Does the GOP say they are pro life just to get elected?

[Ender]

I put what Bush has said.

I didn’t dispute his comments; I disputed your interpretation of them.

NARAL looked at Bush’s judicial picks and found 2 of the more than 200 people he picked might have supported abortion. Why did the supreme court not reverse roe v wade then? No lawsuit must have challenged the law

What case was brought before the court that raised an issue relevant to Roe that it could have been overturned? If no case is heard that challenges Roe then it shouldn’t come as a surprise that Roe has not been overturned.

cornbread_r2:

I’m unaware of any rule that prohibits the SCOTUS from hearing any case they choose, for any reason.

There are hundreds of cases presented each year for the court to hear but only a small percentage actually get tried. There are standards the justices apply in deciding whether a case should be accepted and apparently no abortion cases have met that standard. What you are asking the justices to do to overturn Roe is as bad as what has been done to maintain it. You are asking them to act on their own beliefs without regard to the law or the integrity of the court.

If six Catholic justices isn’t enough, how many would it take?

Being Catholic is, or certainly should be, irrelevant. A justice is sworn to uphold the law, not make it and the fact that not all of them live up to that standard is no reason to hope that the few who do will jettison their own integrity to achieve the result they prefer. This is not how the law is supposed to work.

Ender

 

[poche]

A lot of them probably do.

 

[Chrish1975]

I’m not saying that there aren’t pro life members, but honestly, how come we have had five republican presidents since Roe V. Wade and none of them did a thing to get rid of roe vs. wade. We’ve also had a few occasions where we had a republican house and senate, and even recently control of the presidency and the congress, and no meaningful action against abortion.

The President by himself can do nothing about abortion. The only way to outlaw abortion in the United States is by a constitutional amendment that requires 2/3 of the House and Senate to approve and then 2/3 of the states legislatures must approve.
Until there is enough votes in Congress nothing will be done about abortion in the USA.

 

[Airborne28]

Look, roe vs wade was a shame in the first place. The jane roe, tried to stop the process and even admited to purgery and that the lawyers paid her. She had recipts as proof. The idea that this can be overturned federaly is unfound.

The case was decided through the 9th and 14th amendments. Therefore, you connot deny someone an abortion as it is seen as a right, and it’s up to THE STATE YOU LIVE IN, to ammend the law which won’t happen. There is to much politicaly riding on it staying the same. All politicians could care less as the know nothing will change federaly so they can say whatever they need to. Remember Politics is thier job, they don’t get paid if they aren’t in office.

Even if the SCOTUS revisited roe vs wade, it would still be up to the states to decide thier stance on the matter.

Nazis killed 6 million and we think they were monsters, 30 million abortions since 1969 in the US. Just saying.

 

[Airborne28]

The President by himself can do nothing about abortion. The only way to outlaw abortion in the United States is by a constitutional amendment that requires 2/3 of the House and Senate to approve and then 2/3 of the states legislatures must approve.
Until there is enough votes in Congress nothing will be done about abortion in the USA.

No, it’s up to the states.

 

[Tietjen]

This court overturned more than 100 years worth of precedent when it ruled in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case in 2010.

I’m not really sure what it is you are attempting to say here.

I’m unaware of any rule that prohibits the SCOTUS from hearing any case they choose, for any reason.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding what I said. I didn’t say that the court is prohibited from hearing a case, I said that the Supreme Court can overrule itself when a different case involving the same constitutional issues as an earlier case is reviewed by the court and seen in a new light, typically because of changing social and political situations. In other words, no new case… no possibility of the court overruling itself. Even when a new case involving the same issues comes again before the court, the court operates under the doctrine of “stare decisis.” This basically means that unless VERY compelling evidence is presented which compels the court to overturn the earlier ruling, it will uphold the previous ruling for the sake of appearing relatively stable and predictable. In other words, the court doesn’t want to give the appearance that it flip-flops.

I’m unaware of any requirement that either side of a case has to present a strong argument prior to being heard before the court.

Respectfully, please reread my earlier post. I was commenting on what it takes to have a SCOTUS ruling reversed… not what it takes to argue a case before the court. One must assume that if the court is to overrule an earlier decision, the strong argument will occur during the proceedings and not necessarily “prior to being heard before the court.”

If six Catholic justices isn’t enough, how many would it take?

You ask the question as though religion is the key factor in a justice rendering a decision in one direction or another. Oh, if only…

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

Please remember that it is not allowed to discuss particular political candidates or parties in the Social Justice forum. Thank you for your cooperation. This thread is now closed.