Democrats: Here's who's to blame for overturning of Roe...

[Missourian]

It's not Trump.

Trump gets the credit...he nominated the majority that overturned Roe v Wade... that's his legacy...but the blame from the point of view of the Democrats should lie elsewhere.

Mitch McConnell should get a little.

He didn't change the rules though. He simply made choices unpopular with Democrats within his power by refusing to confirm Merrick Garland.

He also removed the filibuster on Supreme Court Justices confirmations in retaliation for an earlier Democratic Filibuster rule change.

How Mitch McConnell playing 'long game' shaped the Supreme Court and led to the end of abortion landmark Roe

Decisions made by then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell were key to a chain of events that resulted in the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.

www.foxnews.com

But that's not the person that's really to blame.

Enter Democrat Majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada...the person who initially nuked the filibuster for a considerably short term gain of a few federal judgeships...

Much of the blame falls here.

You should read this one...Harry Reid's interview where he states he has laid the groundwork for Democrats to nuke the Filibuster for Supreme Court nominations if Hillary is Elected President.

​

​

Outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said he is confident that he has laid the groundwork for Democrats to nuke the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees if they win back the Senate in November.​

​

Envisioning Hillary Clinton in the White House and Democrats controlling the Senate, Reid warned that if a Senate Republican minority block her Supreme Court nominee, he is confident the party won’t hesitate to change the filibuster rules again.​

Harry Reid – Nuclear Option proliferator

If Hillary wins, and Dems retake the Senate, expect Dems to use the Nuclear Option for a Supreme Court nominee

legalinsurrection.com

Next...Hillary Clinton. She knew what was on the line...and proceeded to run one of the most ill conceived Presidential campaigns in recent memory, capped with a loss to a challenger with no campaign experience, no political experience and... according to the polling...no chance of winning.

A chunk of blame goes here.

__________

And last but not least...former President Obama.

The leader of the party who without doubt put his personal seal of approval on the fateful decision to send Harry Reid to the floor of the Senate to nuke the filibuster and show those Republicans who is boss.

He believed Hillary was a shoe in for 2016 and there was a good chance Democrats would take the Senate...but mostly I think it was ego, hubris, and short-sighted strategy that contributed to one of the all-time political backfires in US history.

​

President Obama applauded Senate Democrats Thursday for changing the rules on filibusters, saying too many of his nominees and initiatives have been blocked by Republicans for strictly partisan reasons.​

​

<Snip>​

​

The change does not affect nominees for the Supreme Court. Nor does it apply to legislation, though Obama suggested he wouldn't mind seeing that change as well.​

Obama applauds filibuster rule change

President Obama discusses new filibuster rules in the Senate.

www.usatoday.com

So...there you go...when you are sitting alone at home fuming over the fate of Roe...these should be the targets of your animosity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I can't remember, who was the Dem genius who decided to filibuster Estrada?

 

[Rigby5]

It's not Trump.

Trump gets the credit...he nominated the majority that overturned Roe v Wade... that's his legacy...but the blame from the point of view of the Democrats should lie elsewhere.

Mitch McConnell should get a little.

He didn't change the rules though. He simply made choices unpopular with Democrats within his power by refusing to confirm Merrick Garland.

He also removed the filibuster on Supreme Court Justices confirmations in retaliation for an earlier Democratic Filibuster rule change.

How Mitch McConnell playing 'long game' shaped the Supreme Court and led to the end of abortion landmark Roe

Decisions made by then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell were key to a chain of events that resulted in the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.

www.foxnews.com

But that's not the person that's really to blame.

Enter Democrat Majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada...the person who initially nuked the filibuster for a considerably short term gain of a few federal judgeships...

Much of the blame falls here.

You should read this one...Harry Reid's interview where he states he has laid the groundwork for Democrats to nuke the Filibuster for Supreme Court nominations if Hillary is Elected President.

​

​

Outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said he is confident that he has laid the groundwork for Democrats to nuke the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees if they win back the Senate in November.​

​

Envisioning Hillary Clinton in the White House and Democrats controlling the Senate, Reid warned that if a Senate Republican minority block her Supreme Court nominee, he is confident the party won’t hesitate to change the filibuster rules again.​

Harry Reid – Nuclear Option proliferator

If Hillary wins, and Dems retake the Senate, expect Dems to use the Nuclear Option for a Supreme Court nominee

legalinsurrection.com

Next...Hillary Clinton. She knew what was on the line...and proceeded to run one of the most ill conceived Presidential campaigns in recent memory, capped with a loss to a challenger with no campaign experience, no political experience and... according to the polling...no chance of winning.

A chunk of blame goes here.

__________

And last but not least...former President Obama.

The leader of the party who without doubt put his personal seal of approval on the fateful decision to send Harry Reid to the floor of the Senate to nuke the filibuster and show those Republicans who is boss.

He believed Hillary was a shoe in for 2016 and there was a good chance Democrats would take the Senate...but mostly I think it was ego, hubris, and short-sighted strategy that contributed to one of the all-time political backfires in US history.

​

President Obama applauded Senate Democrats Thursday for changing the rules on filibusters, saying too many of his nominees and initiatives have been blocked by Republicans for strictly partisan reasons.​

​

<Snip>​

​

The change does not affect nominees for the Supreme Court. Nor does it apply to legislation, though Obama suggested he wouldn't mind seeing that change as well.​

Obama applauds filibuster rule change

President Obama discusses new filibuster rules in the Senate.

www.usatoday.com

So...there you go...when you are sitting alone at home fuming over the fate of Roe...these should be the targets of your animosity.

No.
While it is correct that lots of people screwed up, it was very indirect, small, and intentional.
But clearly the way the Trump SCOTUS nominees lied to Congress and then conspired to deliberately change Roe Vs Wade, shows malice of forethought that makes them the main culprits.

And they clearly lied in the ruling, since the 14th amendment clearly does require the federal government to over rule states who attempt to violate individual rights. And since this is about religious views on life, family, privacy, medical knowledge, medical choices, etc., clearly this SHOULD be an individual right and not a government imposed demand.

 

[johngaltshrugged]

I can't remember, who was the Dem genius who decided to filibuster Estrada?

Why in the world would anyone filibuster Erik Estrada?
Is this where defund the police has us? We're going after Ponch?

 

[Rigby5]

I can't remember, who was the Dem genius who decided to filibuster Estrada?

wiki:
{...
Miguel Angel Estrada Castañeda (born September 25, 1961) is a Honduran-American attorney who became embroiled in controversy following his 2001 nomination by President George W. Bush to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Senate Democrats, unable to block his nomination in the Senate Judiciary Committee after the Republican Party took control of the U.S. Senate in 2002, used a filibuster for the first time to prevent his nomination from being given a final confirmation vote by the full Senate. They said Estrada was a conservative ideologue with no experience as a judge.[1]
...
Following law school, Estrada served as a law clerk, first for Judge Amalya Lyle Kearse of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and then for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court during Kennedy's first year on the Court in 1988. One of Estrada's fellow clerks that year was Peter Keisler, another conservative nominee to the D.C. Circuit whose nomination lapsed during the 110th Congress without a Senate vote cast on whether to confirm.

From 1990 until 1992, Estrada served as Assistant U.S. Attorney and Deputy Chief of the Appellate Section, U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York. In 1992, he joined the United States Department of Justice as an Assistant to the Solicitor General for the George H. W. Bush Administration where he served with now Chief Justice John G. Roberts. In those capacities, Estrada represented the government in numerous jury trials and in many appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Before joining the U.S. Attorney's Office, he practiced law in New York with Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

D.C. Circuit Court nomination​

George W. Bush nominated Estrada to a position on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on May 9, 2001. He received a unanimous "well-qualified" rating from the American Bar Association.

Democratic Senators opposed the nomination, noting Estrada's lack of any prior judicial experience at the local, state, or federal level. Additionally, though a member of The Federalist Society, Estrada had never been an academic, so there was no record of his writing by which the Senate could review his record. He had worked in the Office of the Solicitor General under President George H. W. Bush. He had also been a partner in the same law firm as Theodore Olson, working on the legal team that represented George W. Bush in the Bush v. Gore case. He and his record were well-known in conservative circles. He was known to be a friend of Ann Coulter, who acknowledged him in her book.[2]

In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Estrada said he had never thought about Roe v. Wade, even while serving as a Supreme Court clerk at a time when the first Bush Administration had asked the Court to reconsider it.[3] Also, while as Justice Kennedy's clerk, an article written by Jack Newfield appearing in The Nation magazine alleged that Estrada had disqualified candidates for clerkship who were too liberal while interviewing them. When questioned about this by Senator Charles Schumer during his confirmation hearing, Estrada did not recall the incident.[4] Democratic Senators also objected to the refusal by the Office of the Solicitor General to release samples of Estrada's writings while employed there, although such a release of confidential documents would have been precedent-setting. Minority Leader Tom Daschle was quoted by the Associated Press as saying, "The stumbling block to Miguel Estrada's nomination all along was the administration's refusal to allow him to complete his job application and provide the Senate with the basic information it needed to evaluate and vote on his nomination."[5] A bipartisan group of former Solicitors General, however, wrote a letter objecting to the Democrats' demand for memos that Estrada had written while he was with the office. The letter argued release of prior memos by government employees to the public would endanger the Solicitor General Office's ability to provide confidential legal advice to the Executive Branch.
...}

 

[johngaltshrugged]

It's not Trump.

Trump gets the credit...he nominated the majority that overturned Roe v Wade... that's his legacy...but the blame from the point of view of the Democrats should lie elsewhere.

Mitch McConnell should get a little.

He didn't change the rules though. He simply made choices unpopular with Democrats within his power by refusing to confirm Merrick Garland.

He also removed the filibuster on Supreme Court Justices confirmations in retaliation for an earlier Democratic Filibuster rule change.

How Mitch McConnell playing 'long game' shaped the Supreme Court and led to the end of abortion landmark Roe

Decisions made by then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell were key to a chain of events that resulted in the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.

www.foxnews.com

But that's not the person that's really to blame.

Enter Democrat Majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada...the person who initially nuked the filibuster for a considerably short term gain of a few federal judgeships...

Much of the blame falls here.

You should read this one...Harry Reid's interview where he states he has laid the groundwork for Democrats to nuke the Filibuster for Supreme Court nominations if Hillary is Elected President.

​

​

Outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said he is confident that he has laid the groundwork for Democrats to nuke the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees if they win back the Senate in November.​

​

Envisioning Hillary Clinton in the White House and Democrats controlling the Senate, Reid warned that if a Senate Republican minority block her Supreme Court nominee, he is confident the party won’t hesitate to change the filibuster rules again.​

Harry Reid – Nuclear Option proliferator

If Hillary wins, and Dems retake the Senate, expect Dems to use the Nuclear Option for a Supreme Court nominee

legalinsurrection.com

Next...Hillary Clinton. She knew what was on the line...and proceeded to run one of the most ill conceived Presidential campaigns in recent memory, capped with a loss to a challenger with no campaign experience, no political experience and... according to the polling...no chance of winning.

A chunk of blame goes here.

__________

And last but not least...former President Obama.

The leader of the party who without doubt put his personal seal of approval on the fateful decision to send Harry Reid to the floor of the Senate to nuke the filibuster and show those Republicans who is boss.

He believed Hillary was a shoe in for 2016 and there was a good chance Democrats would take the Senate...but mostly I think it was ego, hubris, and short-sighted strategy that contributed to one of the all-time political backfires in US history.

​

President Obama applauded Senate Democrats Thursday for changing the rules on filibusters, saying too many of his nominees and initiatives have been blocked by Republicans for strictly partisan reasons.​

​

<Snip>​

​

The change does not affect nominees for the Supreme Court. Nor does it apply to legislation, though Obama suggested he wouldn't mind seeing that change as well.​

Obama applauds filibuster rule change

President Obama discusses new filibuster rules in the Senate.

www.usatoday.com

So...there you go...when you are sitting alone at home fuming over the fate of Roe...these should be the targets of your animosity.

The SCOTUS is his true legacy. They may have passed on the election rigging for political optics (or more nefarious reaqsons) but they are now delivering the right 3 wins for every setback.

IDK why he latched on to the clot shots as a legacy. That was a loser from the start & it looks much worse the longer we go.
The economy was booming before the dempanic & he could remind people of how it was soaring historically for all but the elites but that also reminds them he went along too easily with the dempanic that brought us here.

Standing up to & calling out fake news MSM is a great America First legacy as well but might would play better without his NY crassness.

Catch-22

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No.
While it is correct that lots of people screwed up, it was very indirect, small, and intentional.
But clearly the way the Trump SCOTUS nominees lied to Congress and then conspired to deliberately change Roe Vs Wade, shows malice of forethought that makes them the main culprits.

And they clearly lied in the ruling, since the 14th amendment clearly does require the federal government to over rule states who attempt to violate individual rights. And since this is about religious views on life, family, privacy, medical knowledge, medical choices, etc., clearly this SHOULD be an individual right and not a government imposed demand.

Lied? About what?

 

[Missourian]

But clearly the way the Trump SCOTUS nominees lied to Congress and then conspired to deliberately change Roe Vs Wade, shows malice of forethought that makes them the main culprits.

Fake News...

Even snopes dismisses this as absolutely false.

Did Conservative Justices Lie About Roe v. Wade?

Left-wing critics caused "#LyingGOP" to trend on social media in May 2022. But did they miss something important?

www.snopes.com

 

[1srelluc]

The Perfect Storm......REEEEEEEEEEEE!

 

[BluesLegend]

My msg to Dems is...suckers! Replacing their beloved Ginsburg with a conservative justice was pure genius.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why in the world would anyone filibuster Erik Estrada?
Is this where defund the police has us? We're going after Ponch?

I would agree to a filibuster of John, but never Ponch.

 

[Missourian]

The SCOTUS is his true legacy.

Agreed. I don't believe anyone else in the 2016 Republican primary could have both beaten Hillary AND had the fortitude and disposition to appoint the Justices necessary to accomplish the task.

 

[meaner gene]

Did Conservative Justices Lie About Roe v. Wade?

Left-wing critics caused "#LyingGOP" to trend on social media in May 2022. But did they miss something important?

www.snopes.com

Each of them said they believed in stare decisis. Each of them said that Roe v Wade was "settled" law. Each said they had no intention to overturn Roe v Wade.

I mean, it's an awful bad look at the court, to take a 50 year 7-1 decision, and overturn it 6-3, doesn't really bode well.

A previous example was overturning Plessy v Ferguson 7-1 wtih Brown v Board of education 9-0

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Each of them said they believed in stare decisis. Each of them said that Roe v Wade was "settled" law. Each said they had no intention to overturn Roe v Wade.

I mean, it's an awful bad look at the court, to take a 50 year 7-1 decision, and overturn it 6-3, doesn't really bode well.

A previous example was overturning Plessy v Ferguson 7-1 wtih Brown v Board of education 9-0

Each of them said they believed in stare decisis. Each of them said that Roe v Wade was "settled" law.

What does "settled law" mean?

 

[Missourian]

Each of them said they believed in stare decisis. Each of them said that Roe v Wade was "settled" law. Each said they had no intention to overturn Roe v Wade.

I mean, it's an awful bad look at the court, to take a 50 year 7-1 decision, and overturn it 6-3, doesn't really bode well.

A previous example was overturning Plessy v Ferguson 7-1 wtih Brown v Board of education 9-0

No comment on the OP?

 

[meaner gene]

Each of them said they believed in stare decisis. Each of them said that Roe v Wade was "settled" law.

What does "settled law" mean?

Settled Law - Virginia Law Review

“Settled law" appears frequently in judicial opinions—sometimes to refer to binding precedent, sometimes to denote precedent that has acquired a more mystical permanence, and sometimes as a substantive part of legal doctrine. During judicial confirmation hearings, the term is bandied about as...

www.virginialawreview.org

“Settled law” appears frequently in judicial opinions—sometimes to refer to binding precedent, sometimes to denote precedent that has acquired a more mystical permanence, and sometimes as a substantive part of legal doctrine.

 

[jwoodie]

No.I
While it is correct that lots of people screwed up, it was very indirect, small, and intentional.
But clearly the way the Trump SCOTUS nominees lied to Congress and then conspired to deliberately change Roe Vs Wade, shows malice of forethought that makes them the main culprits.

And they clearly lied in the ruling, since the 14th amendment clearly does require the federal government to over rule states who attempt to violate individual rights. And since this is about religious views on life, family, privacy, medical knowledge, medical choices, etc., clearly this SHOULD be an individual right and not a government imposed demand.

1. The U.S. Constitution (including the 14th Amendment) does not grant any branch of the federal government any authority to prevent States from regulating abortions.

2. Roe v. Wade was one of the least justified decisions in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was nothing more than the desire of seven Justices to create a new federal law without benefit of legislative authority. In addition, its purported rationale was based on a subsequently disproven belief that fetal viability outside the womb only occurred during the third trimester of pregnancy.

3. The Supreme Court was entirely justified (and Constitutionally compelled) to overturn this decision.

4. Just because you think abortion SHOULD be a Constitutionally protected right doesn't make it so. If you think the federal government SHOULD control abortion laws, amend the Constitution to allow for this.

 

[meaner gene]

No comment on the OP?

A fair view of the numbers in Roe V Wade are that it was decided 7-1
7 justices for and only 1 opposed.
To overturn it in Dobbs, it was only 6-3
6 justices for, and 3 opposed.

Other times the court overtuned precedent, it was by a larger majority than the precedent being overturned.

Example: Bowers v. Hardwick 5-4
Overturned by Lawrence v Texas 6-3

 

[whitehall]

Blame? Credit? There is governing to be done and decisions to be made and concepts to be fixed and all they do is whine.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Settled Law - Virginia Law Review

“Settled law" appears frequently in judicial opinions—sometimes to refer to binding precedent, sometimes to denote precedent that has acquired a more mystical permanence, and sometimes as a substantive part of legal doctrine. During judicial confirmation hearings, the term is bandied about as...

www.virginialawreview.org

“Settled law” appears frequently in judicial opinions—sometimes to refer to binding precedent, sometimes to denote precedent that has acquired a more mystical permanence, and sometimes as a substantive part of legal doctrine.

binding precedent,

It's binding.....until it isn't.