LIVE STREAM OF ABORTION CASE that Could OVERRULE ROE

My point why it could be a win for the D’s

 

I agree.

 

Only Congress makes laws, but SCOTUS decisions can either cancel out laws, for being unconstitutional, or they can dictate the need for laws, to conform with Constitutional mandates or, of course, SCOTUS decisions can change the way things are to be interpreted, in existing law.

I don't think the Court will totally invalidate the right to abortion, confirmed in past SCOTUS decisions, but if they foist the interpretation of this right, off onto the states, that is the next closest thing to overturning Roe.

 

you do know that polls can easily be (rigged) to get what ever answer you want by just how you post a question, or where the majority of the poll is taken from, don't you?.

 

In trump world, anything is possible, just ask him.

 

They can make law from the bench like they did with Roe but that’s unconstitutional.

 

A bull$heet post, by you. What do I mean by that? YOUR ALLEGATIONS (and pretext for tossing insults at me) ARE FALSE.

You say that I called YOU, divorced from reality. Is there a reading comprehension problem you have, of which I should be aware? Because I clearly was talking about the opinion expressed in your POST.

That is completely in accordance with Forum rules. Not only are you allowed to express your opinion, but I am as well-- even if you don't agree with, or like it. Here is my quote which, by the way, you should have properly quoted, yourself, atop your attempted character assassination of me. But I guess doing that, would have showed that your indignation had no leg, on which to stand.

Do you see your mistake? I doubt it, because your original post, to which this one was my reply, also made unsupported contentions about me:

Pollycy said: ↑
Don't worry, they aren't going to do away with abortion. ....

Aside from something like that, no huge changes foreseen, but libs will have apoplectic fits over it anyway....

<END QUOTE>

My OP included no fits, apoplectic or otherwise. In fact, you could not even point to anything, indicating my, "worry." That is why I said that your post was divorced from reality (regarding its depiction of my reaction to this case): because it was.


I'd have more respect for the thoughts & feelings, expressed by a person who was divorced from reality, than for a person who is showing himself to be a hypocrite-- FYI.

 

I later read, or heard on t.v., that Gorsuch is actually one of the most certain to oppose the Roe v. Wade precedent. So that makes all 3 of those you categorized as "textualists," as staunchly against Roe (it is plain to see, in the cases of Alito & Thomas).

 

I don't know about the Roe precedent in specific, but it does appear that he isn't as dedicated to precedent in general as some of the other justices.

I haven't categorized any of the justices on the Court. I said that Gorsuch "does have some libertarian tendencies" and that they could take him in any direction.

If he is a "textualist", as you have categorized him, it's possible that he'll uphold Roe based on what some Leftist analysts have called a "textualist" reading of the 14th Amendment. I've also read Sandra Day O'Conner's own "textualist" reading of the 14A and its relevance to Roe and I've found her reasoning convincing, and it's possible Gorsuch would, too.

I agree with you about the precedent thing, but I find it impossible to predict how he's going to rule here.

 

Biggest bunch of deflection, rationalization, parsing, and retaliatory squawking I've seen in some time! What you can't escape from is the fact that you were quoted directly, like it or not.

BTW, I didn't call you a liberal, but I'm not surprised that you've indicated you are one... which, of course, would explain much....

 

I'm sorry, that was my, distracted, mistake. I mixed you up with @Zorro, who seems better-versed on this topic, than most, and has contributed various informational posts, for the general benefit. Here is Zorro's break down of the 9 Justices:

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ld-overrule-roe.594744/page-3#post-1073104160



For Zorro: this was my reply to Talon, when I was thinking of you:

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ld-overrule-roe.594744/page-5#post-1073105804

And here is his reply, which you may find interesting:

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ld-overrule-roe.594744/page-5#post-1073105845

 

Sounds like you might need a bigger pair of panties.

 

Even if Republicans appoint 6 judges and Democrats appoint only 3, you're still going to end up with a very moderate Supreme Court.

Republicans have appointed 2 justices so far who have practically turned out to be progressives, and who support abortion.

 

So you believe that the SCOTUS should be a political body not a judicial one?

 

And THAT'S your 'snappy come-back'...? Let me guess... you're a Liberal Arts major... right? Predictable....

 

No, you are wrong, once more, but who could keep track of the count, at this point? And therefore, the evidence would suggest that finding out that you had mis-assumed, again, will not lead to any change in your M.O., so many more of your incorrect presumptions can be counted on, to follow.

Not that my political label should have any bearing, in this conversation about your repeatedly misgauging my posts, and poorly expressing your own intended meaning, if your after the fact explanations are to be believed, but I do not
generally categorize myself by ANY political description, because they no longer have agreed-upon, commonly understood meanings. People who call themselves "conservatives," today, bear little resemblance to those who have gone by that label for decades; what you mean, by the term, "liberal," is clearly a derogatory image, which it should be obvious, is nothing like the idea of what that word means, to someone who equates it with its true origin, so for whom it would conjure a Jeffersonian image.
So, here is my attempt to clarify to your mind, how we differ: I try to be logical, open-minded, thoroughly thoughtful, pragmatic, and-- I shy away from making ASSumptions.

 

It would be great to see the federal government removed from this issue and have it sent back to the states where it belongs. Chances of that happening are slim.

 

I just disagree with two things in your post. At this point, at least, I think that allowing states to set the time limits, maybe just with the stipulation that there must be a minimal amount of time to allow women to abort unwanted fetuses (or, perhaps more accurately, embryos), is the most likely course that this will take.

My second disagreement with your post, is that not having a relatively consistent national standard, would not be a great thing at all; in fact, just the opposite.

 

If you admire Jefferson, then perhaps we have something in common after all. Just because you aren't a 'Magliabechi' doesn't mean I can pretend to be a 'William F. Buckley'. I do wish you well, and I hope for less antagonism in our future discussions.

 

We don’t need one size fits all solutions.

 

JUSTICE THOMAS ASKS WHERE ABORTION IS FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION: “What specifically is the right here that we’re talking about?”

He didn't really get a direct answer to his question.

 

Thats a nice dodge.

Nonetheless the poster you replied to is correct.

 

It is actually quite reasonable unless you position on body autonomy is selective principle.

 

How have white nationalist taken over the Republican Party and be specific. Where have they made gains or had political support from the Republican party.

 

"
As reported by The New York Times:



Justice Alito is asking a series of questions about why viability should be the line. He notes a woman who doesn’t want to have a baby has that same interest before and after viability. From the perspective of fetal life, he notes, viability is dependent on technology and medical practices, which changes over time.

Justice Alito asked Rikelman, “I’m sure you know the arguments about the viability line as well as I do, probably better than I do. What would you say in defense of that line?

“What would you say to the argument that has been made many times by people who are pro-choice and pro-life that the line really doesn’t make any sense…?”

He added, “If a woman wants to be free of the burdens of pregnancy, that interest does not disappear the moment the viability line is crossed, isn’t that right?”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/just...ard-in-monumental-supreme-court-abortion-case

Does it?