Court Packing Does NOT Address Constitutionality of Roe-V-Wade Reversal

[BULLDOG]

It doesn't have to make sense and RvW hasn't been reversed. It's an October surprise a little early.

I know the ruling has not been released, but if the leaked document represents the ruling to come , Yes. As a federal law, it has been reversed.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Preferring personal opinion and bias to dictate law rather than the Constitution and facts is sorta like declaring you prefer your desire to float above the ground to the laws of existing gravity.

Nine Nerds Playing Hardball

SCROTUS is a self-declared Judicial Supremacist oligarchy. It needs to be abolished. Its sensitivity about its secrecy is shared by all totalitarian enemies of the citizens' self-determination about the issues that affect us a lot more than they affect some sheltered Star Chamber.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

As opposed to refusing to even meet with a SCOTUS candidate 8 months before an election and rushing through another in a few weeks?

Republicans have made it clear that they are willing to stretch the constitution as far as it takes to get control of the Supreme court but are now crying foul?

As for not getting our way. This thing has been on the books for 50 years and I don't think you guys ever stopped being butt-hurt, did you?

Interesting. Proabortionists don't support rights just things on the books for a short time.

 

[Concerned American]

self-declared Judicial Supremacist oligarchy

Lie. The constitution declared/established the SCOTUS. Just because it doesn't fit in your narcississtic narrative does not make it a supremacist oligarchy. It has very clear guidelines that it must follow.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Lie. The constitution declared/established the SCOTUS. Just because it doesn't fit does not make it a supremacist oligarchy.

Americans Who Worship the Court Want to Associate With an Imaginary Higher Power in Order to Bully Everybody Else

By interpreting the Constitution as giving it the right to interpret the Constitution, your SCROTUS father-figure committed a logical fallacy (petitio principii).

Second, if it had the right in the first place, why did it take them 12 years to claim that they did? It wasn't because there were no issues during the administrations of Washington and Adams. It was because those two Presidents were Federalists and so was the Court. With Jefferson's administration, that anti-democratic party was finished, so they had to create a judicial coup against all subsequent Congresses and Presidencies.

Third, the usurpation was part of an obiter dictum, which is a non-binding commentary. So we, the people, don't have to respect their opinions unless we are peasants who like to be bossed around by an oligarchic clique.

It didn't follow any guidelines in Roe V Wade. Realizing how out-of-nowhere that opinion was doesn't mean it's getting somewhere.

 

[martybegan]

As opposed to refusing to even meet with a SCOTUS candidate 8 months before an election and rushing through another in a few weeks?

Republicans have made it clear that they are willing to stretch the constitution as far as it takes to get control of the Supreme court but are now crying foul?

As for not getting our way. This thing has been on the books for 50 years and I don't think you guys ever stopped being butt-hurt, did you?

The dems would have done the EXACT SAME THING if the situation was reversed, and you know it.

Nothing in the Constitution prevent them from doing it, nor would have it prevented the dems from doing it if they had the same situation.

Plessey was on the books for just as long, and Separate but equal was de facto law for just as long before. So the people who over-turned it were butthurt?

 

[martybegan]

The appointment of a few republican justices drasticly changed the nature of the court in a very short time. Drastic swings to either party is detrimental to our country.

It's the way the cookie crumbles. Your sides fault for relying on convincing 5 of 9 unelected lawyers to impose your will instead of via the legislative process.

 

[Concerned American]

Americans Who Worship the Court Want to Associate With an Imaginary Higher Power in Order to Bully Everybody Else

By interpreting the Constitution as giving it the right to interpret the Constitution, your SCROTUS father-figure committed a logical fallacy (petitio principii).

Second, if it had the right in the first place, why did it take them 12 years to claim that they did? It wasn't because there were no issues during the administrations of Washington and Adams. It was because those two Presidents were Federalists and so was the Court. With Jefferson's administration, that anti-democratic party was finished, so they had to create a judicial coup against all subsequent Congresses and Presidencies.

Third, the usurpation was part of an obiter dictum, which is a non-binding commentary. So we, the people, don't have to respect their opinions unless we are peasants who like to be bossed around by an oligarchic clique.

It didn't follow any guidelines in Roe V Wade. Realizing how out-of-nowhere that opinion was doesn't mean it's getting somewhere.

Run along comrade, go see Putin and enjoy your life. Your nonsense is just that.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Run along comrade, go see Putin and enjoy your life. Your nonsense is just that.

The SCROTUS With the Mostest

Only lowlife like you desperately need to be associated with a and self-described Higher Power.

 

[Concerned American]

The SCROTUS With the Mostest

Only lowlife like you desperately need to be associated with a and self-described Higher Power.

English please.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's the way the cookie crumbles. Your sides fault for relying on convincing 5 of 9 unelected lawyers to impose your will instead of via the legislative process.

It was assumed that Roe v Wade was settled precident, and as such, not subject to reversal. That is what each of the current SC justices said in their confirmation hearings. The fault, if any would be expecting any trump nominee to have enough integrity to not lie about their goals.

 

[Concerned American]

It was assumed that Roe v Wade was settled precident, and as such, not subject to reversal. That is what each of the current SC justices said in their confirmation hearings. The fault, if any would be expecting any trump nominee to have enough integrity to not lie about their goals.

Like the fault of Jackson lying about her goals when she stated she could not define a woman because she was not a biologist in spite of the fact that she was nominated because she was a BLACK WOMAN? Glad to see you are consistently hypocritical, bulldyke.

 

[j-mac]

Being on the books for years is NOT a grounds / basis for Constitutionality. Are you aware of this fact?

Maybe we should bring back Dred Scott, or Plessey….those were reversed after years too.

 

[j-mac]

It was assumed that Roe v Wade was settled precident, and as such, not subject to reversal. That is what each of the current SC justices said in their confirmation hearings. The fault, if any would be expecting any trump nominee to have enough integrity to not lie about their goals.

Aw….the court can taketh, what they giveth….

 

[BULLDOG]

Like the fault of Jackson lying about her goals when she stated she could not define a woman because she was not a biologist in spite of the fact that she was nominated because she was a BLACK WOMAN? Glad to see you are consistently hypocritical, bulldyke.

You are pretty dim, aren't you? Any definition she might have given in that hearing would have been seen as the definition she would eventually use as a supreme court justice. It called for more than a quick, off the cuff general definition. It would be wrong to not research all the aspects of what makes a woman before giving a viable legal definition. Only an idiot would see that otherwise.

 

[easyt65]

Aw….the court can taketh, what they giveth….

Actually the court gave nothing and took nothing away.

The Constitution gives or does not 'give'. The court just rules on Constitutionality.

Liberals can still abort / ki as many babies as they want per year. They just have to work within their own states to legalize it.

 

[BULLDOG]

Aw….the court can taketh, what they giveth….

They do have that authority. However, they have to maintain a long standing reputation of fairness and logic. If they follow through with the leaked draft, as is, they can kiss all that goodby.

 

[Esdraelon]

Dems resuscitate court packing position after SCOTUS Roe v. Wade decision leaked

The landmark Roe v. Wade decision will be overturned by the Supreme Court, according to a leaked draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito.

www.foxnews.com

It's being reported Democrats are reviving the idea of packing the courts as a result of the recent leaked draft copy of Roe-V-Wade reversal brief.

Court Packing does not address the Constitutionality of the potential decision. It is just another butt-hurt, emotional liberal extremist reaction to not getting their way.

Unless they manage to steal another election, they will not soon have the control of government to do anything to pack the court. Schumer and others are barking about "resurrecting" the drive to pack the court, as if they had simply decided to bow to the will of the people a few months ago. Had it not been for Manchin and Sinema, they'd have already packed that court, added two new states to the nation, and likely attempted some kind of draconian restrictions on 2A. It was VERY NEARLY a tragedy and a Democrat was the one who stood in the breach and refused.

Sinema may pay the price but I doubt Manchin will be removed so as long as he doesn't flip on his support for keeping the filibuster, the court should be stable, for now. I fully expect their butthurt reaction to include a redux of the summer of '20. Every time they don't get their way, they escalate the level of destruction and violence in an attempt to intimidate their opponents. It's simply a matter of time before the shooting begins and once THAT happens, the inner cities are going to become true war zones. It won't surprise me to see the Guard deployed to try to bring order in NY or LA, or Chicago.

 

[Esdraelon]

As for not getting our way. This thing has been on the books for 50 years and I don't think you guys ever stopped being butt-hurt, did you?

There has always been a core group who have fought to end this practice but the Republicans as a party only paid it lip service around elections. Trump finally acted and we are now seeing a tectonic (for Dems) shakeup in that "settled law" the Ds are so fond of repeating.

Blue states recently began pushing for and creating laws that literally allowed a baby that was about to be born to be aborted at the whim of the mother. VA created a law that allowed for the killing of a child that was born alive as a result of a botched abortion.
The fact that it would probably be a rare occurrence changes nothing about the facts of the language in their laws. I think it was this kind of over the top, in your face, arrogance that eventually created the impetus for this change. They are pushing these kinds of extremism on all fronts and it may well be about to blow up in their faces.

 

[Esdraelon]

I know the ruling has not been released, but if the leaked document represents the ruling to come , Yes. As a federal law, it has been reversed.

The leaker has put SCOTUS in an unwinnable bind. If they change their votes they will be confirming that mobs can intimidate them into ruling against law and reason, all because of public opinion rather than a careful consideration of Constitutional merits.

If they publish this draft as official, all hell breaks loose in multiple cities across America. Hell, the violence will probably begin before anything official is handed down.
If it does, would you approve of it?