Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade?

Quote: RonC

.

The others did not seem to agree with him, so I don’t see much chance of his position becoming that of the Court.

Plenty was said about not ever being able to overturn RoeVWade.

Quote: rxwine

Plenty was said about not ever being able to overturn RoeVWade.

By these justices?

None ever said that precedents could not be overturned. Every nominee dances around what they will do. Precedents are important but not absolute.

Quote: RonC

By these justices?

None ever said that precedents could not be overturned. Every nominee dances around what they will do. Precedents are important but not absolute.

They deflected from their true intentions. Give it whatever excuse you want. That's what happened. The case didn't even require overturning RoeVWade, it was done because they got a shot at it.

Awwwwwwwww............poor little wingnuts are mad cuz they cant kill babies anymore???

CRY ME A RIVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I thought YeahBaby was aborted. Guess I was wrong.

Quote: rxwine

I thought YeahBaby was aborted. Guess I was wrong.

I just assumed he was awaiting trial for storming the capitol.

Quote: rxwine

They deflected from their true intentions. Give it whatever excuse you want. That's what happened. The case didn't even require overturning RoeVWade, it was done because they got a shot at it.

Would you agree that, to some extent, anyone who becomes a Justice brings something with them to the bench? I doubt any of them are perfect in that they don’t let opinions they have in a little bit. They did not lie and none of them ever say exactly what they will do except be the perfect little Justice.

Roe could have been ripped apart piece by piece using Roberts’ institutionalist leanings or the band aid ripped off all at once.

Which one is the better way to deal with a previous poor ruling? People like Roe emotionally but few legal scholars seem to be defending it as a great original ruling for any reason other than what it did.

Quote: OnceDear

So Your Supreme court potentially criminalises the saving of that mother's life in the interest of letting a non-viable fetus exert it's right to kill her?

Not at all.

Every state permits abortion where the life of the mother is in danger.

Quote: OnceDear

Your constitution was supposed to separate State from religion? Why are all the religious zealots rejoicing at this ruling? Because they won?

No. The people won. This is a Republic, where our representatives are elected by democratic vote. The Court sent the issue to the people to decide by electing their representatives, in their states, by a democratic vote, rather than having nine lawyers in black robes decide for them.

61% say it should be legal in all or most cases during the first trimester, and only 34% believe it should be legal in all or most cases in the second trimester.

Mississippi brought the case to the Supreme Court, in order to defend the fifteen-week limit on abortions in that state. A little less than two months earlier than Roe. It is impossible for a fetus to be viable at that stage, and abortion is less of a risk for the mother at that stage.

Quote: RonC

Would you agree that, to some extent, anyone who becomes a Justice brings something with them to the bench? I doubt any of them are perfect in that they don’t let opinions they have in a little bit. They did not lie and none of them ever say exactly what they will do except be the perfect little Justice.

Roe could have been ripped apart piece by piece using Roberts’ institutionalist leanings or the band aid ripped off all at once.

Which one is the better way to deal with a previous poor ruling? People like Roe emotionally but few legal scholars seem to be defending it as a great original ruling for any reason other than what it did.

You don’t expect me to believe you would accept these casual excuses with an “oh well” if it was something you cared about getting overturned. Besides that, they overruled a “right” that existed for 50 years. That’s not a minor law ruling.

They didn’t give people more freedom with this rule, they made it possible to give more people fewer choices between two they had before it. The only equivalency is if they were overturning forced abortions.

So now residents in Red anti-abortion states will have hordes of unwanted, unloved babies; no doubt many if not most will get on welfare and remain poor.

This will increase the outlay of state money; was this an intended consequence?

Over time, odds are the spawn will be liberal and vote Democrat, if they vote at all.

So far as the subject of Constitutional Law, I've studied it and ultimately it's more political than legal.

Established precedent, normally nearly sacrosanct in common law, is typically ignored if the prevailing political winds so inspire and the majority favors change.