Roe v wade isn't going anywhere

[martybegan]

People in those states were nieve enough to believe right winger supreme court judges would never actually do that. They lied and said they wouldn't during their hearings.

Nothing they did in their responses could even come close to a lie, vague as they were.

Same as progressive justices when asked about the 2nd amendment.

 

[JoeMoma]

Looks like the SC is going to remove protections and allow abortions to be outlawed. The result is the same as if they banned it themselves.

The effect will be the same in some states. In some states it will not. If the SC banned it, it would be nation wide, not that the SC has the authority to ban anything.

 

[Fang]

15 year olds having babies is a really bad idea. Mom and child can look forward to 50 years of welfare.

Killing a human being is an even worse idea.

 

[justoffal]

Eight states—Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Wisconsin—still have unenforced pre-Roe abortion bans in their laws, which could be enforced if Roe were overturned.

And the decision will be right back where it always belonged..
With the voters.

 

[Lisa558]

Eight states—Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Wisconsin—still have unenforced pre-Roe abortion bans in their laws, which could be enforced if Roe were overturned.

It’s doubtful they’ll eliminate all abortions…..they might be made very restrictive, though.

Sorry that you’re not getting what you want, but it is a states’ rights issue. People who live in a state where they don’t like the laws can either move or vote for different elected officials who will reflect their preferences.

If a majority of people in a specific state don’t want abortion at all - again, unlikely - then that’s what most people there want. Should be a state by state decision.

 

[Lisa558]

And the decision will be right back where it always belonged..
With the voters.

Oops…. missed your comment before I posted my own. That‘s essentially what I said - let the voters decide.

 

[elektra]

When it comes to a living human being the only science the democrats can see is from another century!

 

[elektra]

15 year olds having babies is a really bad idea. Mom and child can look forward to 50 years of welfare.

But welfare is a great Democrat program, much easier than working, free healthcare, so many benefits, so great democrats can brag about welfare

 

[justoffal]

The effect will be the same in some states. In some states it will not. If the SC banned it, it would be nation wide, not that the SC has the authority to ban anything.

Exxxxxxactly

 

[Ghost1776]

Keeping fathers in the house is a real start, instead of having a democratic bunch of fkn losers telling women if you want more money get the dad out and get on welfare, wth do you expect for free money pumped out by demonic idiots who take money from you and put it in their own gawd dam pockets first then give the crumbs.
PELOSI loves this how do you think that bitch eats 13 dollar pints of ice cream.

 

[skews13]

It is merely being moved to where it always belonged. With the lawmakers. It should never have existed even for one moment as a court mandated guideline. In that sense it was never constitutionally relevant.

The problem with the entire issue is that it is will force individual lawmakers to declare themselves publicly and force them to stop hiding behind the robes of the SCOTUS JUSTICES. As you know most politicians are total cowards when it comes to that.
Jo

Congress should have passed a law after the decision in ‘73. Congress should never let a court decision stand on its own, on any issue. The Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws, not the courts, and it also gives Congress the power to regulate the courts.

The Democrats don’t need to attempt to expand the Supreme Court. When they get a big enough majority in the Senate, they can simply regulate what matters the court can take actions on. They can also rewrite laws that overturn the courts decisions.

 

[justoffal]

Congress should have passed a law after the decision in ‘73. Congress should never let a court decision stand on its own, on any issue. The Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws, not the courts, and it also gives Congress the power to regulate the courts.

The Democrats don’t need to attempt to expand the Supreme Court. When they get a big enough majority in the Senate, they can simply regulate what matters the court can take actions on. They can also rewrite laws that overturn the courts decisions.

Yes

 

[hadit]

Eight states—Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Wisconsin—still have unenforced pre-Roe abortion bans in their laws, which could be enforced if Roe were overturned.

All striking down Roe would do is allow the citizens of the various states to decide for themselves if they want abortion practiced in their states.

 

[Flash]

It is merely being moved to where it always belonged. With the lawmakers. It should never have existed even for one moment as a court mandated guideline. In that sense it was never constitutionally relevant.

The problem with the entire issue is that it is will force individual lawmakers to declare themselves publicly and force them to stop hiding behind the robes of the SCOTUS JUSTICES. As you know most politicians are total cowards when it comes to that.
Jo

If the ruling stands as in the draft then that means the voters in each state have the right to decide if they want to kill the children as a method of birth control or not.

That means the children will be slaughtered in the Commie states and live in the free states.

Abortion was never a Constitutional right. The jackasses that decided R v W were idiots to say that.

 

[justoffal]

Nothing they did in their responses could even come close to a lie, vague as they were.

Same as progressive justices when asked about the 2nd amendment.

Both parties are guilty of trying to apply unconstitutional filters to the nomination process for SCOTUS. Just because something is precedent does not mean it is constitutional.
Prior to the civil rights movement SCOTUS upheld segregation....something that was never constitutional.

 

[justoffal]

All striking down Roe would do is allow the citizens of the various states to decide for themselves if they want abortion practiced in their states.

Lefty wants to force it down your throat....

 

[JoeMoma]

Congress should have passed a law after the decision in ‘73. Congress should never let a court decision stand on its own, on any issue. The Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws, not the courts, and it also gives Congress the power to regulate the courts.

The Democrats don’t need to attempt to expand the Supreme Court. When they get a big enough majority in the Senate, they can simply regulate what matters the court can take actions on. They can also rewrite laws that overturn the courts decisions.

That's why I believe we should have a constitutional convention ever 10 years to review the Supreme Court's rulings and amend the constitution accordingly. Some amendments may simply confirm the ruling of the Supreme Court, whiles some amendments will create specific language to "overrule" the Supreme Court's ruling. The Constitution should evolved through amendments, not Supreme Court Rulings.

I know this will never happen, but still it's how it should be.

 

[justoffal]

That's why I believe we should have a constitutional convention ever 10 years to review the Supreme Court's rulings and amend the constitution accordingly. Some amendments may simply confirm the ruling of the Supreme Court, whiles some amendments will create specific language to "overrule" the Supreme Court's ruling. The Constitution should evolved through amendments, not Supreme Court Rulings.

I know this will never happen, but still it's how it should

That's why I believe we should have a constitutional convention ever 10 years to review the Supreme Court's rulings and amend the constitution accordingly. Some amendments may simply confirm the ruling of the Supreme Court, whiles some amendments will create specific language to "overrule" the Supreme Court's ruling. The Constitution should evolved through amendments, not Supreme Court Rulings.

I know this will never happen, but still it's how it should be.

How about every 4 administrations? Every 16 years... Seems to make more sense.

 

[JoeMoma]

The Democrats don’t need to attempt to expand the Supreme Court. When they get a big enough majority in the Senate, they can simply regulate what matters the court can take actions on. They can also rewrite laws that overturn the courts decisions.

If a law is found to be unconstitutional by the supreme court, congress can not make whatever point was ruled unconstitutional to be constitutional by passing another law. It takes a constitutional amendment. That being said, congress may be able to write a law that avoids the unconstitutionality of the previous law to accomplish the same purpose of the previous law.

 

[Canon Shooter]

It is merely being moved to where it always belonged. With the lawmakers. It should never have existed even for one moment as a court mandated guideline. In that sense it was never constitutionally relevant.

The problem with the entire issue is that it is will force individual lawmakers to declare themselves publicly and force them to stop hiding behind the robes of the SCOTUS JUSTICES. As you know most politicians are total cowards when it comes to that.
Jo

I'm not aware of too many lawmakers who are afraid to take a public stance on abortion...