I have yet to hear Trump directly contradict his previous statement. So I dont think he is targeting a justice to take down RvW as the media is claiming.
Roe v wade has nothing to do with it. It’s about following the constitution and having the president fulfill his duties and fill the seat. The media always brings up roe v wade when a republican President gets a Supreme Court pick-as a way to scare low information one issue voters. President trump has never said he wanted the Supreme Court to overturn roe so it sounds like this is just fear mongering as I mentioned earlier.
Ask yourself, has Trump or any senior official said outright that the plan is to fill the court so infanticide can no longer be classified as privacy? True, the last part of my question is pointed (but still true), but the answer to the question is no. None have said they intend to overturn infanticide disquised as privacy. But, this is an issue that would serve the Dims, if you believe that is the focal point. The focal point is to have no more activists judges or justices. Congress writes laws, not judicial. Judicial interprets the law, AS WRITTEN. If the law is a problem, AS WRITTEN, then Congress needs to fix it, not judicial. This means some laws need be simply and fully scrapped.
I don’t think America will ever be abortion free. I do think there will be a law eventually passed stopping abortions at the third trimester. The democrats went way too far with allowing abortions even after 9 months.
Roe v. Wade is not the central issue for most Trump supporters.
Furthermore, while there are a few ideologues who want to overturn Roe v. Wade, it will be hard to find a genuinely conservative judge, including any Catholics, willing to overturn that decision.
Roe v. Wade has a pro-life bias that the pro-lifers fail to appreciate at their peril.
Roe v. Wade absolutely requires the consent of one person, the mother, if an abortion is to be performed. The State can neither do it by violence or coercion. Under Roe v. Wade, the only interests the State can lawfully assert are the health and wellbeing of the mother plus an increasing interest in the health and wellbeing of the developing child.
If the State is given the power to intervene in the abortion decision, there is no way to constrain the direction of the decision. That means, if the State can wholly prohibit abortion, it can also require it.
When Roe v. Wade was issued, people howled that "that could never happen here," but it did happen a few years later in China, when China enacted it's one-child policy. Little girls were aborted by the many millions, so that China now has a population imbalance.
Anyone who thinks that could not happen here was not paying attention when Sarah Palin decided to keep her baby with Down Syndrome, and the abusive Left offered that this child should be denied medical care, because he would be a burden on society.
Imagine allowing Kamala Harris to decide whether your child should be aborted against your wishes. Imagine the California legislature with the power to compel abortion or to deny "defective" children medical care.
A conservative judge will think twice about making such a huge grant of power to the States, because the end result will predictably be a slaughter of the innocents. Meanwhile, Roe v. Wade stands squarely in the way of people who would deny medical benefits to xxxxx kind of child.
The pro-lifers have their hearts in the right place, but they have not solved the problem of a grant of power to the States.
I don't know about the other potential nominees, but Barbara Lagoa has stated publicly and unambiguously that she will treat Roe v Wade as settled law. Link above.
Over the last 50 years the Supreme Court has fallen into the role of law makers.
This is because congress has totally failed the people of the United States on both sides of the isle. They dither, stall, argue, incessantly investigate without results. They are corrupt beyond anyone's wildest imagination. So when it comes to actual laws the Supreme Court has made them from their rulings. If congress did their job, the politics of the judges wouldn't matter.
But we don't live in that time line and so the left is pissed that they are about to lose their ability to have the Supreme Court decide in their favor. Changing the tilt of the court will have far reaching affects on the society for many years.
This is why this justice is important and why both sides will do EVERYTHING to get what they want. Roe V Wade is just a smoke screen that is simple for low information voters to understand.
What difference does it make if they do overturn Roe V Wade? So you may have to drive a little farther to kill your baby? Gee, sorry for the inconvenience. I guess if you don't want to make that drive, then don't have unprotected sex.
Ask yourself this. Have you ever heard anything from Trump himself, about roe v. wade? In either case, your decision is your decision. Another question to ask. Is roe v. wade important to you personally? How histerical is the left about the possibility of removing roe v. wade, why are they so hysterical? Pro tip: always follow the money when politics and business are concerned. Why do the democrats begin to droole when they see a shot at gun control? What is in it for them? Why do they get so histerical about it when they dont get their way? Similar situation, why do certain things, many of which have horrible consequences for a citizenry, make the democrats (the politicians, not the average voter) so bloodthirsty/crazy, that they are willing to openly threaten the country with veiled threats of violence, which, if one tried hard enough to research, and was willing to call a spade- a spade, can be financially and organizationally connected to the democrat party nearly directly, that is currently ongoing already?
Always play the socratic method. Understand you know nothing. Critical thinking always leads to enlightenment. Those who operate in the shadows will not willingly come into the light. The answers are there, you have to be willing to question your perception of reality.
Whenever Republicans nominate someone for the Supreme Court, the Democrats rant that he/she is going to try & overturn Roe/Wade. It's propaganda to get Americans angry enough to besiege Senators phones with threats & pressure them to vote no. That's all this is. This has been their strategy for many decades. Kavenaugh himself, when those accusations came out after his nomination, explained that the Supreme Court doesn't themselves make up rulings on things they don't like, they respond to citizens requests for legal interpretation, & that the abortion issue has already been litigated & decided.
I have yet to hear Trump directly contradict his previous statement. So I dont think he is targeting a justice to take down RvW as the media is claiming.
Roe v wade has nothing to do with it. It’s about following the constitution and having the president fulfill his duties and fill the seat. The media always brings up roe v wade when a republican President gets a Supreme Court pick-as a way to scare low information one issue voters. President trump has never said he wanted the Supreme Court to overturn roe so it sounds like this is just fear mongering as I mentioned earlier.
Ask yourself, has Trump or any senior official said outright that the plan is to fill the court so infanticide can no longer be classified as privacy? True, the last part of my question is pointed (but still true), but the answer to the question is no. None have said they intend to overturn infanticide disquised as privacy. But, this is an issue that would serve the Dims, if you believe that is the focal point. The focal point is to have no more activists judges or justices. Congress writes laws, not judicial. Judicial interprets the law, AS WRITTEN. If the law is a problem, AS WRITTEN, then Congress needs to fix it, not judicial. This means some laws need be simply and fully scrapped.
I don’t think America will ever be abortion free. I do think there will be a law eventually passed stopping abortions at the third trimester. The democrats went way too far with allowing abortions even after 9 months.
I doubt the nominee will be picked solely on his/her stance on Roe V Wade.
I am not sure what thier plan is I'm sure trump doesn't want to chanfe things to much
Roe v. Wade is not the central issue for most Trump supporters.
Furthermore, while there are a few ideologues who want to overturn Roe v. Wade, it will be hard to find a genuinely conservative judge, including any Catholics, willing to overturn that decision.
Roe v. Wade has a pro-life bias that the pro-lifers fail to appreciate at their peril.
Roe v. Wade absolutely requires the consent of one person, the mother, if an abortion is to be performed. The State can neither do it by violence or coercion. Under Roe v. Wade, the only interests the State can lawfully assert are the health and wellbeing of the mother plus an increasing interest in the health and wellbeing of the developing child.
If the State is given the power to intervene in the abortion decision, there is no way to constrain the direction of the decision. That means, if the State can wholly prohibit abortion, it can also require it.
When Roe v. Wade was issued, people howled that "that could never happen here," but it did happen a few years later in China, when China enacted it's one-child policy. Little girls were aborted by the many millions, so that China now has a population imbalance.
Anyone who thinks that could not happen here was not paying attention when Sarah Palin decided to keep her baby with Down Syndrome, and the abusive Left offered that this child should be denied medical care, because he would be a burden on society.
Imagine allowing Kamala Harris to decide whether your child should be aborted against your wishes. Imagine the California legislature with the power to compel abortion or to deny "defective" children medical care.
A conservative judge will think twice about making such a huge grant of power to the States, because the end result will predictably be a slaughter of the innocents. Meanwhile, Roe v. Wade stands squarely in the way of people who would deny medical benefits to xxxxx kind of child.
The pro-lifers have their hearts in the right place, but they have not solved the problem of a grant of power to the States.
I don't know about the other potential nominees, but Barbara Lagoa has stated publicly and unambiguously that she will treat Roe v Wade as settled law. Link above.
I don't know.
https://mobile.twitter.com/thechrisbuskirk/status/1307765114393653248
Wow, we're literally fighting against a Marxist/Maoist takeover of the Country and you're worried about abortion rights? Priorities man.... smh
Over the last 50 years the Supreme Court has fallen into the role of law makers.
This is because congress has totally failed the people of the United States on both sides of the isle. They dither, stall, argue, incessantly investigate without results. They are corrupt beyond anyone's wildest imagination. So when it comes to actual laws the Supreme Court has made them from their rulings. If congress did their job, the politics of the judges wouldn't matter.
But we don't live in that time line and so the left is pissed that they are about to lose their ability to have the Supreme Court decide in their favor. Changing the tilt of the court will have far reaching affects on the society for many years.
This is why this justice is important and why both sides will do EVERYTHING to get what they want. Roe V Wade is just a smoke screen that is simple for low information voters to understand.
What difference does it make if they do overturn Roe V Wade? So you may have to drive a little farther to kill your baby? Gee, sorry for the inconvenience. I guess if you don't want to make that drive, then don't have unprotected sex.
Ask yourself this. Have you ever heard anything from Trump himself, about roe v. wade? In either case, your decision is your decision. Another question to ask. Is roe v. wade important to you personally? How histerical is the left about the possibility of removing roe v. wade, why are they so hysterical? Pro tip: always follow the money when politics and business are concerned. Why do the democrats begin to droole when they see a shot at gun control? What is in it for them? Why do they get so histerical about it when they dont get their way? Similar situation, why do certain things, many of which have horrible consequences for a citizenry, make the democrats (the politicians, not the average voter) so bloodthirsty/crazy, that they are willing to openly threaten the country with veiled threats of violence, which, if one tried hard enough to research, and was willing to call a spade- a spade, can be financially and organizationally connected to the democrat party nearly directly, that is currently ongoing already?
Always play the socratic method. Understand you know nothing. Critical thinking always leads to enlightenment. Those who operate in the shadows will not willingly come into the light. The answers are there, you have to be willing to question your perception of reality.
Make no mistake - we will never stop fighting the killing of innocent life
Whenever Republicans nominate someone for the Supreme Court, the Democrats rant that he/she is going to try & overturn Roe/Wade. It's propaganda to get Americans angry enough to besiege Senators phones with threats & pressure them to vote no. That's all this is. This has been their strategy for many decades. Kavenaugh himself, when those accusations came out after his nomination, explained that the Supreme Court doesn't themselves make up rulings on things they don't like, they respond to citizens requests for legal interpretation, & that the abortion issue has already been litigated & decided.