If Roe Is Overturned, It Will Mark The First Time In The History Of The Constitution Civil Rights Were Taken Away, Not Expanded

[skews13]

"Overturning Roe v. Wade would be such a significant decision because it would be the first time in the history of the Constitution that precedent would be overturned to limit civil rights, not expand them," according to Neama Rahmani, the president of West Coast Trial Lawyers and a former federal prosecutor.

If Roe v. Wade is tossed it would mark the first time the Supreme Court overturned precedent 'to limit civil rights, not expand them,' expert says

"Instead of using the Constitution to expand rights" overturning Roe v. Wade would limit the rights of Americans, an expert told Insider.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[MaryL]

Um, that isn't what's happened. When we have moonbats even remotely entertain a "disinformation governance overlords", THEN you have to worry were this is going.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

"Overturning Roe v. Wade would be such a significant decision because it would be the first time in the history of the Constitution that precedent would be overturned to limit civil rights, not expand them," according to Neama Rahmani, the president of West Coast Trial Lawyers and a former federal prosecutor.

If Roe v. Wade is tossed it would mark the first time the Supreme Court overturned precedent 'to limit civil rights, not expand them,' expert says

"Instead of using the Constitution to expand rights" overturning Roe v. Wade would limit the rights of Americans, an expert told Insider.

www.businessinsider.com

How is having states figure it out themselves violating civil rights you chuck and duck fruitcake

 

[Death-Ninja]

"Overturning Roe v. Wade would be such a significant decision because it would be the first time in the history of the Constitution that precedent would be overturned to limit civil rights, not expand them," according to Neama Rahmani, the president of West Coast Trial Lawyers and a former federal prosecutor.

If Roe v. Wade is tossed it would mark the first time the Supreme Court overturned precedent 'to limit civil rights, not expand them,' expert says

"Instead of using the Constitution to expand rights" overturning Roe v. Wade would limit the rights of Americans, an expert told Insider.

www.businessinsider.com

It never was a right, that is irrefutable, it was an entirely manufactured right ludicrously predicated upon the right to privacy! If I had my way, and I may well get it in near future, you murder a baby we kill you in exactly the same fashion you murdered the innocent baby, whether that be with a coat hanger, or a powerful vacuum cleaner would be entirely up to you evil fucking animals...

 

[EvilCat Breath]

There is no constitutional civil right to abortion.

Sheesh these democrats are **** yeast crazy.

 

[BackAgain]

We demand the “right” to murder the helpless and utterly innocent!

 

[MaryL]

It never was a right, that is irrefutable, it was an entirely manufactured right ludicrously predicated upon the right to privacy! If I had my way, and I may well get it in near future, you murder a baby we kill you in exactly the same fashion you murdered the innocent baby, whether that be with a coat hanger, or a powerful vacuum cleaner would be entirely up to you evil fucking animals...

No. Please lay off the dramatics. Infanticide OK. Death penalty BAD. What's the difference? Semantics and rhetoric?

 

[Seymour Flops]

"Overturning Roe v. Wade would be such a significant decision because it would be the first time in the history of the Constitution that precedent would be overturned to limit civil rights, not expand them," according to Neama Rahmani, the president of West Coast Trial Lawyers and a former federal prosecutor.

If Roe v. Wade is tossed it would mark the first time the Supreme Court overturned precedent 'to limit civil rights, not expand them,' expert says

"Instead of using the Constitution to expand rights" overturning Roe v. Wade would limit the rights of Americans, an expert told Insider.

www.businessinsider.com

That may be true. I'm not going to assume it is because the West Coast Trial Lawyers president says it.

I do agree that this overturning would be a limit on rights because it overturns a previous ruling that granted a right. Someone may say that this ruling will grant the right to live to the unborn, but merely overturning Roe v. Wade will not do that.

I'm not sure that is the only overturning of precedent that has ever limited a right previously granted. In fact, it isn't. Brown vs. Topeka limited the right to discriminate previously granted by Plessy v. Ferguson. The right to discriminate by race in public accommodations is not a civil right.

I'm not sure if unlimited abortion could be called a "civil right." What definition of "civil rights" do you and/or Rahmani use to reach that conclusion?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The right to live is the very most ESSENTIAL civil right.

 

[okfine]

Um, that isn't what's happened. When we have moonbats even remotely entertain a "disinformation governance overlords", THEN you have to worry were this is going.

Moonbats or somebody telling you the truth...

 

[Esdraelon]

I live in deepest, darkest Alabama (can't you tell from my accent?) and I know literally NO ONE who would dedicate themselves to overturning marriage rights as they exist now. Even folks down here no longer bridle at all over interracial marriage. As for same-sex marriage, yeah, a LOT of Alabamians didn't agree but ultimately, that's about a decision taken between two adults and people down here tend to be protective of their rights. The pieces that are flourishing online about a call to arms and pushing dread of some backward lurch in rights are all just fearmongering clickbait.

Alito said it best. Women on both sides of this issue can mobilize to elect representatives that will vote for the rights they want to be enshrined in law. Liberals understand that their culture wars and in-your-face stances on many other issues have poisoned their ability to sway voters in the Red States. Being the "Give me EVERYTHING I want!" group that they are, they're having a meltdown and looking for some way to intimidate or otherwise compel 5 members of SCOTUS to get back in line. If that doesn't happen, look for them to go full ignorant savage, film at 11...

 

[Esdraelon]

We demand the “right” to murder the helpless and utterly innocent!

And if you don't agree, we're coming for you!

 

[BackAgain]

And if you don't agree, we're coming for you!

As you probably should!

 

[Esdraelon]

I'm not sure that is the only overturning of precedent that has ever limited a right previously granted. In fact, it isn't. Brown vs. Topeka limited the right to discriminate previously granted by Plessy v. Ferguson. The right to discriminate by race in public accommodations is not a civil right.

Exactly. When we hear pundits bemoaning the injuries to Stare Decisis, they never quite get around to explaining that precedent can be used to guide but it certainly does not take away the ability to change law in ways not previously considered. Those two examples are the perfect retort.

 

[Kosh]

No rights have been taken away!

 

[Death-Ninja]

No. Please lay off the dramatics. Infanticide OK. Death penalty BAD. What's the difference? Semantics and rhetoric?

What are you even attempting to say???

 

[MaryL]

What are you even attempting to say???

Really? Democrats : Infanticide is GOOD. Democrats Also: The death penalty is BAD. Do you detect hint of contradiction there?

 

[mudwhistle]

"Overturning Roe v. Wade would be such a significant decision because it would be the first time in the history of the Constitution that precedent would be overturned to limit civil rights, not expand them," according to Neama Rahmani, the president of West Coast Trial Lawyers and a former federal prosecutor.

If Roe v. Wade is tossed it would mark the first time the Supreme Court overturned precedent 'to limit civil rights, not expand them,' expert says

"Instead of using the Constitution to expand rights" overturning Roe v. Wade would limit the rights of Americans, an expert told Insider.

www.businessinsider.com

Roe vs Wade isn't in the constitution.

 

[night_son]

"Overturning Roe v. Wade would be such a significant decision because it would be the first time in the history of the Constitution that precedent would be overturned to limit civil rights, not expand them," according to Neama Rahmani, the president of West Coast Trial Lawyers and a former federal prosecutor.

If Roe v. Wade is tossed it would mark the first time the Supreme Court overturned precedent 'to limit civil rights, not expand them,' expert says

"Instead of using the Constitution to expand rights" overturning Roe v. Wade would limit the rights of Americans, an expert told Insider.

www.businessinsider.com

Your kind must have forgotten about stealing the unborn child's right to fucking exist. I agree with Ninja. A terrible reprisal could be brewing on the near horizon. A hundred million murdered babies to atone for.

 

[HikerGuy83]

It never was a right, that is irrefutable, it was an entirely manufactured right ludicrously predicated upon the right to privacy! If I had my way, and I may well get it in near future, you murder a baby we kill you in exactly the same fashion you murdered the innocent baby, whether that be with a coat hanger, or a powerful vacuum cleaner would be entirely up to you evil fucking animals...

Agree. The right to privacy is a manufactured construct that is necessary to justify this kind of overreach.