Reply to Youngkin’s Power Grab

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Youngkin’s Power Grab"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]All every state needs to do is put abortion on the ballot like they did in Kansas.  [/quote]

That was the entire point of overturning Dobbs. Democrats like to turn it into the sky is falling because some wackadoo Republican disagrees personally with the procedure, but the point of overturning it federally was to let each state decide what they want. If all 50 states want to put it on the ballot- great. Again, that was the point.  [/quote]

Alternative facts.[/quote]

DP.  How so?  The PP is correct.  Roe v Wade wasn't "overturned" - it was sent to each state to decide.  Get a grip and face ACTUAL facts.[/quote]

[b]It was "settled law of the land"[/b] - it no longer is and now we have states policing whether women may travel out of state and they are declaring 11 year old girls who have been raped to be felons.  Those are the ACTUAL sick facts this nation is now facing.   Stop with your gaslighting.[/quote]

[b]No, Roe was not “settled law of the land.” [/b]It was a legal precedent built upon a very shaky foundation and an exceptionally wide interpretation of the right to privacy.

Many people on the Right effectively worked over 50 years to exploit Roe’s legal weakness while many people on the Left, like you presumably, blindly thought it could never be overturned. Others on the Left, like Ginsburg, believed putting a right to abortion under the equal protection clause created a stronger legal foundation.

The bottom line is people on the Left will have to wait until the Supreme Court is more ideologically moderate or center-Left at some point in the future before Dobbs can be challenged. Hopefully, a future Court will do a better job to protect women than Blackmun did in 1973.[/quote]

It was “settled as a precedent of the court."

“It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis," Kavanaugh said. "The Supreme Court has recognized the right to abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. It has reaffirmed it many times."

During his confirmation hearing, Roberts repeatedly declined to comment on Roe beyond saying he believed it was "settled as a precedent of the court."

For the court to overturn a prior decision, Roberts said he thought it was not sufficient to believe the case had been wrongly decided. The justices would have to consider other factors too, he said, "like settled expectations, like the legitimacy of the court, like whether a particular precedent is workable or not, whether a precedent has been eroded by subsequent developments."

"I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed," Gorsuch said. "A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other."

In the exchange, Gorsuch acknowledged that the Supreme Court had held that a fetus is not a person for the purposes of the 14th Amendment's due process clause, a legal underpinning of Roe v. Wade.

"Do you accept that?" asked Durbin.

"That is the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes," Gorsuch replied.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics