Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[Canon Shooter]

That stupid article doesn't say jackshit on how the poll was conducted or who participated. Probably on purpose because it wouldn't pass any scrutiny. Mostly likely a stupid internet poll on some idiot Left Wing site.

Yeah, but what if it's not?

 

[schmidlap]

The draft ruling that was released said that R v W was not as "settled" as you Moon Bats claim it to be. I

I can't comment on those "Moon Bats" that fester in tour noggin, presumably you reference most Americans who support Roe v Wade.

Do you believe that Senators Murkowsky and Collins were deceived by Goresuch and Kavanaugh in light of their judicial activism?

Murkowski: "If the decision is going the way that the draft that has been revealed is actually the case, it was not — it was not the direction that I believed that the court would take based on statements that have been made about Roe being settled and being precedent."

"If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office," Collins said in a statement released by her office.

 

[Couchpotato]

The preference of Americans for freedom from State coercion in such a personal matter is undeniable.

Poll: Majority of voters want Supreme Court to protect abortion rights​

The authoritarians' capacity to seize control of wombs is limited as a practical matter.

If the majority of Americans wanted there to be a total ban on abortion should the USSC make that decision or should the legislatures, do it? That's the problem. Roe V Wade was a shortcut around actually doing the hard work of legislating and was thus a bad decision from a legal perspective. It's the same with the issue on the border, student debt, etc etc. The Legislature doesn't want to do its job and is advocating for the other branches of government to do it for them. If this were truly an issue the left wanted closed, why wasn't it codified in the law decades ago? Certainly, the Democrats have had control of Congress, and the Presidency at least once since Roe was decided. If Congress had passed a law this would no longer be an issue. Oh and if 70% of people want abortion then how is giving the power to decide this issue to the people a bad idea?

 

[Blues Man]

I'm sure some states will quickly write and pass new laws that ban all abortions based on the implied rights of a fetus whether the Supreme Court explicitly says that or not. And we'll have another Supreme Court case and go through all this pandemonium all over again. IMHO, saying that the Constitution cannot be interpreted as granting the right to an abortion is not the same thing as granting full Constitutional rights to an unborn baby. And if that is the case, then could the SCOTUS rule that an abortion ban has no basis in law at the federal level? If so, then it falls to each state to make their own decisions about that. Politically, there are more people that don't like a total ban over people that want abortions restricted to a certain time frame, say the first trimester or whatever. IOW, let the people in each state decide.

All that does in prohibit an abortion in that state.

The consequences of any state stating that a fetus has the full compliment of Constitutional rights as an adult will be something out of a Orwellian horror story.

 

[schmidlap]

If the majority of Americans wanted there to be a total ban on abortion should the USSC make that decision or should the legislatures, do it? That's the problem. Roe V Wade was a shortcut around actually doing the hard work of legislating and was thus a bad decision from a legal perspective. It's the same with the issue on the border, student debt, etc etc. The Legislature doesn't want to do its job and is advocating for the other branches of government to do it for them. If this were truly an issue the left wanted closed, why wasn't it codified in the law decades ago? Certainly, the Democrats have had control of Congress, and the Presidency at least once since Roe was decided. If Congress had passed a law this would no longer be an issue. Oh and if 70% of people want abortion then how is giving the power to decide this issue to the people a bad idea?

Judicial activists, despite statements made under oath in support of established precedents, overturning popular laws that arrogate personal rights to the State are antithetical to freedom.

Will advanced states continue to support and defend those personal rights? Indeed, they will.

 

[BackAgain]

Judicial activists, despite statements made under oath in support of established precedents, overturning popular laws that arrogate personal rights to the State are antithetical to freedom.

Will advanced states continue to support and defend those personal rights? Indeed, they will.

States authorizing infanticide aren’t “advanced.” Shitlap is misusing words again.

 

[Couchpotato]

All that does in prohibit an abortion in that state.

The consequences of any state stating that a fetus has the full compliment of Constitutional rights as an adult will be something out of a Orwellian horror story.

Why would granting an unborn child the right to life be an Orwellian horror story exactly?

 

[Blues Man]

You are 100% right. We have to credit our gutless wonders of Congress who were too confused to rule that a fetus in a human mother IS A HUMAN BEING. That bullshit about breathing air is just that bullshit! The truth is that the baby inside that morther WAS BREATHING, only its mother was by nature that you cannot legislate, putting oxygen and nutrients to that human being through the means of her unbilical cord inside the placenta that functions both for eating and breathing. /wah-wah trumpet to the exponential degree.

Be careful what you wish for.

If you get that wish that a fetus has all the rights of any adult then you open all women up to the possibility that the government can deem any pregnant woman is "abusing" a fetus and then can forcibly impose its will over all pregnant women.

If you get that wish then any state government will have the right to ball all pregnant women from travel to any state where abortion is still legal.

 

[Couchpotato]

Judicial activists, despite statements made under oath in support of established precedents, overturning popular laws that arrogate personal rights to the State are antithetical to freedom.

Will advanced states continue to support and defend those personal rights? Indeed, they will.

Great job not actually answering the question.

There is no ROE V WADE law dip shit which is the fucking problem with the decision and the reasoning behind overturning it stated in the draft opinion which you obviously haven't bothered to read.

 

[Blues Man]

Why would granting an unborn child the right to life be an Orwellian horror story exactly?

Because you then allow the government to impose its will on any pregnant woman who the state deems is not properly tending to her pregnancy. You give state government the right to forcibly keep a pregnant woman from traveling to another state where abortion is still legal.

Is this what you want?

 

[Esdraelon]

How could leaking a copy of that draft early possibly benefit conservatives?

They couldn't. It was just another sign that the Left is working diligently to tear down our traditions and stable institutions. ALL of them, as quickly as possible. I'd bet large that this was done by Sotomayor, herself. If a law clerk did this, they should be permanently disbarred at the federal level. If it was a sitting Justice, they should be impeached, whether it's possible to remove them or not.

 

[task0778]

If the majority of Americans wanted there to be a total ban on abortion should the USSC make that decision or should the legislatures, do it

Only Congress has the power and authority to legislate. The SCOTUS is confined to interpret the Constitution with respect to any legislation and determine if the law is constitutional. They are not supposed to "legislate from the bench", which is precisely what the Supreme Court did in 1973 when they rule as they did in Roe v Wade. There's a right way and a bunch of wrong ways to deal with abortion or any other issue; in this case it appears that the Constitution does not cover the right to an abortion, so either Congress passes some kind of abortion legislation or the issue goes to the states for them to handle it as each state sees fit.

If a state determines that it's citizens want full abortion rights, so be it. If a state decides that all abortions should be banned, so be it. Or anything in between. The citizens in each state can vote into office the politicians who can and will change the law if the people want it changed, it's as simple as that. That's how it should be, concerning any issue that the Supreme Court says is not in the US Constitution. The rule of law, people. Either we respect the law or we don't, and right now there's a lot of disrespect going on. Laws and even the Constitution can be changed, but it's gotta be done the right way.

 

[Sunsettommy]

someone's losin' it

Mary has long been the BLUE sheep of the family she is a whack job since Abortions are not illegal even when Roe vs. Wade is dropped.

 

[Couchpotato]

Because you then allow the government to impose its will on any pregnant woman who the state deems is not properly tending to her pregnancy. You give state government the right to forcibly keep a pregnant woman from traveling to another state where abortion is still legal.

Is this what you want?

I want the state to protect the life of children, yes I do. How fucked up is a culture/society who doesn't protect its most vulnerable members.

So when do protections against bodily harm and death kick in for an unborn baby in your mind? How many weeks after conception does it take for fetus to get rights?

 

[Couchpotato]

Only Congress has the power and authority to legislate. The SCOTUS is confined to interpret the Constitution with respect to any legislation and determine if the law is constitutional. They are not supposed to "legislate from the bench", which is precisely what the Supreme Court did in 1973 when they rule as they did in Roe v Wade. There's a right way and a bunch of wrong ways to deal with abortion or any other issue; in this case it appears that the Constitution does not cover the right to an abortion, so either Congress passes some kind of abortion legislation or the issue goes to the states for them to handle it as each state sees fit.

If a state determines that it's citizens want full abortion rights, so be it. If a state decides that all abortions should be banned, so be it. Or anything in between. The citizens in each state can vote into office the politicians who can and will change the law if the people want it changed, it's as simple as that. That's how it should be, concerning any issue that the Supreme Court says is not in the US Constitution. The rule of law, people. Either we respect the law or we don't, and right now there's a lot of disrespect going on. Laws and even the Constitution can be changed, but it's gotta be done the right way.

Thanks for reiterating what I said.

 

[Esdraelon]

If a woman from a state that bans abortions has one in another state there will be no legal repercussions for her when she returns home.

Yes, and that's as it should be. Perhaps you could spread the word to those who are hyperventilating over this. They realize that this issue, once fully explained, will stop being quite as politically beneficial, so they're already putting media pieces out warning that the bad old Republicans are forming ranks to pass a Federal statute that basically outlaws abortion in all 50 states.

 

[task0778]

The consequences of any state stating that a fetus has the full compliment of Constitutional rights as an adult will be something out of a Orwellian horror story.

You are entitled to that opinion. Not everyone agrees though.

Do you support the idea that the Supreme Court can and should legislate from the bench, creating civil rights out of thin air that have no root in our Constitution?

Do you support the idea that the Supreme Court can determine at a later date that an earlier ruling was in error and rectify it?

 

[Blues Man]

I want the state to protect the life of children, yes I do. How fucked up is a culture/society who doesn't protect its most vulnerable members.

So when do protections against bodily harm and death kick in for an unborn baby in your mind? How many weeks after conception does it take for fetus to get rights?

So let me clarify your position.

You think that the state has the right to force pregnant women to comply with their rules of behavior for pregnant women.

So therefor it is perfectly fine for the state to incarcerate a pregnant woman who might smoke a cigarette, or who gets too fat while pregnant, or drinks more then the recommended amount of coffee or who doesn't follow the USDA dietary guidelines because all those behaviors put an unborn fetus at risk. You want the state to forcibly keep pregnant women from traveling to a state where abortion is legal because there is the chance she will choose to get one.

Correct?

 

[Blues Man]

Yes, and that's as it should be. Perhaps you could spread the word to those who are hyperventilating over this. They realize that this issue, once fully explained, will stop being quite as politically beneficial, so they're already putting media pieces out warning that the bad old Republicans are forming ranks to pass a Federal statute that basically outlaws abortion in all 50 states.

You should read the posts of people who think a fetus should have the same compliment of Constitutional rights you do

 

[Flash]

I can't comment on those "Moon Bats" that fester in tour noggin, presumably you reference most Americans who support Roe v Wade.

Do you believe that Senators Murkowsky and Collins were deceived by Goresuch and Kavanaugh in light of their judicial activism?

Murkowski: "If the decision is going the way that the draft that has been revealed is actually the case, it was not — it was not the direction that I believed that the court would take based on statements that have been made about Roe being settled and being precedent."

"If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office," Collins said in a statement released by her office.

Every Supreme Court nominee, including the ones nominated by the filth ass Democrats, never say anything about how they will rule on any issue.

I remember the Trump nominees saying that "settled law" would be one of their consideration but never saying that was going to be the only consideration.

Your definition of settled law and their definition may differ. Just because R v W was considered to be "settled" doesn't mean it shouldn't be overturned if they thought it was "one of the worst decisions ever made by the Court".

By the way Moon Bat, that little dumbass Negro bitch that Potatohead nominated lied several times to the Committee so be careful about complaining about things like this.