Supremely Conservative

[robertmidwest]

Supremely Conservative

Chief Justice John Roberts rules the roost—and while he may be a swing vote, make no mistake: Roberts is no liberal.

progressive.org

He may be more cautious and less dogmatic than some of his brethren, but each and every Republican-appointed Justice—from Roberts to Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh—is staunchly conservative. And that’s bad news for progressives.

God Bless our President Donald Trump!

God bless the voters who had and have the ability to stay on focus!

 

[robertmidwest]

“With the confirmation of Kavanaugh last October, we now have five current or former members of the Federalist Society on the Supreme Court,” Michael Avery, professor emeritus of law at Suffolk University Law School in Boston, says in an interview. ”If Trump is reelected, there probably will be a sixth at some point.”

 

[robertmidwest]

It’s not just party affiliation and the Federalist Society that link Roberts and his Republican colleagues. They are also united by judicial philosophy. Each, to varying degrees, embraces “originalism,” the legal theory that posits the Constitution should be interpreted according to its meaning for the Founding Fathers, rather than read as a “living document” that can and should accommodate contemporary values, social needs, and evolving traditions.

 

[niceatheist]

The supreme Court had been dominated a number of times over the last fifty years by conservatives. Conservatism in the judicial context isn’t the same as political conservatism. More than one president has found out to their consternation that the judicial ideological spectrum doesn’t perfectly mirror the political spectrum.

 

[robertmidwest]

treat women and minorities with respect,

Abortion and Race

In the United States, black children are aborted at more than three times the rate of white children; Hispanic children are aborted at one and a half times the rate. Whatever the intentions of Planned Parenthood, abortion is eliminating an incommensurate number of minority children.

www.abort73.com

 

[Jeanne_S]

Whose been doing all the screeching and shouting if not the petulant Dems,leftist? So are we to infer that the shouting will cease once Trump is out and a dem is in?

 

[Jeanne_S]

Damage? Guess it depends on whose ox is being gored.

 

[Victoria33]

Yes, pretty much, but a lot of damage has been done by Trump and the Far Right echo chamber (Rush, Fox News, Putin) so it’s going to take awhile.

Catholics saved in Iraq/Syria, more like some of the greatest accomplishments by a president, all time low unemployment rates for minorities. It is hard to see where one is coming from. Pro-life.

Yes, God bless president Trump.

 

[robertmidwest]

many will just have illegal

Please define “many”. Please cite a source.

We currently kill 3000 babies a day.

Abortion Statistics - Worldometer

In the USA, where nearly half of pregnancies are unintended and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion [1] , there are over 3,000 abortions per day. Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies in the USA (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.

Are you arguing abortion rates will go up if Roe is changed?

 

[robertmidwest]

I don’t know about abortion rates going up, but I do know a little bit about human nature–especially for a woman in poverty with no hope for a better future.

Any luck defining “many” or citing a source?

We currently abort 3000 babies a day. You argued changing Roe wasn’t worth the effort:

If abortion becomes illegal, many will just have illegal (and unsafe) abortions.

Do you have source to back your argument?

 

[robertmidwest]

Abortion rates high among minorities?!

Yes. I just told you. Please see post 6.

 

[robertmidwest]

Not only is it not worth it,

How many time are you going to give your opinion without backing it up statistically?

Again please cite a source!

 

[upant]

God bless the voters who had and have the ability to stay on focus!

we may need 4 more years of trump to lock in a religious friendly court, especially with the way some of the conservative judges are voting

nothing else matters!

If they are still living in poverty

we have thrown $20-25 trillion at poverty and it is still high. time to change what we are doing. going back or continuing what we are doing is ludicrous.

 

[robertmidwest]

Okay, here’s a statistic and a source–according to an NPR/Marist Poll in June of this year, 77% of Americans do not favor overturning Roe v. Wade, 13% do and 11% are unsure. It looks like you have a few other people to convince besides me.

That has nothing to do with your argument:

If abortion becomes illegal, many will just have illegal (and unsafe) abortions.

Not only is it not worth it,

We currently kill 3000 people a day in abortion clinics. You have not offered any source to back up your claim that that number wouldn’t drop with a change to Roe. Please continue trying.

 

[upant]

Okay, here’s a statistic and a source–according to an NPR/Marist Poll in June of this year, 77% of Americans do not favor overturning Roe v. Wade, 13% do and 11% are unsure. It looks like you have a few other people to convince besides me.

even if 99% were for it, killing a child in the womb is murder and against God’s law and wrong. it needs to be overturned.

 

[robertmidwest]

If the Past is Prologue to the future, the Guttmacher Institute has calculated that in the 1950’s and 1960’s when abortion was illegal between 200,000 to 1.2 million abortions were performed annually. They estimate that in 1967 about 827,000 abortions were performed.

Can you cite a link?

Thats a pretty big spread 200,000 to 1,200,000. What explains such inconsistent number?

 

[dvdjs]

If the Past is Prologue to the future

I have pointed out to those who think the SCOTUS is everything, that the number of abortions now in the US is in all likelihood less than the number just before Roe v Wade. It doesn’t sink in. It just doesn’t sink in.

Or perhaps they don’t care as much about abortion sother things that their partisan polemics gain for them.

 

[robertmidwest]

Yes this link works better.

No explanation to the large spread. Please don’t tell me that you believe that a spread of 200,000 to 1,200,000 is acceptable? With number like that I doubt the accuracy of the 829,000 “extrapolation”.

From this source:

In New York City in the early 1960s, one in four childbirth-related deaths among white women was due to abortion; in comparison, abortion accounted for one in two childbirth-related deaths among nonwhite and Puerto Rican women.

Again tell me how abortion is treating women and minorities with respect.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

We currently kill 3000 babies a day.
Abortion Statistics - Worldometer

In the USA, where nearly half of pregnancies are unintended and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion [1] , there are over 3,000 abortions per day. Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies in the USA (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.

I don’t think that would be the result. But neither is it certain that abortion rates will go down if Roe v Wade is overturned. There is still the matter of getting all the states to ban abortions - a result that is very much in doubt.

 

[robertmidwest]

I have pointed out to those who think the SCOTUS is everything, that the number of abortions now in the US is in all likelihood less than the number just before Roe v Wade. It doesn’t sink in. It just doesn’t sink in.

Maybe you some stats that are more accurate than 200,000 to 1,200,000?

That’s not really a reliable range is it?