Should states ignore roe v wade?

[SuperDemocrat]

I really doubt that this would ever happen but what if a majority of states simply ignored roe v wade? I know some people might criticize this as being unconstitutional but roe v wade is a court opinion. It isn't anything written in the constitution directly and only exist because of an opinion on what the states can do. Since the states came together to write the current constitution, the previous constitution (articles of confederation), and any future constitutions it just seems reasonable to assume the states have some say over how it is interpreted. They obviously have control what is written into it so why don't they have control over how it is interpreted. What if 2/3 of the states simply ignored roe v wade? The same majority it would take to pass an amendment eliminating it. Why would ignoring the Supreme Court be any different than amending the constitution in that situation?

 

[David_42]

The states would be idiots.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

As a thought experiment, it is somewhat interesting to consider the "concept".

However, states already ignore it...in a sense.

They've hemmed it in on several fronts.

To simply ignore SCOTUS rulings would be a bit chaotic. It is essentially ignoring the law.

 

[PredFan]

I don't think you understand Roe vs Wade. I'm no expert myself but I think you are saying that the state's should start arresting women who get abortions. But on what grounds? Abortion is not illegal. Any half assed lawyer could get the case thrown out and make a tryckload of money doing it. All paid by the taxpayers of that state of course.

Not a wise plan.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Of course they could. If a state can usurp federal law by making state laws to allow marijuana they could easily do the same disallowing abortion procedures. Fairly simple.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I really doubt that this would ever happen but what if a majority of states simply ignored roe v wade? I know some people might criticize this as being unconstitutional but roe v wade is a court opinion. It isn't anything written in the constitution directly and only exist because of an opinion on what the states can do. Since the states came together to write the current constitution, the previous constitution (articles of confederation), and any future constitutions it just seems reasonable to assume the states have some say over how it is interpreted. They obviously have control what is written into it so why don't they have control over how it is interpreted. What if 2/3 of the states simply ignored roe v wade? The same majority it would take to pass an amendment eliminating it. Why would ignoring the Supreme Court be any different than amending the constitution in that situation?

Of course the States should ignore Roe... just as they should ignore all irrational 'decrees' by the Supreme Legislature.

What's more, there should be a litmus test on seats at the Supreme Legislature to preclude anyone of a "Progressive" nature... from taking a seat.

And that's because Leftism rests entirely in Relativism... thus such 'people' lack the means to reason objectively. And absent objectivity, the service of justice is quite impossible.

Which is why irrational drivel such as Roe comes into play... irrational people doing jobs for which they are entirely unqualified to do.

 

[Political Junky]

Some states have tried.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I don't think you understand Roe vs Wade. I'm no expert myself but I think you are saying that the state's should start arresting women who get abortions. But on what grounds? ...

Murder. OKA the taking of human life, absent a sound moral justification.

 

[PredFan]

I don't think you understand Roe vs Wade. I'm no expert myself but I think you are saying that the state's should start arresting women who get abortions. But on what grounds? ...

Murder. OKA the taking of human life, absent a sound moral justification.

Again, that would be easily defeated in any court if law. And at the expense of the taxpayers of that state.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I don't think you understand Roe vs Wade. I'm no expert myself but I think you are saying that the state's should start arresting women who get abortions. But on what grounds? ...

Murder. OKA the taking of human life, absent a sound moral justification.

Again, that would be easily defeated in any court if law. And at the expense of the taxpayers of that state.

Not in a viable, sustainable State, which would naturally reject the absurd premise that there is the potential for a RIGHT to murder the most innocent and helpless of human life. Because such a state would simply ignore the whimsy of the Supreme Legislature.

(But that's only because there is no potential for such a right to exist.)

 

[PredFan]

I don't think you understand Roe vs Wade. I'm no expert myself but I think you are saying that the state's should start arresting women who get abortions. But on what grounds? ...

Murder. OKA the taking of human life, absent a sound moral justification.

Again, that would be easily defeated in any court if law. And at the expense of the taxpayers of that state.

Not in a viable, sustainable State, which would naturally reject the absurd premise that there is the potential for a RIGHT to murder the most innocent and helpless of human life. Because such a state would simply ignore the whimsy of the Supreme Legislature.

(But that's only because there is no potential for such a right to exist.)

Ok so now you are talking hypothetical. But in that hypothetical place, Roe v Wade would not have happened in the first place.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I don't think you understand Roe vs Wade. I'm no expert myself but I think you are saying that the state's should start arresting women who get abortions. But on what grounds? ...

Murder. OKA the taking of human life, absent a sound moral justification.

Again, that would be easily defeated in any court if law. And at the expense of the taxpayers of that state.

Not in a viable, sustainable State, which would naturally reject the absurd premise that there is the potential for a RIGHT to murder the most innocent and helpless of human life. Because such a state would simply ignore the whimsy of the Supreme Legislature.

(But that's only because there is no potential for such a right to exist.)

Ok so now you are talking hypothetical. But in that hypothetical place, Roe v Wade would not have happened in the first place.

Did you read the title of the Thread?

Why must we be forced to educate you people before you're capable of debate?

But there is nothing hypothetical about there being no potential for a "Right" to murder your pre-born children. That is simply a fact of nature.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why not just keep murdering abortion doctors? Why not just defy that law? Why diddle around defying Roe v Wade?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Why not just keep murdering abortion doctors? Why not just defy that law? Why diddle around defying Roe v Wade?

Who is murdering abortion doctors, Gilligan?

Be specific... or at least as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.

 

[PredFan]

I don't think you understand Roe vs Wade. I'm no expert myself but I think you are saying that the state's should start arresting women who get abortions. But on what grounds? ...

Murder. OKA the taking of human life, absent a sound moral justification.

Again, that would be easily defeated in any court if law. And at the expense of the taxpayers of that state.

Not in a viable, sustainable State, which would naturally reject the absurd premise that there is the potential for a RIGHT to murder the most innocent and helpless of human life. Because such a state would simply ignore the whimsy of the Supreme Legislature.

(But that's only because there is no potential for such a right to exist.)

Ok so now you are talking hypothetical. But in that hypothetical place, Roe v Wade would not have happened in the first place.

Did you read the title of the Thread?

Why must we be forced to educate you people before you're capable of debate?

But there is nothing hypothetical about there being no potential for a "Right" to murder your pre-born children. That is simply a fact of nature.

Ok dude, as a fellow conservative I was being respectful and now without provocation, you are turning into an ass.

The title of the thread talks about real time, now. You started talking about a hypothetical situation where in the perfect world, a "viable sustainable state" your wish could be reality.

It would seem that I am not the one who needs educating.

 

[PredFan]

Why not just keep murdering abortion doctors? Why not just defy that law? Why diddle around defying Roe v Wade?

Shut up but job, when was the last time an abortion doctor was killed?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Ok dude ... The title of the thread talks about real time, now.

The title of the thread queries a hypothetical.

Abortion is murder... and States could very easily simply ignore Roe and the catastrophic 'vote' of the Supreme Legislature which sought to legalize murder.

You claimed that convictions which would axiomatically come; where a state vigorously sought to prosecute those who committed murder of the pre-born, when such would not be the case, where the State simply rejected the authority of the Federal Government, on the irrefutable moral ground, that such is what it is: THE MORALLY UNJUSTIFIED TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE.

Federal Appeals would not be considered by the State, because the State would have by the initial action, REJECT FEDERAL AUTHORITY.