rig the Supreme Court.

They failed.

 

[Lesh]

The courts didn't create those rights.

It acknowledged that they existed

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It acknowledged that they existed

They invented a federal right.

 

[rightwinger]

That is what is amazing.

They were asked.

Why would a senator ask a judge to comment on a standing ruling ?

I simply don't understand that.

Evidently they saw what was coming

The Conservative Judges were given a chance to lie, and they did

 

[rightwinger]

It was ten days before the election.

What's to justify ?

How about open hypocrisy in refusing to consider Merrick Garland eight months before the election?