Well the overturning has been expected for decades... you can cram a law through any supreme court with your majority but if its unconstitutional you can expect that one day it will be successfully challenged.... that's the beauty of our system... it self rights itself.... it may take 50 years but it will be ousted if it can't pass constitutional muster....
It hasn't been expected for decades. It wasn't even expected from new supreme court justices who said it was established law just about 3 years ago during their interview.
Yes.....thought you were on top of this subject.
My opinion????
www.newsweek.com
www.politico.com
www.pewresearch.org
You will never win this debate with me because you hold too much emotion about it... I don't I just look at the constitution....
Not really. I'm an electrical worker, not a lawyer.
She was referring to the 10th amendment route as preferred. That is why it got tossed.
Emotion? What emotion? I am simply stating facts. No emotion involved.
Only as a more stable end path for a nationwide abortion legalization law.
Yes that emotion... you just nailed it.... I haven't dismissed a thing... I have provided unarguable answers to your interrogation.... you are the one that has dismissed them all....
apnews.com
Moving your goal posts?
What arguments? That some comment that RGB didn't like the method roe came to pass? I am not dismissing it, I am saying that one out of context statement by RGB doesn't change the fact that a republican majority court passed roe v Wade and 50 years later a republican court over turned it. 50 years of precedent down the tubes.
www.google.com
No. Clarifying context.
So, they were 7 Republicans and 2 Democrats from your statement. They were really 7 Democrats and 2 Republicans. Globalists and their tentacles are around for centuries. A little here a little there. Year after year. For some reason no Prog Judge becomes so called Conservative. The so-called Conservative judges see the Progressive Socialist light when empowered. The Globalists are laughing at us. The constricting number of people believing in common sense are phukin with each other for stupidity in power emasculation of their own citizens.
Well that may be what Putin thinks and it's your job to convey it, but save it for trumper as they are the only ones who believe it.
She was speaking for the entire court opinion......
Ok? So? Are their any opinions that disagree with her?
You are debating in circles.... I pointed out that for a very long time Roe was critiqued by legal scholars and I used Ginsburg's very words when you asked for an example...What arguments? That some comment that RGB didn't like the method roe came to pass? I am not dismissing it, I am saying that one out of context statement by RGB doesn't change the fact that a republican majority court passed roe v Wade and 50 years later a republican court over turned it. 50 years of precedent down the tubes.
Here is my arguement from a supreme court justice. Does that mean we cancelled each other out?
“This right of privacy … is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy,” Blackmun wrote in the 7-2 decision. “The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent.”
Amparo A. HERNANDEZ
*CORRECTION* Also survived by brothers, Rudy and Nacho. (Full notice ran Sunday.)
Her statement, in a conversation, spelled out her saying she would have rather seen the issue go the direction of the 10th amendment, which would have been constitutional. So the majority violated the constitution by legislating from the bench. Lawsuits were filed right after the decision too.
