Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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....Well of course new laws have no direct precedent but we are talking about the most recent overturning, not the initial law.
People don't need to vote on constitutional rights, which is what Roe was.
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.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....
Yes.....thought you were on top of this subject.I don't know. Did she note why in your source?
My opinion????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.
Roe v Wade was passed by a court of 7 Republicans and 2 Democrats.
Stop trying to pass your opinion as fact.
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....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.
Roe v Wade was passed by a court of 7 Republicans and 2 Democrats.
Stop trying to pass your opinion as fact.
Not really. I'm an electrical worker, not a lawyer.Yes.....thought you were on top of this subject.
She was referring to the 10th amendment route as preferred. That is why it got tossed.RGB disagreed with the reasoning of roe v Wade and would have liked a slower approach based on legislation and focused more on women's rights instead of a right to privacy.
Emotion? What emotion? I am simply stating facts. No emotion involved.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....
Only as a more stable end path for a nationwide abortion legalization law.She was referring to the 10th amendment route as preferred. That is why it got tossed.
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....Emotion? What emotion? I am simply stating facts. No emotion involved.
I will never win this debate because you won't listen. You make false claims, I correct you, and then you dismiss it and move on to the next talking point. Over and over.
apnews.com
Moving your goal posts?Only as a more stable end path for a nationwide abortion legalization law.
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.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....
www.google.com
No. Clarifying context.Moving your goal posts?
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.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.
Roe v Wade was passed by a court of 7 Republicans and 2 Democrats.
Stop trying to pass your opinion as fact.
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.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.
She was speaking for the entire court opinion......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.
Ok? So? Are their any opinions that disagree with her?She was speaking for the entire court opinion......
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.”
The St. Paulite who wrote the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision
Although he was just one of seven justices who made up the majority, Harry Blackmun became the lonely avatar of the country’s bitter divide over abortion.
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.Ok? So? Are their any opinions that disagree with her?
Do you always just stop researching after you find the first person that sort of agreed with you?
