A few states have recently tried limiting availability or number of Planned Parenthood centers. A challenge to such efforts could make it up through the courts.
I think they are talking about "surgically excising" certain parts of the ruling. There was recent discussion that from Susan Collins, right? Roe V Wade included elements that made human trafficking easier - moving minors across borders, or so I read. It had a nefarious purpose that those of us (recovering Democrats) didn't see. I also see that the next nominee to be cued up is "unapologetically pro-life" - so THAT will be interesting.
Sorry. I was thinking with my old liberal democrat mindset. What I mean is that at the top of the swamp - they don't care about fetuses at any age - they care about trafficking human beings to make money off of them. Through fetal tissue in research or cosmetics or food, etc. Supplying the pedophile elite. THAT is a little bit more nefarious than a young woman who found herself pregnant and needs a legal protection to retain her right to do with it what she wants. Its going to remain a complex issue. But it needs to be included in the overall dark swamp of human slavery, trafficking, and murder.
Yes it can, it did it with slavery. I think it also did it with the Death Penalty too, but I'm not sure. There's several times where the court changed its previous precedent.
Nope. The big SCOTUS decision on slavery (Dredd Scott v. Sandford) wasn't overturned Supreme Court itself. It was abrogated by constitutional amendment. Difference being, in the former case the supreme court just changes the practical application and interpretation of the law. In the latter case, changes to the law itself make the earlier decision inapplicable.
You're literally correct but they can definitely overturn things. The sticking point is that a case has to make its way up to the Supreme Court that can overturn the case. But people can openly defy a previous ruling if they think the Court will agree with them. The other thing is that existing cases can be re-framed to implicate Roe v. Wade more directly if they don't already.
For instance there are currently cases throughout the court system that are arguing for some kind of extension of the rights set forth in Roe v. Wade. So if that case makes it to the Supreme Court, they can say : "Not only do we decline to extend Roe v. Wade but we feel that the case was improperly decided and should be completely overturned." Doing so would be somewhat unprecedented depending on how tangential the relationship between the issues is. But they are within their power to do so.
You aren't wrong and people don't understand how law works. Even if Roe vs Wade was repealed, abortion would just go back to being a state level law. I'm guessing you'd have a few of the bible states who would enact stricter abortion laws , but most states would still have it legal and worse case scenario you might have to travel a little further to have an abortion. Also, I don't know what all this screaming about taking away birth control, that has nothing to do with Roe vs Wade, unless your choice of birth control is abortion. The Dems were using all this as fearmongering to rile women up - well the really dumb ones anyway. The real reason they were against Kavanaugh is because Repubs now have the swing vote...as anyone with a working brain already knew at the beginning of all this madness.
Most women have become convinced that their greatest duty to society is to have a career and to be "sexually liberated", and if they don't, they are betraying all women and their entire civilization. As such, children are an impediment to their duty, and they've been convinced that a baby isn't a baby until is born, so they generally consider abortion to be little worse than birth control.
Basically, women are generally brainwashed and insulated from truths that would induce them to behave appropriately. Women are easily led by social norms, so college bubbles, and television and other media that can create a false sense of social consensus have been devastatingly effective.
Women don't want to go around committing infanticide as they're biologically driven to take care of their offpsring. That said they consider a child a huge investment and therefor an unwanted or unplanned one a huge fucking mistake on their part that needs to be dealt with. It used to be a case of sucking it up and knowing there's no way out but with the advent of easy access to safe abortions they harped on about it being their body, their choice and made it entirely an issue about their personal freedoms completely ignoring the oppositions arguments about it being medicinal murder. They've since convinced themselves that it's merely a clump of cells that even in the later allowable stages can't possibly have feeling so now we're the ones who have lost our moral compass for wanting them to take responsibility for getting pregnant in the first place. They truly see is as such a morally reprehensible issue to go against that it's akin to making women collectively go back to being property controlled by men or even worse a faceless government that now considers them nothing more than baby making factories.
So to women repealing easy access to abortion is the same as making them slaves and they will literally fight to the bitter end to retain what they see as their hard earned right to kill their unwanted babies. I can see where they're coming from but since we can't easily put an end to it if it were up to me we'd make the only access they have to abortions funded wholly by the tax payer but it comes at the cost of irreversible sterilization. Baby killers, by their own admission no less, have no place in being parents and it would make those on the wall most likely keep their kid instead of completely destroying their future. Also the niggers would eat that shit up and decimate themselves.
Disgusting beyond words that they justify murder of babies and actually have the gall to think they have the moral high ground. Society is sick, sick, sick in the collective head.
They can overturn decision, yes, but they can't just spontaneously come together to start overturning things. They need to have a relevant case brought in front of them first. Until a case relevant to Roe v. Wade reaches the supreme court, they can't really do anything about it.
Sure they can. They can have a parking ticket case and then overturn Roe if they wanted to. Now, its not done. But nothing precludes them from doing so.
Not only that, but if you read the decisions the laws had shifted or other precedents had been set since the first decisions that influenced the overturns. It's not like they happened in a vacuum, the legal situation had changed.
view the rest of the comments →
SukkhaMadiqqa ago
A few states have recently tried limiting availability or number of Planned Parenthood centers. A challenge to such efforts could make it up through the courts.
middle_path ago
I get that, but the supreme Court (correct me if I'm wrong) can't just undo previous rulings.
thelma ago
Sure they can. Why do you think that they cannot ?
Where did you go to school ? Stupidtown USA ?
SusiAngelArtist ago
I think they are talking about "surgically excising" certain parts of the ruling. There was recent discussion that from Susan Collins, right? Roe V Wade included elements that made human trafficking easier - moving minors across borders, or so I read. It had a nefarious purpose that those of us (recovering Democrats) didn't see. I also see that the next nominee to be cued up is "unapologetically pro-life" - so THAT will be interesting.
laserpewpewpewpew ago
Wait baby murdering had a nefarious consequence? Hold the phone
SusiAngelArtist ago
Sorry. I was thinking with my old liberal democrat mindset. What I mean is that at the top of the swamp - they don't care about fetuses at any age - they care about trafficking human beings to make money off of them. Through fetal tissue in research or cosmetics or food, etc. Supplying the pedophile elite. THAT is a little bit more nefarious than a young woman who found herself pregnant and needs a legal protection to retain her right to do with it what she wants. Its going to remain a complex issue. But it needs to be included in the overall dark swamp of human slavery, trafficking, and murder.
slwsnowman40 ago
Yes it can, it did it with slavery. I think it also did it with the Death Penalty too, but I'm not sure. There's several times where the court changed its previous precedent.
Martenzo ago
Nope. The big SCOTUS decision on slavery (Dredd Scott v. Sandford) wasn't overturned Supreme Court itself. It was abrogated by constitutional amendment. Difference being, in the former case the supreme court just changes the practical application and interpretation of the law. In the latter case, changes to the law itself make the earlier decision inapplicable.
MaxVieuxlieu ago
You're literally correct but they can definitely overturn things. The sticking point is that a case has to make its way up to the Supreme Court that can overturn the case. But people can openly defy a previous ruling if they think the Court will agree with them. The other thing is that existing cases can be re-framed to implicate Roe v. Wade more directly if they don't already.
For instance there are currently cases throughout the court system that are arguing for some kind of extension of the rights set forth in Roe v. Wade. So if that case makes it to the Supreme Court, they can say : "Not only do we decline to extend Roe v. Wade but we feel that the case was improperly decided and should be completely overturned." Doing so would be somewhat unprecedented depending on how tangential the relationship between the issues is. But they are within their power to do so.
NakedWarrior ago
You aren't wrong and people don't understand how law works. Even if Roe vs Wade was repealed, abortion would just go back to being a state level law. I'm guessing you'd have a few of the bible states who would enact stricter abortion laws , but most states would still have it legal and worse case scenario you might have to travel a little further to have an abortion. Also, I don't know what all this screaming about taking away birth control, that has nothing to do with Roe vs Wade, unless your choice of birth control is abortion. The Dems were using all this as fearmongering to rile women up - well the really dumb ones anyway. The real reason they were against Kavanaugh is because Repubs now have the swing vote...as anyone with a working brain already knew at the beginning of all this madness.
NINJA26DARK ago
I don't understand why women want to murder their children so badly. (Monsters)
NoTrueScotsman ago
Most women have become convinced that their greatest duty to society is to have a career and to be "sexually liberated", and if they don't, they are betraying all women and their entire civilization. As such, children are an impediment to their duty, and they've been convinced that a baby isn't a baby until is born, so they generally consider abortion to be little worse than birth control.
Basically, women are generally brainwashed and insulated from truths that would induce them to behave appropriately. Women are easily led by social norms, so college bubbles, and television and other media that can create a false sense of social consensus have been devastatingly effective.
475677 ago
Women don't want to go around committing infanticide as they're biologically driven to take care of their offpsring. That said they consider a child a huge investment and therefor an unwanted or unplanned one a huge fucking mistake on their part that needs to be dealt with. It used to be a case of sucking it up and knowing there's no way out but with the advent of easy access to safe abortions they harped on about it being their body, their choice and made it entirely an issue about their personal freedoms completely ignoring the oppositions arguments about it being medicinal murder. They've since convinced themselves that it's merely a clump of cells that even in the later allowable stages can't possibly have feeling so now we're the ones who have lost our moral compass for wanting them to take responsibility for getting pregnant in the first place. They truly see is as such a morally reprehensible issue to go against that it's akin to making women collectively go back to being property controlled by men or even worse a faceless government that now considers them nothing more than baby making factories.
So to women repealing easy access to abortion is the same as making them slaves and they will literally fight to the bitter end to retain what they see as their hard earned right to kill their unwanted babies. I can see where they're coming from but since we can't easily put an end to it if it were up to me we'd make the only access they have to abortions funded wholly by the tax payer but it comes at the cost of irreversible sterilization. Baby killers, by their own admission no less, have no place in being parents and it would make those on the wall most likely keep their kid instead of completely destroying their future. Also the niggers would eat that shit up and decimate themselves.
laserpewpewpewpew ago
Disgusting beyond words that they justify murder of babies and actually have the gall to think they have the moral high ground. Society is sick, sick, sick in the collective head.
riffwraff ago
Women are hysterical and stupid, and they only get motivated to vote when the "right" to murder their babies is on the line.
SukkhaMadiqqa ago
They can. A lot of times it's due to times changing, different circumstances, etc. Here's a listing of overturned rulings.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions
Martenzo ago
They can overturn decision, yes, but they can't just spontaneously come together to start overturning things. They need to have a relevant case brought in front of them first. Until a case relevant to Roe v. Wade reaches the supreme court, they can't really do anything about it.
thelma ago
Sure they can. They can have a parking ticket case and then overturn Roe if they wanted to. Now, its not done. But nothing precludes them from doing so.
ThisWeirdWeirdWorld ago
Not only that, but if you read the decisions the laws had shifted or other precedents had been set since the first decisions that influenced the overturns. It's not like they happened in a vacuum, the legal situation had changed.
middle_path ago
Wow, TIL.