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.
Because contrary to the Progressives there is not as much support for abortion as they try to lead you to believe through all of their polling.
Even if it passed the House and Senate, it would never be ratified by enough States unless it was so "watered down". But the ultra progressives would never go for that They want abortion up until the time of birth(and even after) and anything else to them is anti-abortion and not acceptable.
Exactly. The truth is coming out now. Optional abortion on demand does NOT have as much public support as has been claimed all this time. The Congressional Democrats don't have enough votes to pass their abortion bill, and they'd never be able to ratify an Amendment guaranteeing the right to abortion. There's not enough public support.
The issue is not confidence in Supreme court but confidence in government's ability to do their jobs. There are so many problems in this country created by the left and the media/institutions can only address abortion laws being challenged by the right. 99.999% of other policies are wrecking this country and they don't want to touch those.
The poll indicates otherwise, there is no confidence in this court of partisan hacks. This was the focus of the right, like you stated all the problems in the US and this was the priority for the court picks. Trump indicated he chose these justices so he could overrule RvW and their dream came true.
What are the big problems the republicans are trying to address, CRT, transgenders, fighting against Disney.
Meanwhile we have problems with illegal immigration, drug overdoses, inflation, what are they doing other than complaining.
I disagree. The court is not supposed to be in lock-step with public opinion. They are supposed to determine if, by the Constitution, past precedent, or some other foundational document, something is lawful or not.
Lawful, to the Supreme Court is defined as "comports with both the letter AND spirit of the US Constitution." That is how those 9 judges are supposed to determine what is "lawful" and adjudicate accordingly.
There is no enumerated power of the federal government that deals with health care, women's bodies, abortion, etc. Same as there is no enumerated federal power over speed limits, alcohol sales, work hours on Sundays, state/county/local tax rates, and a few bazillion other things. If the federal government chose to enumerate such a power for themselves, they would be violating the 10th Amendment, and the SCOTUS would/should rightfully slap them down for it.
In the case of Roe, the federal government has hidden in a "decision equals law" foxhole on abortion, and they've been hiding there since the mid 1970s. They use that decision to implicitly enumerate a federal power over something that does not exist in the US Constitution, thereby violating the 10th Amendment.
All vacating/overturning Roe/Casey does is simply remove a 10th Amendment violation, thus allowing each of the 50 sovereign states to set their own laws pertaining to an issue that is not enumerated as part of the federal purview, same as the aforementioned bazillion other issues that are not enumerated as part of the federal purview.
There is a method for the federal government to get around this, and do so in a proper Constitutional manner, and that method is explained in detail in Article 5 of the US Constitution. Informally, it is known as "amending the Constitution." Just get 2/3 of the House and Senate, or 2/3 of the state legislatures to agree on what/how to amend, and then get 3/4 of the states to say "yea" on that amendment and ratify it, and voila, NOW it is enumerated. If the abortion issue is such a no-brainer, then I'd imagine that amendment would be easy peezy lemon squeezy to pull off.
Until then, the SCOTUS would not only be within their duties, but also totally correct in vacating Roe and Casey and telling the state govs that it is all up to them, as are all the other things NOT enumerated in the Constitution.
What the issue is does not change how the Constitution works.
The poll indicates otherwise, there is no confidence in this court of partisan hacks. This was the focus of the right, like you stated all the problems in the US and this was the priority for the court picks. Trump indicated he chose these justices so he could overrule RvW and their dream came true.
What are the big problems the republicans are trying to address, CRT, transgenders, fighting against Disney.
Meanwhile we have problems with illegal immigration, drug overdoses, inflation, what are they doing other than complaining.
What is their platform for 2024.
What are the Democrats doing to address illegal immigration except to promise virtual open borders and amnesty? At least Trump did something about it via the wall and other policies he put in place to secure our border from them. You mentioned this off topic issue so I'm merely correcting you on it.
What are the Democrats doing about all the other problems you mentioned under a Democrat president? Biden created most of those problems. The Democrats complain about everything and now they are complaining about the abortion issue. What is the Democrats platform for 2024?
I'm one of those naïve people who though that what the nominees said under oath and their commitment to precedent, law, etc.....was bigger than their political affiliation.
But it is clear that someone like Kavanaugh did most definitely lie under oath to get in and then make changes.
While I understood his personal feelings on Roe vs. Wade were not the same as mine, I thought what he said about the decision and any revisiting that decision to be truth -- especially because I think they have to swear an oath before the nominee questions.
So put me in that group.
I always though the letter of the law would win, it is clear it isn't about the law. I'm not debating the abortion issue here...just talking about what one of the Justices said under oath and what he actually appears to be ready to flip on.
We can thank Susan Collins for this...she held the decisive vote to allow the rapist Kavanaugh on the court...we all knew he was lying about his commitment to precedent...she should have seen that and done the right thing instead of bowing to her party masters...
Lawful, to the Supreme Court is defined as "comports with both the letter AND spirit of the US Constitution." That is how those 9 judges are supposed to determine what is "lawful" and adjudicate accordingly.
There is no enumerated power of the federal government that deals with health care, women's bodies, abortion, etc. Same as there is no enumerated federal power over speed limits, alcohol sales, work hours on Sundays, state/county/local tax rates, and a few bazillion other things. If the federal government chose to enumerate such a power for themselves, they would be violating the 10th Amendment, and the SCOTUS would/should rightfully slap them down for it.
In the case of Roe, the federal government has hidden in a "decision equals law" foxhole on abortion, and they've been hiding there since the mid 1970s. They use that decision to implicitly enumerate a federal power over something that does not exist in the US Constitution, thereby violating the 10th Amendment.
All vacating/overturning Roe/Casey does is simply remove a 10th Amendment violation, thus allowing each of the 50 sovereign states to set their own laws pertaining to an issue that is not enumerated as part of the federal purview, same as the aforementioned bazillion other issues that are not enumerated as part of the federal purview.
There is a method for the federal government to get around this, and do so in a proper Constitutional manner, and that method is explained in detail in Article 5 of the US Constitution. Informally, it is known as "amending the Constitution." Just get 2/3 of the House and Senate, or 2/3 of the state legislatures to agree on what/how to amend, and then get 3/4 of the states to say "yea" on that amendment and ratify it, and voila, NOW it is enumerated. If the abortion issue is such a no-brainer, then I'd imagine that amendment would be easy peezy lemon squeezy to pull off.
Until then, the SCOTUS would not only be within their duties, but also totally correct in vacating Roe and Casey and telling the state govs that it is all up to them, as are all the other things NOT enumerated in the Constitution.
What the issue is does not change how the Constitution works.
Exactly. And with all the public support for abortion on demand at any time for any reason pro-abortion advocates claim there is, this should be no problem. At all.
So of course, that begs the question... WHY aren't pro-abortion advocates pursuing that route???
We can thank Susan Collins for this...she held the decisive vote to allow the rapist Kavanaugh on the court...we all knew he was lying about his commitment to precedent...she should have seen that and done the right thing instead of bowing to her party masters...
Kavanaugh didn't write, pass and ratify the 10th Amendment, he is just one of the 9 people whose lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court means his job description is partially defined by it.
Call him a rapist all you want, but that still doesn't make Roe/Casey and "decision as law" implicit enumeration any less of a 10th Amendment violation, which is EXACTLY the judicial check on both executive and legislative power at the federal level.
That is all this is - the intended features of checks and balances working as intended. The 10th Amendment has gone unchanged and not superseded by other Amendment is over two centuries.
We can thank Susan Collins for this...she held the decisive vote to allow the rapist Kavanaugh on the court...we all knew he was lying about his commitment to precedent...she should have seen that and done the right thing instead of bowing to her party masters...
When was Kavanaugh "convicted" of rape? Who appointed you judge and jury?
It's not about the body or rights of the woman but the body and rights of an unborn human being. Where are their rights to not be killed?
A fetus gets rights when it is viable outside the womb...meaning after the 2nd trimester.
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.
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.
