Learn to read.... "Yes, for lower court judges." This was while she was being interviewed to be a lower court judge, and it was the correct answer. No where that I can find is she saying she wouldn't look at Roe as a SCOTUS.
yeah this is completely true and the way she answered it indicates that she does not necessarily support it. Meanwhile you have barrett who wouldn't even rule in a case if the church had an opinion
I hate how 'stare decisis" is used to imply that it can never be overturned. Before "Lawrence v. Texas" the Supreme Court ruled 60 times in 70 years that states could hold homosexual sex illegal, but a continual string of rulings all in agreement aren't "stare decisis" but a one time ruling that didn't get challenged and upheld yet is already touted as being settled law.
Anyone who thinks that a future Supreme Court is going to overturn Roe on a whim is, quite simply, masturbating.
There has to be a CASE. That has to survive the gauntlet of the lower Courts. What would that case look like? What kind of situation would produce litigants with standing?
No one has any idea. No pro-life attorneys, or think tank, has ever done any of the work.
Roe v. Wade is not going to be overturned. Not in my lifetime and probably not in yours. It’s a fantasy used for fundraising - by both sides - and nothing more.
And it’s clear that the pro-lifers are perfectly happy with that.
Learn to read.... "Yes, for lower court judges." This was while she was being interviewed to be a lower court judge, and it was the correct answer. No where that I can find is she saying she wouldn't look at Roe as a SCOTUS.
This
yeah this is completely true and the way she answered it indicates that she does not necessarily support it. Meanwhile you have barrett who wouldn't even rule in a case if the church had an opinion
I hate how 'stare decisis" is used to imply that it can never be overturned. Before "Lawrence v. Texas" the Supreme Court ruled 60 times in 70 years that states could hold homosexual sex illegal, but a continual string of rulings all in agreement aren't "stare decisis" but a one time ruling that didn't get challenged and upheld yet is already touted as being settled law.
Anyone who thinks that a future Supreme Court is going to overturn Roe on a whim is, quite simply, masturbating.
There has to be a CASE. That has to survive the gauntlet of the lower Courts. What would that case look like? What kind of situation would produce litigants with standing?
No one has any idea. No pro-life attorneys, or think tank, has ever done any of the work.
Roe v. Wade is not going to be overturned. Not in my lifetime and probably not in yours. It’s a fantasy used for fundraising - by both sides - and nothing more.
And it’s clear that the pro-lifers are perfectly happy with that.
Roe v wade is dead because the court will aim to define when life begins. Making roe v wade meaningless
All she is saying is she's doing her job and following the rules.
That's a good thing for a SC justice.