The Supreme Court faces an existential crisis of legitimacy

[BidenPresident]

I don't really care one way or the other. Abortion has never been an issue with me. But I believe this is more about states' rights than abortion. In fact I'm sure of it since the SC is not going to make abortion illegal.

Nothing to do with states rights.

[T. A. Gardner]

yes

[BidenPresident]

time to put your trolling crap on ignore. bye!

[anonymoose]

Rowe is based on a clear standard. Even you should be able to understand it. Under Roe, women have a Constitutional right to an abortion at any time before the fetus becomes viable for life outside the womb, defined as 24 weeks from conception. The Roberts court seems poised to abolish that standard, without creating a new one, meaning Roe will be effectively repealed and states can do what they want.

States' rights. I'm pro-death but I admit I have to go with states' rights.

[anonymoose]

Nothing to do with states rights.

Sure it does. Agreeing w/ the MS law places more power w/ the individual state.

[BidenPresident]

Sure it does. Agreeing w/ the MS law places more power w/ the individual state.

no idea what that meant

[anonymoose]

Roe will be effectively repealed

How's that? States can do what they want. You think all of a sudden CA will outlaw abortion?

and states can do what they want.

Correct. This is not about making abortion illegal nationwide.

[martin]

no idea what that meant

It means if the Mississippi judgment is upheld the viability standard established by Rowe will be out the window and states will have either a freer hand in limiting abortion or the right to ban it completely, subject to any
special circumstances the Court might impose such as rape or incest.

[BidenPresident]

Mississippi is the poorest state in the union. Who will pay expenses for raising children of 16 year olds?

[BidenPresident]

It means if the Mississippi judgment is upheld the viability standard established by Rowe will be out the window and states will have either a freer hand in limiting abortion or the right to ban it completely, subject to any
special circumstances the Court might impose such as rape or incest.

Yes, what woman wouldn't want to have a child from a rapist.

[T. A. Gardner]

time to put your trolling crap on ignore. bye!

Awww... Another thread killed!

[Grokmaster]

It would have been loaded with Democrat appointees had Clinton won in 2016. You know that. Elections have consequences as Obama said.

BUT THE CONSTITUTION REMAINS THE SAME.


ROE v WADE WAS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DECISION BASED ON POLITICS.

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE US CONSTITUTION GUARANTEEING A "RIGHT" TO KILL THE UNBORN.


NOWHERE.

STATES CAN STILL ALLOW ABORTIONS ARE THEIR LEGISLATURES DETERMINE.

[Celticguy]

Agree. Kill everyone you don't like.

if everyone is armed you are far less likely to shoot first because you wont be the only one shooting.
consequently "not liking" ceases to become a shooting offense.
civility rules.

[BidenPresident]

if everyone is armed you are far less likely to shoot first because you wont be the only one shooting.
consequently "not liking" ceases to become a shooting offense.
civility rules.

Sure. But it never works.

[Celticguy]

Rowe is based on a clear standard. Even you should be able to understand it. Under Roe, women have a Constitutional right to an abortion at any time before the fetus becomes viable for life outside the womb, defined as 24 weeks from conception. The Roberts court seems poised to abolish that standard, without creating a new one, meaning Roe will be effectively repealed and states can do what they want.

let me rephrase, it was based on nothing at all in the Constitution.
the Constitution is the basis for all SCOTUS cases.