A Ginsburg replacement is 'worth the White House and Senate'

[toobfreak]

Of course. But if only either or was possible, which?

The SCOTUS is already pretty much 5-3. 6-3 pretty much slams it, but the slight added advantage is not worth losing the White House and Senate over.

With the Senate, you can at least KEEP it 5-3 for a long time.

Giving up the White House and Senate with already having lost the House too, makes the republicans pretty much lame and irrelevant allowing the Left to go ahead FULL BORE on their agenda. Is that really worth it just to get a 6-3 SCOTUS?

The REAL plan ought to be to get a 6-3 SCOTUS and KEEP the WH, Senate and maybe get the House back too.

I believe that is the idea.

It is interesting that Trump's lying about covid is now page 2. And we're back to a social issue.

When did Trump ever lie about Covid?

 

[22lcidw]

Hmmm ...

Whaddaya think?

A Ginsburg replacement is 'worth the White House and Senate': Why, and how, Republicans will push through Trump’s Supreme Court nominee

I don't think it'll cost Trump the election, but even if it does, the right lifetime appointee on the SCOTUS can be far more effective than a 4 year POTUS with a divided or fully opposition congress.

Why are judges partisan?

Yes, why? They shouldn't be. They should be interpreting laws and and defending the Constitution. But the leftist judges have systematically legislated from the bench and reinterpreted the Constitution to say what they wanted it to say.

Judges should not be partisan

Everything is on civil rights, that is what WE The PEOPLE means and a women has the right to privacy. Never mind that rich white men wrote the constitution and we had years of slavery and women were not allowed to vote, never mind that white men owned the US and still do.

We don't want a women or anyone on the bench that votes on the bible.

Every time there is a massive program or questions about one, you guys are quick to quote compassion and sympathy....the Saul Alinsky tactics

 

[22lcidw]

Hmmm ...

Whaddaya think?

A Ginsburg replacement is 'worth the White House and Senate': Why, and how, Republicans will push through Trump’s Supreme Court nominee

I don't think it'll cost Trump the election, but even if it does, the right lifetime appointee on the SCOTUS can be far more effective than a 4 year POTUS with a divided or fully opposition congress.

Why are judges partisan?

The Court's always been politicized. It told Jackson he couldn't just take land from native americans even when they had legal titles, so he did it anyway. It told non-slave holders they couldn't help runaway slaves, and ultimately the South started a war because it was afraid the law would change to let their slaves run away. And the Court nearly avoided FDR packing it when it declared parts of the New Deal unconstitutional despite popular support (Obamacare anyone?)

But abortion goes right to some peoples' belief in God/god and to other peoples' belief in having the peoples' views on God/god to stay out of their lives. Imo, the "religion thing" is definitely a new twist.

Just make people pay for it themselves to start.

 

[Canon Shooter]

The bottom line here is that a President is elected for a term of four years. Not 3 years and ten months, but four years. And, as such, it's the President's Constitutional duty to nominate a Supreme Court Justice when a vacancy occurs. Period.

Those who believe that the American people should have a "voice" in who's nominated are ignorant and stupid. The American people have already spoken with that voice when they elected Donald Trump four years ago.

Let the chips fall where they may with regards to how it'll impact the election, but the President needs to do his job, and the Senate needs to do theirs...

But not when he was Obama.

This "butwhataboutism" tactic is stupid, only because it exposes you as someone who is in favor of standing in the way of someone carrying out their Constitutional responsibilities, and that makes you un-American by any measure.

For the record, in 2016 I believe it was wrong to block the nomination of Merrick Garland. Garland should've had the benefit of confirmation hearings by the Senate, where there wouldn't have been enough votes to confirm him, anyway.

It was wrong then and it would be wrong now. But the fact that it was done back then in no way justifies doing it now.

The nomination should happen (and every indication is that it will) and then confirmation hearings need to be started...

McConnell wouldn't give Obama's nominee a vote, and you accuwse me of horsehit. go fuk yourself. and watch with the name calling.

Oh, are you having a heavy flow day?

I never accused you of anything, dipshit. I stated that it was wrong for McConnell to not give Garland a vote and you STILL whine like a little pinheaded bitch. Man, you just can't make this shit up.

You just don't like being outed as an un-American piece of shit. Well, tough shit, Zippy. Deal with it...

 

[SavannahMann]

With the election looking every close and the shifting demographics in the country, establishing a solid Conservative SCOTUS is an absolute MUST! We have 40 days, get that process going now!

Thomas is 72. Scalia is 70. Do you honestly think that this Conservative SCOTUS you are willing to sacrifice everything for will last more than a year or two? Honestly both will be gone in the next administration. Now you have five four Liberal.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Hmmm ...

Whaddaya think?

A Ginsburg replacement is 'worth the White House and Senate': Why, and how, Republicans will push through Trump’s Supreme Court nominee

Assuming that a replacement for Ginsburg has not been confirmed by November 3, and further assuming that Trump loses the election, should a defeated President be allowed to appoint a judge to the Supreme Court?

It should be pointed out, both assumptions are extremely likely. Trump is the least popular President in modern American history.

There is a corollary to the question. Should the defeated party in the Senate be allowed to confirm a Supreme Court judge?

Based on limited researched, I have been unable to find those questions addressed. However, allow me to answer my own questions.

There is absolutely nothing in the past four years to suggest that Trump and Trump Republicans in the Senate will put the will of the American people first.

If Trump is defeated, if the GOP loses control of the Senate -- both likely, why else are Republicans in such a hurry -- and Trump Republicans confirm Ginsburg's replacement, the GOP is likely to lose power for at least a generation.

Precisely why the republicans should fill the opening while they have the chance. A final FU to America on their way out.

I don't know if Trump and the Senate appointing a Constitutionalist to the court this year will hurt them. What I do know, it that if the average voter could see the posts the liberal and racist nutjobs post on these forums, Trump would win in a landslide and the conservatives would have nine tenths of the seats in the house and senate.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The bottom line here is that a President is elected for a term of four years. Not 3 years and ten months, but four years. And, as such, it's the President's Constitutional duty to nominate a Supreme Court Justice when a vacancy occurs. Period.

Those who believe that the American people should have a "voice" in who's nominated are ignorant and stupid. The American people have already spoken with that voice when they elected Donald Trump four years ago.

Let the chips fall where they may with regards to how it'll impact the election, but the President needs to do his job, and the Senate needs to do theirs...

But not when he was Obama.

What happened to Obama is just what has happened in every case where the presidency and senate were controlled by opposing parties in an election year.

 

[bendog]

The bottom line here is that a President is elected for a term of four years. Not 3 years and ten months, but four years. And, as such, it's the President's Constitutional duty to nominate a Supreme Court Justice when a vacancy occurs. Period.

Those who believe that the American people should have a "voice" in who's nominated are ignorant and stupid. The American people have already spoken with that voice when they elected Donald Trump four years ago.

Let the chips fall where they may with regards to how it'll impact the election, but the President needs to do his job, and the Senate needs to do theirs...

But not when he was Obama.

This "butwhataboutism" tactic is stupid, only because it exposes you as someone who is in favor of standing in the way of someone carrying out their Constitutional responsibilities, and that makes you un-American by any measure.

For the record, in 2016 I believe it was wrong to block the nomination of Merrick Garland. Garland should've had the benefit of confirmation hearings by the Senate, where there wouldn't have been enough votes to confirm him, anyway.

It was wrong then and it would be wrong now. But the fact that it was done back then in no way justifies doing it now.

The nomination should happen (and every indication is that it will) and then confirmation hearings need to be started...

McConnell wouldn't give Obama's nominee a vote, and you accuwse me of horsehit. go fuk yourself. and watch with the name calling.

Oh, are you having a heavy flow day?

I never accused you of anything, dipshit. I stated that it was wrong for McConnell to not give Garland a vote and you STILL whine like a little pinheaded bitch. Man, you just can't make this shit up.

You just don't like being outed as an un-American piece of shit. Well, tough shit, Zippy. Deal with it...

fuck you, bitch. Don't start name calling with me.

 

[Nostra]

With the election looking every close and the shifting demographics in the country, establishing a solid Conservative SCOTUS is an absolute MUST! We have 40 days, get that process going now!

Thomas is 72. Scalia is 70. Do you honestly think that this Conservative SCOTUS you are willing to sacrifice everything for will last more than a year or two? Honestly both will be gone in the next administration. Now you have five four Liberal.

Um, Scalia is dead.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The bottom line here is that a President is elected for a term of four years. Not 3 years and ten months, but four years. And, as such, it's the President's Constitutional duty to nominate a Supreme Court Justice when a vacancy occurs. Period.

Those who believe that the American people should have a "voice" in who's nominated are ignorant and stupid. The American people have already spoken with that voice when they elected Donald Trump four years ago.

Let the chips fall where they may with regards to how it'll impact the election, but the President needs to do his job, and the Senate needs to do theirs...

But not when he was Obama.

This "butwhataboutism" tactic is stupid, only because it exposes you as someone who is in favor of standing in the way of someone carrying out their Constitutional responsibilities, and that make you un-American by any measure.

For the record, in 2016 I believe it was wrong to block the nomination of Merrick Garland. Garland should've had the benefit of confirmation hearings by the Senate, where there wouldn't have been enough votes to confirm him, anyway.

It was wrong then and it would be wrong now. But the fact that it was done back then in no way justifies doing it now.

The nomination should happen (and every indication is that it will) and then confirmation hearings need to be started...

Where in either the law or Constitution does it say that the Senate has to hold hearings on a presidential nominee? As far as I can see, no place. All the hearings do is to allow Senators to bloviate and the minority party to assassinate the character of the nominee in public. The only thing either the law or Constitution requires is that the senate provide "advise and consent", In Garland's case it did that without holding hearings.

 

[bendog]

The bottom line here is that a President is elected for a term of four years. Not 3 years and ten months, but four years. And, as such, it's the President's Constitutional duty to nominate a Supreme Court Justice when a vacancy occurs. Period.

Those who believe that the American people should have a "voice" in who's nominated are ignorant and stupid. The American people have already spoken with that voice when they elected Donald Trump four years ago.

Let the chips fall where they may with regards to how it'll impact the election, but the President needs to do his job, and the Senate needs to do theirs...

But not when he was Obama.

What happened to Obama is just what has happened in every case where the presidency and senate were controlled by opposing parties in an election year.

no. respectfully that's not true. The dems (Biden) confirmed Justice Kennedy in Reagan's last year (1988)

 

[bendog]

The bottom line here is that a President is elected for a term of four years. Not 3 years and ten months, but four years. And, as such, it's the President's Constitutional duty to nominate a Supreme Court Justice when a vacancy occurs. Period.

Those who believe that the American people should have a "voice" in who's nominated are ignorant and stupid. The American people have already spoken with that voice when they elected Donald Trump four years ago.

Let the chips fall where they may with regards to how it'll impact the election, but the President needs to do his job, and the Senate needs to do theirs...

But not when he was Obama.

This "butwhataboutism" tactic is stupid, only because it exposes you as someone who is in favor of standing in the way of someone carrying out their Constitutional responsibilities, and that make you un-American by any measure.

For the record, in 2016 I believe it was wrong to block the nomination of Merrick Garland. Garland should've had the benefit of confirmation hearings by the Senate, where there wouldn't have been enough votes to confirm him, anyway.

It was wrong then and it would be wrong now. But the fact that it was done back then in no way justifies doing it now.

The nomination should happen (and every indication is that it will) and then confirmation hearings need to be started...

Where in either the law or Constitution does it say that the Senate has to hold hearings on a presidential nominee? As far as I can see, no place. All the hearings do is to allow Senators to bloviate and the minority party to assassinate the character of the nominee in public. The only thing either the law or Constitution requires is that the senate provide "advise and consent", In Garland's case it did that without holding hearings.

I dont' think anyone, least of all me, said McConnell done anything unconst with either Garland or Justice Ginsberg's vacant seat.

 

[Nostra]

The bottom line here is that a President is elected for a term of four years. Not 3 years and ten months, but four years. And, as such, it's the President's Constitutional duty to nominate a Supreme Court Justice when a vacancy occurs. Period.

Those who believe that the American people should have a "voice" in who's nominated are ignorant and stupid. The American people have already spoken with that voice when they elected Donald Trump four years ago.

Let the chips fall where they may with regards to how it'll impact the election, but the President needs to do his job, and the Senate needs to do theirs...

But not when he was Obama.

This "butwhataboutism" tactic is stupid, only because it exposes you as someone who is in favor of standing in the way of someone carrying out their Constitutional responsibilities, and that make you un-American by any measure.

For the record, in 2016 I believe it was wrong to block the nomination of Merrick Garland. Garland should've had the benefit of confirmation hearings by the Senate, where there wouldn't have been enough votes to confirm him, anyway.

It was wrong then and it would be wrong now. But the fact that it was done back then in no way justifies doing it now.

The nomination should happen (and every indication is that it will) and then confirmation hearings need to be started...

Where in either the law or Constitution does it say that the Senate has to hold hearings on a presidential nominee? As far as I can see, no place. All the hearings do is to allow Senators to bloviate and the minority party to assassinate the character of the nominee in public. The only thing either the law or Constitution requires is that the senate provide "advise and consent", In Garland's case it did that without holding hearings.

After what the terrorist Dimwinger Senators did to Kavanaugh during the hearings, I say just vote her in. Don't give them the chance to try to destroy the woman.

 

[Canon Shooter]

The bottom line here is that a President is elected for a term of four years. Not 3 years and ten months, but four years. And, as such, it's the President's Constitutional duty to nominate a Supreme Court Justice when a vacancy occurs. Period.

Those who believe that the American people should have a "voice" in who's nominated are ignorant and stupid. The American people have already spoken with that voice when they elected Donald Trump four years ago.

Let the chips fall where they may with regards to how it'll impact the election, but the President needs to do his job, and the Senate needs to do theirs...

But not when he was Obama.

This "butwhataboutism" tactic is stupid, only because it exposes you as someone who is in favor of standing in the way of someone carrying out their Constitutional responsibilities, and that makes you un-American by any measure.

For the record, in 2016 I believe it was wrong to block the nomination of Merrick Garland. Garland should've had the benefit of confirmation hearings by the Senate, where there wouldn't have been enough votes to confirm him, anyway.

It was wrong then and it would be wrong now. But the fact that it was done back then in no way justifies doing it now.

The nomination should happen (and every indication is that it will) and then confirmation hearings need to be started...

McConnell wouldn't give Obama's nominee a vote, and you accuwse me of horsehit. go fuk yourself. and watch with the name calling.

Oh, are you having a heavy flow day?

I never accused you of anything, dipshit. I stated that it was wrong for McConnell to not give Garland a vote and you STILL whine like a little pinheaded bitch. Man, you just can't make this shit up.

You just don't like being outed as an un-American piece of shit. Well, tough shit, Zippy. Deal with it...

fuck you, bitch. Don't start name calling with me.

Go eat a bag of dicks, you cum-guzzlin' little assmunch...

 

[AZrailwhale]

Hmmm ...

Whaddaya think?

A Ginsburg replacement is 'worth the White House and Senate': Why, and how, Republicans will push through Trump’s Supreme Court nominee

I don't think it'll cost Trump the election, but even if it does, the right lifetime appointee on the SCOTUS can be far more effective than a 4 year POTUS with a divided or fully opposition congress.

Why are judges partisan?

Yes, why? They shouldn't be. They should be interpreting laws and and defending the Constitution. But the leftist judges have systematically legislated from the bench and reinterpreted the Constitution to say what they wanted it to say.

Judges should not be partisan

Everything is on civil rights, that is what WE The PEOPLE means and a women has the right to privacy. Never mind that rich white men wrote the constitution and we had years of slavery and women were not allowed to vote, never mind that white men owned the US and still do.

We don't want a women or anyone on the bench that votes on the bible.

Well Kaz is no less partisan than you, yet he accuses you of partisanship. I'm afraid that is a price one pays for being on the board.

Abortion is a tough issue for me, both personally and as a legal/const issue. I just don't want a say in what another person does with their body, and it is simply a religious issue that life begins at conception and not birth. Under the const, it's at birth. In 1780, the abortion issue was just not an issue. Beginning in the 19th century, moves to outlaw abortion came into being. (-:

But with Roe a new constitutional right came about, I'm against "new rights" unless there's an amendment. But I'm honest enough to admit that if we males were the gender that bore children, there'd never have been an anti-abortion movement.

So personally, I'm ardently pro-choice. But I don't see the constitutional right. But then I have a daughter. But she's educated an lives in a progressive state. But not all women are so lucky.

When Roe came down, abortion restrictions were losing issues politically. Roe gave the social conservatives an issue to rally around. Even now, they have a difficulty getting a slim maj in any state outside the bible belt. Imo the antiabortion people are at best fools because it will hurt them in places like Ohio and Iowa. But women without the ability to care for children will have children who are not cared for.

You have the problem most people do with abortion. You conflate right and wrong with government.

I am pro-choice. It is not a legitimate use of government power to point a gun at a woman and force her to carry a baby to term in her body. That said, it is immoral and it's taking a human life. If both sides would agree to work together to reduce the need for abortions, they'd both be a lot more effective.

I'm not sure how this became an abortion discussion.

I just don't see you disagreeing with Democrats ever. You can call that partisan, I do

?????

I just posted I don't see the legal rationale for Roe. But whatever.

I am a republican, but not a trump sucker. Trump was pro life until he decided to run against Obama's legacy.

Penelope doesn't want govt telling women they can't have abortions. That's not really any more or less partisan than anyone else's opinion on whether Roe should be upheld.

All that the defeat of Roe would do would be to move abortion law back to the state governments where it should have remained in the first place. Roe is bad law and a clear violation of the Tenth Amendment.

 

[Canon Shooter]

I dont' think anyone, least of all me, said McConnell done anything unconst with either Garland or Justice Ginsberg's vacant seat.

In the case of Garland, I don't really understand why they didn't vote. It's not like the votes were there to confirm him...

 

[AZrailwhale]

The bottom line here is that a President is elected for a term of four years. Not 3 years and ten months, but four years. And, as such, it's the President's Constitutional duty to nominate a Supreme Court Justice when a vacancy occurs. Period.

Those who believe that the American people should have a "voice" in who's nominated are ignorant and stupid. The American people have already spoken with that voice when they elected Donald Trump four years ago.

Let the chips fall where they may with regards to how it'll impact the election, but the President needs to do his job, and the Senate needs to do theirs...

But not when he was Obama.

What happened to Obama is just what has happened in every case where the presidency and senate were controlled by opposing parties in an election year.

no. respectfully that's not true. The dems (Biden) confirmed Justice Kennedy in Reagan's last year (1988)

Sorry, I missed that one. but Reagan worked very hard to get along with the Democrats when he was president.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I dont' think anyone, least of all me, said McConnell done anything unconst with either Garland or Justice Ginsberg's vacant seat.

In the case of Garland, I don't really understand why they didn't vote. It's not like the votes were there to confirm him...

I think it was revenge for all the times Obama rode roughshod over the republicans during his eight years as president.

 

[bendog]

Hmmm ...

Whaddaya think?

A Ginsburg replacement is 'worth the White House and Senate': Why, and how, Republicans will push through Trump’s Supreme Court nominee

I don't think it'll cost Trump the election, but even if it does, the right lifetime appointee on the SCOTUS can be far more effective than a 4 year POTUS with a divided or fully opposition congress.

Why are judges partisan?

Yes, why? They shouldn't be. They should be interpreting laws and and defending the Constitution. But the leftist judges have systematically legislated from the bench and reinterpreted the Constitution to say what they wanted it to say.

Judges should not be partisan

Everything is on civil rights, that is what WE The PEOPLE means and a women has the right to privacy. Never mind that rich white men wrote the constitution and we had years of slavery and women were not allowed to vote, never mind that white men owned the US and still do.

We don't want a women or anyone on the bench that votes on the bible.

Well Kaz is no less partisan than you, yet he accuses you of partisanship. I'm afraid that is a price one pays for being on the board.

Abortion is a tough issue for me, both personally and as a legal/const issue. I just don't want a say in what another person does with their body, and it is simply a religious issue that life begins at conception and not birth. Under the const, it's at birth. In 1780, the abortion issue was just not an issue. Beginning in the 19th century, moves to outlaw abortion came into being. (-:

But with Roe a new constitutional right came about, I'm against "new rights" unless there's an amendment. But I'm honest enough to admit that if we males were the gender that bore children, there'd never have been an anti-abortion movement.

So personally, I'm ardently pro-choice. But I don't see the constitutional right. But then I have a daughter. But she's educated an lives in a progressive state. But not all women are so lucky.

When Roe came down, abortion restrictions were losing issues politically. Roe gave the social conservatives an issue to rally around. Even now, they have a difficulty getting a slim maj in any state outside the bible belt. Imo the antiabortion people are at best fools because it will hurt them in places like Ohio and Iowa. But women without the ability to care for children will have children who are not cared for.

You have the problem most people do with abortion. You conflate right and wrong with government.

I am pro-choice. It is not a legitimate use of government power to point a gun at a woman and force her to carry a baby to term in her body. That said, it is immoral and it's taking a human life. If both sides would agree to work together to reduce the need for abortions, they'd both be a lot more effective.

I'm not sure how this became an abortion discussion.

I just don't see you disagreeing with Democrats ever. You can call that partisan, I do

?????

I just posted I don't see the legal rationale for Roe. But whatever.

I am a republican, but not a trump sucker. Trump was pro life until he decided to run against Obama's legacy.

Penelope doesn't want govt telling women they can't have abortions. That's not really any more or less partisan than anyone else's opinion on whether Roe should be upheld.

All that the defeat of Roe would do would be to move abortion law back to the state governments where it should have remained in the first place. Roe is bad law and a clear violation of the Tenth Amendment.

I don't agree about the 10th, but imo all the reasoning behind there being an "unenumerated" right to privacy in the const is really a stretch.

Still, without Roe women incapable of caring for kids will have kids who won't be cared for. But as Kaz pointed out, no matter where you come down on the issue of abortion, it's more or less partisan.

But the Court's dealt with partisan issues since the constitution was ratified. The difference it seems to me is that Roe brought "God" into it. But no doubt both the slave holders and abolitionists claimed to have God on their side.

 

[kaz]

Hmmm ...

Whaddaya think?

A Ginsburg replacement is 'worth the White House and Senate': Why, and how, Republicans will push through Trump’s Supreme Court nominee

I don't think it'll cost Trump the election, but even if it does, the right lifetime appointee on the SCOTUS can be far more effective than a 4 year POTUS with a divided or fully opposition congress.

Why are judges partisan?

Yes, why? They shouldn't be. They should be interpreting laws and and defending the Constitution. But the leftist judges have systematically legislated from the bench and reinterpreted the Constitution to say what they wanted it to say.

Judges should not be partisan

Everything is on civil rights, that is what WE The PEOPLE means and a women has the right to privacy. Never mind that rich white men wrote the constitution and we had years of slavery and women were not allowed to vote, never mind that white men owned the US and still do.

We don't want a women or anyone on the bench that votes on the bible.

Well Kaz is no less partisan than you, yet he accuses you of partisanship. I'm afraid that is a price one pays for being on the board.

Abortion is a tough issue for me, both personally and as a legal/const issue. I just don't want a say in what another person does with their body, and it is simply a religious issue that life begins at conception and not birth. Under the const, it's at birth. In 1780, the abortion issue was just not an issue. Beginning in the 19th century, moves to outlaw abortion came into being. (-:

But with Roe a new constitutional right came about, I'm against "new rights" unless there's an amendment. But I'm honest enough to admit that if we males were the gender that bore children, there'd never have been an anti-abortion movement.

So personally, I'm ardently pro-choice. But I don't see the constitutional right. But then I have a daughter. But she's educated an lives in a progressive state. But not all women are so lucky.

When Roe came down, abortion restrictions were losing issues politically. Roe gave the social conservatives an issue to rally around. Even now, they have a difficulty getting a slim maj in any state outside the bible belt. Imo the antiabortion people are at best fools because it will hurt them in places like Ohio and Iowa. But women without the ability to care for children will have children who are not cared for.

You have the problem most people do with abortion. You conflate right and wrong with government.

I am pro-choice. It is not a legitimate use of government power to point a gun at a woman and force her to carry a baby to term in her body. That said, it is immoral and it's taking a human life. If both sides would agree to work together to reduce the need for abortions, they'd both be a lot more effective.

I'm not sure how this became an abortion discussion.

I just don't see you disagreeing with Democrats ever. You can call that partisan, I do

?????

I just posted I don't see the legal rationale for Roe. But whatever.

I am a republican, but not a trump sucker. Trump was pro life until he decided to run against Obama's legacy.

Penelope doesn't want govt telling women they can't have abortions. That's not really any more or less partisan than anyone else's opinion on whether Roe should be upheld.

All that the defeat of Roe would do would be to move abortion law back to the state governments where it should have remained in the first place. Roe is bad law and a clear violation of the Tenth Amendment.

Yep. I am pro-choice, but Row v. Wade was a Constitutional abomination. The courts don't have a legitimate power to make up Constitutional amendments. The Constitution simply does not address abortion. So as you said, it's a State power