Because they falsely believe that Kavanaugh is like their faggot activist judges and will rule based on his feelings rather than the law and the constitution.
No, they are worried because Roe v. Wade is plainly incorrect, and a ruling based on law would instantly overturn it.
The basis of Roe v. Wade is that banning abortion violates the woman's right to due process of law. Basically, she has the right to do anything unless convicted of doing it before it is done. It is yet another case where the Supreme Court tied the law to a chair and beat it with a rubber hose until it gave in and started meaning what they wanted it to mean.
Brought to you by the same people who decided that gun sales have to be registered because threshing wheat is an interstate activity. No, that's not a joke.
It's actually Griswold v. Connecticut that is plainly incorrect. Roe v. Wade, relying on the precedent set forth in Griswold, is legally defensible. Still doesn't change the fact that a case relying on a case that is plainly incorrect is wrongly decided, but it does follow the applicable precedent.
I'm not sure I agree with the notion that precedent should be non-binding. For one thing, it isn't really binding on the supreme court. What we need is a greater movement to undo the improperly decided cases. We really only need to roll back about 10-20 cases out of hundreds that have been decided over the last 100 years. There aren't that many that are that wrong.
Stare Decisis is a valuable concept and the marketplace requires certainty of legal outcomes.
If we just had laws that remained within the boundaries of the Constitution, that would take a lot of guess work out of the whole thing.
Even a small child understands that a baby in the womb is a living human being. That baby has Constitutional Rights and has a right to live, no matter how inconvenient that baby is. Period.
And as harsh as it seems...far less humans would die if abortions stopped being legal even if a few women accidently killed themselves trying to do it themselves. Most women have more sense than that.
Small children understand what they're told, they cannot make judgements like you suggest. Otherwise you wouldn't have these 'trans toddlers' or bullshit like that. The idea that a day-old embryo and a 3-month fetus and a delivered baby are all exactly identical is an opinion. And you don't get to use the state to enforce your religious feefees.
You can believe exactly as you please but there is such a thing as right and wrong. And God says that a baby is a human being at the time of conception. And He is the Creator. He knows what He's talking about. He says that He knew us BEFORE we were even formed in our mothers womb. That we are fearfully and wonderfully made.
Whether that baby is in the womb 1 week or 8 months, it's God's creation and abortion equals nothing short of cold blooded murder.
Women are lied to and told it's just a lump of tissue. Women who abort their babies suffer with clinical depression and a sense of deep loss that cloaks their entire life that they can't explain. There is healing for those who want it.
.far less humans would die if abortions stopped being legal even if a few women accidently killed themselves trying to do it themselves. Most women have more sense than that.
That doesn't sound harsh, but the factor you are forgetting about is who is getting the abortions and the interracial murder rates... so yeah, a lot more women would die, but not for any reason that the left or jews wll admit.
the certainty I spoke of necessitates that decisions stay within the text and intent of the constitution. As long as a decision falls within those parameters, stare decisis is a valuable tradition.
view the rest of the comments →
Alopix ago
Because they falsely believe that Kavanaugh is like their faggot activist judges and will rule based on his feelings rather than the law and the constitution.
Commie_Meta ago
No, they are worried because Roe v. Wade is plainly incorrect, and a ruling based on law would instantly overturn it.
The basis of Roe v. Wade is that banning abortion violates the woman's right to due process of law. Basically, she has the right to do anything unless convicted of doing it before it is done. It is yet another case where the Supreme Court tied the law to a chair and beat it with a rubber hose until it gave in and started meaning what they wanted it to mean.
Brought to you by the same people who decided that gun sales have to be registered because threshing wheat is an interstate activity. No, that's not a joke.
MaxVieuxlieu ago
It's actually Griswold v. Connecticut that is plainly incorrect. Roe v. Wade, relying on the precedent set forth in Griswold, is legally defensible. Still doesn't change the fact that a case relying on a case that is plainly incorrect is wrongly decided, but it does follow the applicable precedent.
Commie_Meta ago
Thanks for the for correction.
We need to make precedent non-binding. It is nothing but a tool that judges use to write tyrannical legislation.
MaxVieuxlieu ago
I'm not sure I agree with the notion that precedent should be non-binding. For one thing, it isn't really binding on the supreme court. What we need is a greater movement to undo the improperly decided cases. We really only need to roll back about 10-20 cases out of hundreds that have been decided over the last 100 years. There aren't that many that are that wrong.
Stare Decisis is a valuable concept and the marketplace requires certainty of legal outcomes.
truth_lurker ago
If we just had laws that remained within the boundaries of the Constitution, that would take a lot of guess work out of the whole thing.
Even a small child understands that a baby in the womb is a living human being. That baby has Constitutional Rights and has a right to live, no matter how inconvenient that baby is. Period.
And as harsh as it seems...far less humans would die if abortions stopped being legal even if a few women accidently killed themselves trying to do it themselves. Most women have more sense than that.
Alopix ago
Small children understand what they're told, they cannot make judgements like you suggest. Otherwise you wouldn't have these 'trans toddlers' or bullshit like that. The idea that a day-old embryo and a 3-month fetus and a delivered baby are all exactly identical is an opinion. And you don't get to use the state to enforce your religious feefees.
truth_lurker ago
You can believe exactly as you please but there is such a thing as right and wrong. And God says that a baby is a human being at the time of conception. And He is the Creator. He knows what He's talking about. He says that He knew us BEFORE we were even formed in our mothers womb. That we are fearfully and wonderfully made.
Whether that baby is in the womb 1 week or 8 months, it's God's creation and abortion equals nothing short of cold blooded murder.
Women are lied to and told it's just a lump of tissue. Women who abort their babies suffer with clinical depression and a sense of deep loss that cloaks their entire life that they can't explain. There is healing for those who want it.
Soyboy69 ago
That doesn't sound harsh, but the factor you are forgetting about is who is getting the abortions and the interracial murder rates... so yeah, a lot more women would die, but not for any reason that the left or jews wll admit.
MaxVieuxlieu ago
the certainty I spoke of necessitates that decisions stay within the text and intent of the constitution. As long as a decision falls within those parameters, stare decisis is a valuable tradition.