Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Rogue said:

Yep,  They won't overturn Roe, but the results will be the same.  It'll return to a states rights issue.  

 

The impact of this is truly unknown.  Yeah, we'll get all the complications that existed before.  Backdoor abortions, crossing state lines, etc.  

 

But will be interesting is if they don't stop at states rights, even though that has been the core of opposition to Roe.  Do they take their victory, which would be significant to voting rolls, or do they push for banning it everywhere?  I'm guessing the move to banning it everywhere, as  this keeps those voters voting. 

It’s possible they go that route. It wouldn’t surprise me. She’s a political choice, just like Kavanaugh. They will not move on cases that will destroy their party, even if it’s what their base wants. They would rather piecemeal the whole thing the entire way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 738
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This country... can't even mourn an American Icon without fighting over her body and her seat. We are pathetic.

The ACA is the Republican health bill from the 90s. It's Mitt Romney's Republican law from Massachusetts in the early 00s.    Yet when Obama brought up the same law, suddenly it became a "go

I actually think it could be a good idea. The life time appointments were supposed to depolitize the Judiciary assuming both parties would use the powers of congress to vet potential judges and ensure

Posted Images

1 minute ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

2016 remarks on how a conservative Supreme Court could alter currentlaw on abortion, saying it wasn’t likely to try and overturn Roe v. Wade. 
 

Of course she may, but there are other comments from her saying it’s precedent. Combine them all and I’m saying she likely won’t move against Roe. As well, she knows that would end Republicans as a party. They would lose their entire base. It’s much easier to go the state route. I’m being the logical one in this discussion. She won’t go for that case. If it ends up in front of her she will uphold it. I’d lay money on it. 


I think you are simply being the overly optimistic one...

 

I don’t know how long it will take for there to be a case that threatens to overturn Roe. They aren’t going to overreach on a case like the Louisiana case from this year. But I’m saying they will overturn it at the first easy opportunity. 
 

They don’t care about precedent. If they did then the ACA would be safe...

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, abenjami said:

Roe v. Wade only matters to the pro-abortion states.  Even if it was somehow overturned, no state that currently has abortion would abolish it.  We'd finally get to see anarchy at its best.


No, Roe only matters to the red states that want to be able to outright ban abortion.
 

The states that would allow abortion regardless aren’t really impacted by Roe.

Edited by Starkiller
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Starkiller said:


I think you are simply being the overly optimistic one...

 

I don’t know how long it will take for there to be a case that threatens to overturn Roe. They aren’t going to overreach on a case like the Louisiana case from this year. But I’m saying they will overturn it at the first easy opportunity. 
 

They don’t care about precedent. If they did then the ACA would be safe...

Eh, I’m optimistic that they won’t overturn that specific case. They won’t. I’ve continued to lay out the evidence of why they won’t. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

 

 

I think it is very unlikely at this point that the court is going to overturn (Roe v. Wade). ... The fundamental element, that the woman has a right to choose abortion, will probably stand.” — 2013 lecture at Notre Dame on the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling.

___

“I don’t think abortion or the right to abortion would change. I think some of the restrictions would change ... The question is how much freedom the court is willing to let states have in regulating abortion.” — 2016 remarks on how a conservative Supreme Court could alter current law on abortion, saying it wasn’t likely to try and overturn Roe v. Wade. She said the questions the high court would be willing to address would be states’ restrictions on abortions, including how abortion clinics operate.

 

 

As I said, she will allow the states to decide. She could of course change her mind, but unlike politicians, judges tend to stand behind their public words. The key now moves towards state legislatures. 

 

 

Read her legal view on precident in general. She would overturn it and return the decision to the States. Don't kid yourself. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, oldschool said:

 

Read her legal view on precident in general. She would overturn it and return the decision to the States. Don't kid yourself. 

 

It doesn't really matter about overturning Roe.  The matter will be returned to the states though, using whatever means to that end.  Overturning Roe would be a satisfaction for the right, but they'll be quite happy with returning it to states rights.  

 

The real question is so they push beyond that?

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, oldschool said:

 

Read her legal view on precident in general. She would overturn it and return the decision to the States. Don't kid yourself. 

Maybe. I doubt it though. If they do it will be the end of the Republican Party. It’s a much easier route allowing the states to decide for themselves about funding. 
 

I see your point though. States can’t outlaw it as long as Roe exists. They may overturn it on the basis of sending it directly to the states. I still doubt that’s the move, at least for the first decade. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

2016 remarks on how a conservative Supreme Court could alter currentlaw on abortion, saying it wasn’t likely to try and overturn Roe v. Wade. 
 

Of course she may, but there are other comments from her saying it’s precedent. Combine them all and I’m saying she likely won’t move against Roe. As well, she knows that would end Republicans as a party. They would lose their entire base. It’s much easier to go the state route. I’m being the logical one in this discussion. She won’t go for that case. If it ends up in front of her she will uphold it. I’d lay money on it. 

 

Most of the time they don't come out and say it because it's not actually a popular thing to do.

 

However it is the primary reason that Evangelical Christians and social conservatives back the GOP though. It's the culmination of a decades long project for them.

 

That's no way she would just come out and say "yes our goal is for abortion to be illegal, for there to be no gay marriage, etc." but that is still what they believe.

  

Their long term goal is definitely having the court eventually rule that Roe was wrongly decided.

 

Here's our good buddy John Roberts on stare decisis btw.

 

Quote

On the subject of stare decisis, referring to Brown v. Board, the decision overturning school segregation, Roberts said that "the Court in that case, of course, overruled a prior decision. I don't think that constitutes judicial activism because obviously if the decision is wrong, it should be overruled. That's not activism. That's applying the law correctly."

 

If you actually believe abortion is murder and that millions are being murdered every year then how could you not see that as an evil that needs to be eliminated?

Edited by Titans279
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rogue said:

Al the polls, media, social media, and just casual conversation was that Trump had no chance.

 

The public and pundits gave Trump no chance, you and Legal correctly warned of the real possibility but the polls were largely accurate 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, tgo said:


Yeah, I voted for Romney when I was 20 years old. You didn’t do anything stupid that you regret at that age? 

 

When you were 20? How about months ago? 

 

This very primary you spoke of not voting for the democratic nominee and voting down ballot Republican if Sanders was the nominee. 

 

Now you're preaching voter responsibility, the importance of this election, no excuses with what's on the line with "the worst and most vile presidential candidate of all time".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...