I think he’s saying like I am this isn’t official yet and won’t be until it’s revised and fully published. Also SCOTUS is notorious for having drafts that never get fully published or made official.
Roe vs. Wade Overturned.
- Thread starter mrhotdice
- Start date
- Status
I doubt that #. I've heard a couple interviews with nurses that worked at abortion clinics that had to quit because of how bad it messed them up mentally. They were pro choice going in and thought it was fine. Watching a dr pull a baby out crying and screaming and then pinching its neck with pliers was just too much for them to take over and over. Add in the Gosnell case and the one that just got reported and the fetus selling scandal that Project Veritas uncovered (that one they were purposely waiting longer because they got more money for organs if they were older).
People have a right to protest EVERY branch of our government. Period.
Now should judges be swayed by that? Personally no, but, they’re human too.
The stats on when in a pregnancy abortions occur are readily available from a myriad of different sources, from the CDC, to the health departments in other countries, to independent research. At some point you have to accept the world isn't a grand conspiracy to push liberal ideas and take facts at face value.
1% of abortions occur at 21 weeks or later. 1%.
They absolutely have that right, but it's a spit in the face of our system of government to try to "sway" judges by protest. When and if a mob influences the courts, our system is broken. I kind of like an America where opinions of the Supreme Court of the United are decided on the merits, not to appease a mob.
Eh, this post is all over the place with your different beefs with liberals. You've got the Disney thread to talk about pedos and Florida. Both sides do care about social issues they deem important. The right hasn't suddenly become a hippy colony and if some conservatives think they can stop gay marriage in their states now, I'm sure they'll try their damnedest to challenge and overturn it. It doesn't matter to me that Musk posted a diagram on his newly acquired platform or that "2 gay dudes" are voting for Trump in two years. It's as if you took a tiny sample (like 2 gay men) and assumed that "welp, even the gays are leaving the libs now!" It's two men and Musk, god bless him, are we going to get 30 years of "well, but, Musk said..." now?
Sure let the states decide things. Up next.. legalized slavery in Mississippi!
So democrats/liberals, why do you support murder of an innocent life?
NBA is very passionate about this decision, or, more accurately, draft- I wonder if he has read it, or would understand it if he did. Granted, I haven't read it, either, but I'm not having a meltdown about it, and wouldn't no matter which way it goes when released.
This is going to be like a covid, Shaedon Sharpe and Cal contract thread all in one.
I do too.
I for one could never look a woman in the eye and tell her she doesn’t have a right to make a choice between her life and the baby’s life in anmedical emergency. That specific situation is a key example of why blanket bans on abortion are not an answer. It’s a very complex and nuanced issue.
I actually don’t support abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and if the woman’s life is at risk.
But I also don’t think it should be anyones decision but the mother involved (or parents if the father intends to be a part of the child’s life).
One has to be a special kind of evil to tell a rape victim she has to bare the financial and health burdens of giving birth by making abortion illegal across the board.
Last edited:
Looking forward to hearing the right's policies on improving our foster care system so children can get out of broken and abusive homes, providing assistance to poor parents and families, investing money into public education, improving the free and reduced lunch program and other vital necessities, and helping the quality of life for southern states that continually get poorer, dumber, drugged out and overpopulated.
But alas like always I doubt we’ll see anything done. It’s always been about right to birth and right to control women, not right to life.
But alas like always I doubt we’ll see anything done. It’s always been about right to birth and right to control women, not right to life.
Roe V Wade was always ******** anyway. There is absolutely nothing in the constitution that said anything about abortion, nor should that have been implied. Even left wing feminists have said that in the past. Want abortion to be the law of the land? Pass an amendment allowing it? Want it completely banned? Pass an amendment prohibiting it. But without those two things, it should be left up to the states.
There is an amendment about that. Didn’t you take civics class?
You’re just subjecting many of them to a life of hell, how noble
So you would rather kill them. Man you need to sit this one out.
Correct me if I’m wrong but if it’s an amendment in the constitution it is, in fact, constitutional.
Like I said, I don’t agree with abortion unless it’s in the case of rape, incest, or if the mother’s life is at risk.
But everyone has their own unique circumstances. It should be a decision they make with their family after weighing all their options. It’s their decision that they have to live with, not me.
A constitutional amendment can be unconstitutional
Um. It’s a ratified amendment. Good luck on that. An amendment would have to be repealed. Which can only be done by ratification of another amendment repealing it. See the 18th and 21st Amendment repealing it. And a ratification of a repealing amendment follows the same process as a standard amendment.
There’s four way to do this:
(1) Both houses propose an amendment with a two-thirds vote, and three-fourths of the state legislatures approve. Twenty-six of the 27 amendments were approved in this manner. (2) Both houses propose an amendment with a two-thirds vote, and three-fourths of the states approve the amendment via ratifying conventions. Only the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition, was passed in this manner. (3) Two-thirds of the state legislatures call on Congress to hold a constitutional convention, and three-fourths of the state legislatures approve the amendment. (4) Two-thirds of the state legislatures call on Congress to hold a constitutional convention, and three-fourths of the states approve the amendment via ratifying conventions.
SCOTUS has never declared an amendment by itself to be unconstitutional. And an unconstitutional constitutional amendment doesn’t really exist by itself in US law theory.
Nonetheless. SCOTUS cannot repeal an amendment on its own. Period. All amendments must end it 3/4 (or 75% of states (ie THIRTY EIGHT states)) approving the repealment.
Again. In the words of Morgan Feeman, good luck.
If you’ll read your own posted article you’ll see that’s not in current US law theory.
To quote a favorite movie of mine, “You are passionate Mr. Nbacats, but you do not persuade.”
Read the 13th amendment. It’s explicit regarding slavery..
Now read the 14th and tell me how you get abortion should be legal from that.
And by the way, when I read the 2nd I don’t perceive it to necessarily mean that citizens can own arms. It seemed kinda vague on that.
Says a Republican lol. Stick to supporting something you know more about, like supporting rapists and being anti-women.
Your post clearly indicates you actually did not read the article but thanks for telling me to read it.
Except you are dead wrong. See my other post.
OK, man. Now you’re just being deliberately obtuse.
“Dorf also expresses extreme skepticism that the US Supreme Court (or even a single justice on the US Supreme Court) would actually embrace the unconstitutional constitutional amendment doctrine—at least anytime soon.[3]”
“Would actually embrace” implies that it is NOR CURRENTLY PRACTICED. IN THIS COUNTRY.
WhetherYOU think an unconstitutional constitutional amendment exists is IRRELEVANT
How much clearer do I have to be?
“Mike Rappaport argues that the adoption of the unconstitutional constitutional amendment doctrine would give the Court way too much power and undermine democracy and popular sovereignty.”
The underline passage implies it is not in current use in this county.
In the same article, since you clearly didn't read it to completion
In a 2018 blog post, US law professor Michael Dorfpoints out that it is possible (as opposed to plausible) for the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to utilize the unconstitutional constitutional amendment doctrine to strike down the unequal apportionment in the United States Senate (which violates the one person, one vote principle); in the very same article, however, Dorf also expresses extreme skepticism that the US Supreme Court (or even a single justice on the US Supreme Court) would actually embrace the unconstitutional constitutional amendment doctrine—at least anytime soon.
Why are you racist?
I seem uneducated so I'll help you out here. The term "liberal" as you know it has only been around for 20-30 years. Before that, a liberal whose political ideology favored individual liberty, economic freedom, and limited government. What you know as liberalism is repackaged Marxism. So yes the South in the 1800s was very "liberal".
The views you hold are radically evil, not just on this topic, but ALL of them. I'm not saying that you are inherently evil. Maybe you are or maybe you have low intellect and were easy to indoctrinate. Who knows?
- Status