What ACB’s confirmation could mean for Roe v Wade

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dovekin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
She dodged on nearly every SCOTUS ruling. A true politician she is.
 
Last edited:
Who cares? The sooner abortion is struck down the better. If it requires dodging questions from proponents of child murder, so be it.
 
RidgeSprinter said:
She dodged on nearly every SCOTUS ruling. A true politician she is.
Click to expand...
She is speaking at a hearing for confirmation to the United States Supreme Court, not running for office where personal viewpoints are relevant. She is observing standard ethical procedures by not commenting on this material.
 
Shouldn’t states be able to legislate it themselves? I think so and that’s what it is talking about. And defund PP too needs to be done, may not get done soon though.
 
I’m amazed at how many people think these judicial proceedings are just another social media debate.
 
I agree that as a judge, she cannot commit to anything but the facts of the case before her. She’s not going to give any opinion without being able to tie it to a specific case and she’s not going to give her personal opinions on anything as it isn’t the judicial thing to do.

Whether RoeV Wade is overturned or not, abortions will still be legal. They can be outlawed by the states but most won’t do that. It would take a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion and that will be near impossible in our lifetime. RvW is considered a first step, though. I’m not sure how many abortions would be prevented as the legal states will find ways to transport pregnant mothers to their state for the procedure. If the next step is to make it illegal to travel across state lines to procure an abortion, I have no idea if that would gain enough support to pass or not. Would that be the logical next step if RvW is overturned or would it be to focus on states allowing abortion…or both?
 
When pressed about her views on abortion during the confirmation hearings, Judge Amy Coney Barrett dodged. “If I express a view on a precedent one way or another, whether I say I love it or I hate it, it signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another on a pending case,” Barrett said, in response to a question from Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein about Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, two key precedents on abortion rights.

It’s not at all unusual, of course, for Supreme Court nominees to try to avoid answering questions about how they’d vote on hot-button issues like abortion.
Click to expand...
Do the Democrats have any idea how any of this works? Are they really this ignorant? The media apparently is that ignorant given the quote from @Dovekin article “Judge Amy Coney Barrett dodged” while she a perfect answer to the question. “Try to avoid answering questions”. Judge Barrett answered every question, the dems just didn’t like that she outsmarted them at every turn.
RidgeSprinter said:
She dodged on nearly every SCOTUS ruling. A true politician she is.
Click to expand...
That word dodged again, must be the liberal word of the day. As a judge she should never give an opinion on a case when she does not have all the facts and details of the case before her. The Dems were trying to get to her to commit to a side of a potential case that may come to the SC in the future, by asking how she would rule on it. Not one Justice on the SC now or in the past would have answered questions like that in a different way.

You do get she is not running for office right? She is up for a judicial appointment which make her NOT a politician.
 
Pattylt said:
will be near impossible in our lifetime.
Click to expand...
That depends. The Amendment need not be ratified by 38 states all at once. It becomes an Amendment when the 38th State ratifies it within the time period specified is my understanding.
 
A true, honorable judge she is. Did you feel the same when Dem nominees did the same. It would be improper for a nominee to comment on an issue that might come before her should she be seated on the court.
 
Good point. But I dare say the majority of the populous does not know the three branches of government, how the branches work, or even who their representatives are.
 
Horton said:
Do the Democrats have any idea how any of this works? Are they really this ignorant? The media apparently is that ignorant given the quote from @Dovekin article “Judge Amy Coney Barrett dodged ” while she a perfect answer to the question. “Try to avoid answering questions” . Judge Barrett answered every question, the dems just didn’t like that she outsmarted them at every turn.
Click to expand...
No, they know how this works. They are playing to the ignorance of the electorate who do not know how this works. It is absolutely insulting how often the Dems do this on many subjects.
 
Last edited:
marybobo said:
It is absolutely insulting how often the Dems do this on many subjects.
Click to expand...
Please, let’s be honest here…the Republicans absolutely do this as well. I’ve seen both sides do this and depending on who’s side you’re on, you notice the opponent and ignore your own party pulling these stunts! I’ve seen it happen so often on both sides that it’s an embarrassment!
 
Probably nothing.

Most likely it means we will get to laugh at the mental gymnastics the “conservatives” on the court perform to justify giving the same rulings they always have.

The right wing thinks the Supreme Court will ever be on their side… lol

Even if you got 9 “conservatives” on the Supreme Court you would still have them uphold Roe v Wade. Conservative judicial philosophy is morally and intellectually bankrupt.
 
Pattylt said:
Whether RoeV Wade is overturned or not, abortions will still be legal. They can be outlawed by the states but most won’t do that. It would take a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion and that will be near impossible in our lifetime. RvW is considered a first step, though. I’m not sure how many abortions would be prevented as the legal states will find ways to transport pregnant mothers to their state for the procedure.
Click to expand...
That is the point of the article, looking at what restrictions might be enacted, what would be supported according to current polling, how decisions other than overturning RvW. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised most have not gotten past the first paragraph.
 
From the article:

If Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court, though, all of this could change, and there would likely be more pressure from the conservative bloc to consider cases that could take restrictions on abortion rights well outside many Americans’ comfort zone.

directly challenge the right to abortion in the early months of pregnancy that was established in Roe and reaffirmed in Casey,

don’t like the idea of outright [abortion] bans, they don’t like the idea of criminalization, and they don’t like the idea of overturning Roe,”

So, in all charity, to @Dovekin, I am surprised one would think that an article which supports abortion would be found favorable to Catholics when the Church clearly teaches it is a grave sin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top