Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
yeah, bush didn't do it in 8 years, but magically mccain will do it.
Overturning Roe v Wade is a process involving appointing anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court. Bush already took a step towards that. It's now at 5-4. The next President has the potential to have an impact on Roe v. Wade.
It's bad policy.. Why not let the states decide what to do?
because liberals want to be able to tell everyone what to do and think. people in alabama must have the same morals as people who live in san fransisco. you know those san fran morals, dudes dressing up like chicks and creating scenes at churches.
It's bad policy.. Why not let the states decide what to do?
18 states had pre Roe laws banning abortion. It's been estimated that any number up to 30 would either outright ban or partially ban abortion should Roe be overturned. We're talking millions of women of child bearing age being affected, many without the means to travel to another state.
If we had allowed the states to decide the slavery issue many, in the south, would have voted to keep it. Would that have been ok with you too?
You answered your own question.
but what has he been able to do regarding Roe v. Wade?
He's appointed one well qualified Justice that happens to be pro-life
Again, Justices are there to INTERPRET the U.S. Constitution - not to rule based upon what they want the Constitution to say. Their job is to give unbiased interpretation no matter what they PERSONALLY believe. People can do this you know... especially highly educated ones...
Take into consideration that Presidents have tried to appoint Justice's that shared their views... only to have the Justice do the exact opposite of the President's beliefs (happened during the Civil Rights movement).
Overturning Roe v Wade is a process involving appointing anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court. Bush already took a step towards that. It's now at 5-4. The next President has the potential to have an impact on Roe v. Wade.
AGAIN, this is trotted out at EVERY presidential election cycle. The fact of the matter is that ANY Supreme Court, no matter who comprises it, would have to agree to hear a case representing a NEW constitutional challenge. The Supreme Court rules over constitutional law and does not decide cases. They grant writs of certiorari only if there's a new and unprecedented, compelling reason to hear a case.
The fact that Billie Jo in Arkansas wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, so she is going to bring a case locally that she hopes will work through the channels and finally land on the clerk's desk at the S.C. isn't likely. Only a tiny, tiny number of the cases sent to the S.C. receive a writ. And, again, there has to be something new to compel the judges to hear the case.
Again, Justices are there to INTERPRET the U.S. Constitution - not to rule based upon what they want the Constitution to say. Their job is to give unbiased interpretation no matter what they PERSONALLY believe. People can do this you know... especially highly educated ones...
Take into consideration that Presidents have tried to appoint Justice's that shared their views... only to have the Justice do the exact opposite of the President's beliefs (happened during the Civil Rights movement).
YES!!!! THANK YOU!!!!! That was the Warren Court who stunned Eisenhower, LOL.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.