"Justice" Roberts
Contributors to this thread:Community
From: Trial153
02-Mar-19
If your not an echo chamber for partisan hacks your a trader.
From: gflight
02-Mar-19
Roberts has ruled that way all along, remember 0bamacare? Kavanaught fight has nothing to do with it.
From: Thumper
02-Mar-19
From: Rocky
02-Mar-19
So what about Roe v. Wade, possibly the court’s most famous case and currently its most discussed? In his confirmation hearing, Roberts repeatedly expressed his desire to “stay away from a discussion of particular cases.” Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s first appointee, also took this tack. “As a nominee, it would not be proper to speculate about hypothetical contingent events,” he said. Whomever Trump nominates will likely adopt a similar tactic during the confirmation process, and Trump has said his advisers warned him against explicitly discussing Roe with his would-be nominees. Trump said, “They’re all saying, don’t do that, you don’t do that, you shouldn’t do that. But I’m putting conservative people on, if they like it or not.” However, much of the shortlist Trump is expected to pull from was vetted and approved by the conservative Federalist Society, and few people, it has been reported, are more dedicated to overturning Roe than that group’s executive vice president, Leonard Leo.
You can't trust Roberts. One more Trump appointee and Roe is old news.
The Rock
From: AZOnecam
02-Mar-19
Isn't it interesting that the dems now want to add 5 more judges to the SC? If RBG gets replaced in this administration, we'd have the most conservative SC maybe ever - for a very long time.
That thought scares the ever-livin crap out of dems who want to "undo" parts of the Constitution.
From: ICON
07-Mar-19
If you read Roe v Wade at i want to say page 152 off the top of my head it is about our personal Zone of Privacy, and that is the misunderstood part of the decision. If we want to dismiss the Fundamental Rright of Privacy please overturn Roe v Wade.
From: IdyllwildArcher
08-Mar-19
I think that getting RvW overturned is a pipe dream of the most staunch pro-life folks. I can see limits to late term abortions, but completely overturning it is just blind optimism.
From: ICON
08-Mar-19
I probably should reread Roe v Wade, but I recall the Court does go into the detail of the Hippocratic Oath for some reason. Like they are reminding the doctors of the oath of their profession.
From: gflight
08-Mar-19
Government shouldn't have an opinion.
If it's a part of her and she wants to murder it and can find a doctor or a coat hanger so be it.
Who would want a woman who would kill a child breeding more mentally defectives anyway?
From: ICON
08-Mar-19
Spike Bull, you might need to read a bit of Roe v Wade at page 152 where it states: " The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however going back perhaps as the Court can go back recognized a personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution." That is just a short blurb about the privacy issues in the holding at page 152.
From: Woods Walker
08-Mar-19
So it's okay to murder another human being as long as you do the "3 S's"?
From: AT Halley
08-Mar-19
Selling baby parts is huge business and we (taxpayers) fund it. But hey, the rich need their creams and injections that make them look younger so who cares.