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

[Stormy Daniels]

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.

 

[PinktheFloyd88]

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

Uh let's see here, the problems with overturning it:

1) Nobody fucking wants it overturned
2) All 3 Justices appointed by Trump are psycho Christian freakshows, including "dead-eyed" Coney Barrett.
3) Obama's justice was stolen

 

[Polishprince]

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 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.

Roe isn't a "liberty preserving precedent" as it attacks the very Right to Life which is the most important liberty of them all.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Uh let's see here, the problems with overturning it:

1) Nobody fucking wants it overturned
2) All 3 Justices appointed by Trump are psycho Christian freakshows, including "dead-eyed" Coney Barrett.
3) Obama's justice was stolen

If not for the seat stolen from Obama and given to Trump, Roe would not have been overturned

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

50 years of bad law isn't strength or stability or conservatism.

 

[Polishprince]

3) Obama's justice was stolen

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.

 

[Polishprince]

If not for the seat stolen from Obama and given to Trump, Roe would not have been overturned

If Scalia hadn't been bumped off, the seat wouldn't have been vacant during the election year.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

What unalterable hogwash. Roe was a bad decision from day one. It was unconstitutional the day it was written. There are no such things as penumbral rights. You had 50 years to get legislatures to pass laws necessary to protect abortion. Now you are afraid of the vote.

 

[rightwinger]

If Scalia hadn't been bumped off, the seat wouldn't have been vacant during the election year.

Not engaging in your fantasies

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

This paves the way for EVERY SINGLE LIBERTY PRESERVING PRECEDENT EVER to be overturned.

Should we reverse Brown v Board of Education because of stare decisis?

By overturning Roe, the court is reversing itself to limit the scope of personal freedoms for the first time, ever

Except for the baby.

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.

Don't worry, you'll still be able to get your estrogen.

 

[rightwinger]

What unalterable hogwash. Roe was a bad decision from day one. It was unconstitutional the day it was written. There are no such things as penumbral rights. You had 50 years to get legislatures to pass laws necessary to protect abortion. Now you are afraid of the vote.

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

 

[Polishprince]

Appointing a Supreme Court Justice during an election year was a violation of the beloved Biden Rule which was in effect in 2016.

Obama should have stood down instead of trying to force another extremist on to the court.

 

[scruffy]

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.

You sound like a triggered leftie.

Listen up: Roe should never have existed in the first place. It was entirely un-Constitutional from the moment it was decided. It represents the WORST form of judicial activism, it's a blatant violation of the separation of powers.

 

[rightwinger]

Appointing a Supreme Court Justice during an election year was a violation of the beloved Biden Rule which was in effect in 2016.

Obama should have stood down instead of trying to force another extremist on to the court.

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If not for the seat stolen from Obama and given to Trump, Roe would not have been overturned

That was awesome.
That Garland twat would have been awful.

 

[Jets]

Essentially a five justice majority can up end precedent because it has the ability to do so unless amendments are passed to the contrary.

 

[whitehall]

It's not about someone's concept of "personal freedom", it's about the Constitution. There is no such "right to privacy" in the Constitution and even if there was it surely can't be interpreted as a right to kill an unborn child.

 

[Polishprince]

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

The libs made such a fuss about the Biden Rule in 2016, Sen. McConnell didn't want to risk their ire again and determined that the Biden Rule was a dead letter and should be ignored.

Mr. Turtle remembered history, and didn't want to go through the same grief as he did in the previous year.

 

[Rigby5]

Roe isn't a "liberty preserving precedent" as it attacks the very Right to Life which is the most important liberty of them all.

Wrong.
The "right to life" was never unlimited, as you could always kill bankrobbers.
The question of Roe Vs Wade has NOTHING at all to do with a right to life or not.
It is entirely about who gets priority in the conflict of rights between an adult woman and a blob of cells.
And obviously only the adult woman can even begin to make decisions, so has total say.
If you end Roe vs Wade, then you allow involuntary servitude.
When an unconscious blob of cells can dictate the rest of your life, that is slavery.

 

[JoeMoma]

I would like to know when the 10th amendment was overturned? It seems like much of our modern constitutional law/rulings disregard the 10th amendment.

10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It looks to me that overturning Roe/Wade (if it happens) is simply a step back to adhering to the 10th.