Cotton Says ‘Time for Roe v Wade to Go’ After Trump Names Him as Potential Supreme Court Justice

  • Thread starter Thread starter Victoria33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Roe v Wade won’t ever be overturned by the Courts, but by Congress. All they have to do is pass a law including the unborn as persons under the 14th amendment, as it states in the text of Roe v Wade, and the court decision becomes pointless.
They are voting on that issue, it’s a bill called the Life at Conception Act. Been kicking around Congress for 4 years I think. I already contacted my representatives with a petition to have them push for a vote.
The text of Roe v Wade does not guarantee abortion as a right, it only defers the decision as to the personhood of the unborn to some other power. See,
“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”
In fact, I would much prefer if the Supreme Court stopped making decisions that result in legislation being written, and rather constrained themselves to striking down laws that are unconstitutional.
 
This guy has about as much chance of ending up on the Court as my cat does.

This isn’t the Nixon era where Presidents just nominated their political supporters and personal friends.
 
Last edited:
Why? Because they won’t roll over for hypocrites?

Let’s play, how many republican senators do a complete 180 on their stance about scotus appointment in an election year.

The least they could do is admit they lied to maintain more power, pure and simple.
 
The right of the Senate not to take up the matter of the president’s judicial nominations was asserted repeatedly by then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden – now inconveniently for the White House the vice president of the United States – during the administration of President George W. Bush, who watched impotently as a number of his nominations to the federal bench languished in Congress’ upper chamber – many of whom were eminently qualified and held in the esteem of their colleagues in the legal community – without a hearing and without a vote.

Other precedents the Democrats are making much of include Garland’s having been confirmed to his current post by a vote of 97 to 0, a margin that included, as aforementioned, seven Republicans currently in the U.S. Senate. That does not, as the Democrats have shown year in and year out, bind anyone currently serving to vote for him again. …
Click to expand...
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...-take-up-obamas-nomination-of-merrick-garland
 
Dr_Meinheimer said:
Careful. You almost sound as though you don’t want Roe overturned…
Click to expand...
I want there to be much fewer abortions. For the life of me, as I read the Constitution, abortion must remain legal according to our system of laws.
 
Jeanne_S said:
As. Brit Hume noted ,this is far worse than anything we have experienced in recent history.Including the riots of the60’s.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is not. When you look at the sixties riots in Detroit, Harlem and Newark, they were far more deadly and costly.
 
I’ll take Brit Humes word for it.He’s been a journalist for years and. Has a lot of integrity
 
And the Constitution also allowed slavery to remain legal.

One of the ends of government is to protect the lives of those within its borders. Allowing some people to kill other people goes against this end.

Just as it was wrong to allow some people to own other people, so it is wrong to allow some people to kill other people.
 
And yet no one noticed that abortion was in the Constitution until 1973, and then they had to look under penumbras. Every state had its own abortion laws and restrictions. The SCOTUS struck them all down. It might have been more reasonable to conclude that the constitution was silent on the matter, and thus it was a matter for the states to decide.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top