‘How will we survive?’

What do you suppose might happen if we returned to conducting government by a code of honor and principle?
Opens a thousand doors, all of them to good things. How do we do that? Suggestions?

 

Irrelevant. She always knows the possibility exists.

 

But its not 100% correct?

 

Proving what? She 100% knows it's possible, doesn't she?

 

Since it's not 100% guaranteed, this means that having sex IS NOT choosing to get pregnant.

 

Then why don't they oppose other policies that cause loss of human life? Such as the death penalty, denying healthcare, wars, anti-vax and anti-mask policies... There are many things that cause loss of life and that many of the same Republicans who oppose abortion vehemently defend.

I am 100% convinced that concern for human life is NOT the issue for the large majority of Republicans. Maybe some have religious objections... But if we start setting policy based on religious belief, then we are on a path to a fundamentalist regime.

 

It's choosing to take that risk.

 

Every decision is always in jeopardy.

 

Since you do not appear to understand the word 'Irrelevant' try. 'not pertinent'.

 

Its very pertinent.

 

SCOTUS has always been political.

This would be the first time a fundamental right identified by SCOTUS will have been taken away. There is little more political than that.

Republicans will be like the dog that caught the car.

 

Act decisively how? He doesn't have the votes to add more Justices.

 

Heller dealt with a listed right, Roe not so much.

 

About individual rights? They're generally supportive of more expansive individual rights. They're now opposed to the "war on drugs," support same-sex marriage, and generally support more free expression (some backsliding here).

No SCOTUS? Who would protect states or individuals from an overpowering federal government? Who would settle disputes between states?

 

Well, not exactly true. You could favor no legislation restricting abortion and that would be consistent with Roe v. Wade.

 

Good luck holding on to gun rights.

 

How about the endless attacks on "liberals," "the left," and "Democrats?" Should those be considered a violation?

 

Sure. Read Rule 2. It gives you what is considered a violation.

 

The justice have always had biases and been appointed by presidents based upon their leaning. That doesn't change their ability to rule impartially. Every human has personal beliefs. They aren't robots.

Appointments and nominations are part of the process. Replacing deceased, retiring, or incompacitated judges is not "packing". Your trying to blend a different concept so later when democrats actually try to pack the court by ADDING justices, you can say "but Republicans did it", yet they didn't.

Nice try.

 

Are they valid?

 

Apparently, you think this much is reason enough to try to enforce laws banning abortion.

 

Doesn't matter--they're against forum rules.

 

No, no it isn't.

 

You mean a state could? Sure in theory, and I support states making their own laws governing abortion. But in real world, EVERY STATE regulates abortion, especially in the third trimester. So since nearly every state forces "women to carry a pregnancy against their will," I don't understand the argument about forcing women to carry pregnancy when Roe allows just that.

If Roe is overturned, a state can still have no legislation restricting abortion. So it's a win/win.

 

He must use his bully pulpit powers.