***Roe v Wade Overturned***
- Thread starter Solid Orange Blood
- Start date
Again, if there is 80% support, an amendment is a slam dunk.
The fetal heartbeat bill will be law very soon, outlawing most abortions at 6 weeks -- before most women even know they're pregnant. You won't have a chance to vote against anything, it's already in motion and there's a 0% chance it gets overturned in anyone here's lifetime.
So can we put this on Biden's resume as another victory?
fat chance - you need a super majority to do that and there will be no republicans voting in favor of this.
we dont agree on the SCOTUS NY Gun Law decision nor do we agree on the Roe V wade decision, but we absolutely agree on the above.
I would replace "Dems" with "Politicians" as both Republicans and Democrats are more interested in fundraising than actually doing their job.
But ... I absolutely understand the point youre making and agree.
Some of us need a civics lesson. The SC's only purpose is to interpret law based on the Constitution. Abortion is not in the Constitution. Therefore RvW created a law that was not within their power. Simple as that. The illusion that RvW was a law is incorrect. Only the legislature can create a law. Abortion is legal if deemed so by legislature.
And why would that be if most of their supporters wanted them to?
You are assuming that republicans are beholden to their constituents, and not the big donors.
You can try to explain it away any way you want to, but no politician is going to vote against 80% of their supporters on an issue that big.
Nope. Threshold for ammendment can't be met with anti abortion legislators controlling enough states, where they've also gerrymandered enough districts to maintain minority control in our ridiculous two party system.
No it's not when you're not answering to the state as a whole, only your gerrymandered district where you answer to only certain demographic that assures you your place at the public trough....
Let us assume your depiction is accurate. In that case, in red states, one senator would vote for and one(who has all the anti abortion voters gerrymandered into his district) against as a worst case scenario against the amendment. Assuming dems would vote for it, that would give the amendment 50 dem votes and 25 pub votes based on the current senate as a worst case. right?
So you are saying the 70% isn’t across the country, it’s only 95% in NY and CA? Because if 70% of the country is for it, then it would be easy to pass the senate
How about be responsible in their sex life? Plenty of ways to prevent pregnancy these days.
For a law or ammendment? Not enough for an ammendment. And for congress to enact a law protecting female choice, the SCOTUS may or may not rule they have power to do so. And based on recent evidence, likely would overturn. The way any law is crafted/worded is exceedingly important. I could be wrong.
What a great day for the unborn! I’m so thankful the Supreme Court actually righted an egregious wrong!! Praise the Lord!!
Last edited:
Yep, its funny how some (cough liberals) declare things not in the constitution as unequivocally constitutional, yet things that are explicity stated in the constitution are null and void.
No you can put this in America's loss column for being stupid enough to elect Trump. Between his corruption and appointees, he has turned this country into a tinderbox and angry red rubes like you are the matches.
Alito:
“To ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” he writes for the majority. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”
“It is hard to see how we could be clearer,” Alito concludes. “Moreover, even putting aside that these cases are distinguishable, there is a further point that the dissent ignores: Each precedent is subject to its own stare decisis analysis, and the factors that our doctrine instructs us to consider like reliance and workability are different for these cases than for our abortion jurisprudence.”
The guy Trump nominated:
Unless I'm too young to remember, did Trump nominate Thomas?
Do I really need to explain to you that he wouldn't have the power to do any of this without Trump's appointees?
Last edited:
There are many times I agree with a lot of what you say, but I could not disagree more with your first point. We have a sitting president who has a god awful approval rating and you think this is going to completely turn the tide? People still vote on the economy and their pockets. That is not going to change in November. Twitter is all upset about this now but in a couple months most people will just forget about it. You’ll still have the current state of the economy, fuel prices, and just an overall negative outlook and people will take that shit right to the polls.
That may well be true but on the other hand, inflation will moderate but this ruling can't be overturned. That and the prospect of more rulings like this will energize a large majority of the electorate.
He doesn't have the power without a majority and those that disagree with him are mostly Trump appointees. How daft are you?
Daft enough to realize that they all said the precedent set by Roe should be respected before they were appointed. Are you telling me we should trust them now?
Women were a big part of Trump's loss.
Women were a big part of the Trump-backed gubernatorial candidate's win in VA.
Women will play a big part in November.
Just keep in mind that for many suburban moms in the south, their rights and personal freedoms just changed overnight.
It sure does suck that we're giving those women the actual power to vote in their state on rather or not they want abortion to be legal. What a sad state of affairs in this country.
The never trumpers are taking this one hard today. What a shame
