What if Roe Vs. Wade was Overturned?

[elephant]

Yes thanks for clearing it up.

So *if* Roe is overturned, and the supreme court somehow outlaws abortion instead of turning it over the states, wouldn't the liberals all of a sudden start saying the federal government shouldn't have a say in this even though we haven't heard a peep from them for the last few decades because the judgement was in their favor?
I just have a hard time believing that the court itself would somehow make abortion outright illegal, it would have to have stipulations(like mother's life at risk, rape ect..), and that would require a law to be drafted.

Basically, I think you are understanding what I believe. But it is important that I clarify one other thing. SCOTUS will not make abortion illegal. That will be left to the lawmakers. I just think the law would become a federal issue as soon as Roe vs. Wade were overturned.

There would be an uproar from the Dems to give the choice back to the states, but there would also be a response from the Reps, which I believe would include use of their present Congressional majority to pass a law as you have suggested. If that law were questioned, as a right to privacy issue, it does not seem unreasonable (although inconsistent, as they would have just overturned Roe vs. Wade) the SCOTUS would uphold the law as being within Constitutional limits. But there many hypotheticals there, so I will stop.

What I think is most interesting is that I would intuitively think the conservative judges would want to increase states rights and the liberal judges would want to keep the decision at the federal level. The decision that the SCOTUS made about the 2000 election makes me believe there has been a change in what conservative and liberal mean in the court. The five judges that voted to end the recount were the more conservative judges - the ones I would expect to leave the decision to the states. The other votes came from the liberals. So it may have been more about political party affiliation than whether they were judging the law "conservatively" or "liberally".

I guess only time will tell.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

For the record, the reason you addressed nothing else in my response is because you are incapable. .

Im presuming you have double wide entrance doors at the front of your daily dwelling quarters so as to allow ease of entrance for your ever growing ego?

Are you psychic? You "KNOW" my undeclared motives? even better than my wife???

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You have just decided to disagree with me for fun.

What am I saying is different from WJ?

Let me go through it:

5) WJ ends with "So how does the federal government end up running our whole lives?" The same as me saying the federal government now has unchecked power over the people and the states.

Where is the outrage? WJ said "whole lives" not just some of it, not most - but "whole".

You are a stone cold idiot.

WJ's rhetorical question does not seem to imply he believes the Feds have such ultimate and unchecked power over the states as you do.

He MIGHT, but hasnt indicated such. YOU have blatantly indicated such and argued for such. Hence the difference.

States still have considerable powers,,,

I will agree the feds have taken much power they dont deserve legally, but hopefully the appointment of strict constitutionalists will swing it back the other way.

Im a stone cold idiot? my, my my,,,you constipated today?

 

[elephant]

I will agree the feds have taken much power they dont deserve legally, but hopefully the appointment of strict constitutionalists will swing it back the other way.

I would like to think this would be true, but sadly it seems the judges vote along party lines. See #141 for more.