Not looking for a political discussion on this - so please don't start one.
All of this talk about revisiting the above law has me wondering why? If RvW was ruled as being within the framework of the Constitution - which is what the Supreme Court is charged with doing - how can the Supreme Court now potentially revisit it with the possibility of overturning it?
Somebody school me because I don't get it (leaving politics aside of course).
It's either Constitutional acceptable or it's not.
I should state here - that I am neither pro-abortion or right to life. I am however pro-choice.
Roe v. Wade
1,298 views·14 replies·by wader
not political?? good luck with that!
here's the mentality
vaccine..my body my choice
abortion...your body my choice
here's another
PRO-LIFE all life is sacred
Also PRO DEATH PENALTY and WAR
kapeesh?
here's the mentality
vaccine..my body my choice
abortion...your body my choice
here's another
PRO-LIFE all life is sacred
Also PRO DEATH PENALTY and WAR
kapeesh?
CommodoreOriginal Crew12,530 postsSince 2018
>
In Dred Scott vs Sandford the Supreme Court ruled that slaves are property. Why would they bother revisiting and possibly overturning previous decisions?
because in my mind it's either legal or not - it can't be both - it then become a pollical decision which not supposed to be in the preview - they are supposed to deal with Constitutional law & set politics aside - that is their purpose for existence - if they are simply going to follow their political beliefs & not the Constitution then the SC should be dissolved as they are not following what they were set up to do
In Dred Scott vs Sandford the Supreme Court ruled that slaves are property. Why would they bother revisiting and possibly overturning previous decisions?
because in my mind it's either legal or not - it can't be both - it then become a pollical decision which not supposed to be in the preview - they are supposed to deal with Constitutional law & set politics aside - that is their purpose for existence - if they are simply going to follow their political beliefs & not the Constitution then the SC should be dissolved as they are not following what they were set up to do
AdmiralOriginal Crew20,900 postsSince 2018
PUT down the popcorn and shut it down before it attracts that whack pack lol
CommodoreOriginal Crew12,530 postsSince 2018
>
PUT down the popcorn and shut it down before it attracts that whack pack lol
It hasnt yet:rolleyes::p
PUT down the popcorn and shut it down before it attracts that whack pack lol
It hasnt yet:rolleyes::p
AdmiralOriginal Crew40,955 postsSince 2018
>
PUT down the popcorn and shut it down before it attracts that whack pack lol
It already has
You and the other guy are here
PUT down the popcorn and shut it down before it attracts that whack pack lol
It already has
You and the other guy are here
Captain1,857 postsSince 2020
The constitution hasn't changed but the interpretation of law by the current justices just might.
As was mentioned before, they say no to abortion. Yes to death penalty. Why? Life is life, right?
Contradictions abound.
Can the "land of the free" mandate anything? Is THAT constitutional?
I'm not smart or non biased enough to answer those questions.
As was mentioned before, they say no to abortion. Yes to death penalty. Why? Life is life, right?
Contradictions abound.
Can the "land of the free" mandate anything? Is THAT constitutional?
I'm not smart or non biased enough to answer those questions.
Captain4,156 postsSince 2021
Sign in to reply to this thread.