GOP talking point: if you oppose SCOTUS decision, you're against democracy

BartenderElite said:
Because, hey - now the VOTERS get to decide if a woman has rights nor not. Why would anyone be opposed to that? Don't you trust voters to do the right thing?

I've already heard it a half dozen times in the past day. If you oppose overturning a 50+ year old precedent and what has been the law of the land for a generation, you're against democracy. You're against Americans.

They really play us all for fools.
Click to expand...

It has not been the law of the land ever. Only Congress can pass a federal abortion law and they have not done so. Roe vs. Wade is not a law, only an interpretation.

There is no federal abortion law, it died in the Senate.

There is no settled decision by the Supreme Court (see the recent leaked draft and segregation). The "settled" Supreme Court interpretation on abortion is near to becoming unsettled.

You shouild know better but it appears that you do not.
 
Last edited:
Earl said:
It has not been the law of the land ever. Only Congress can pass a federal abortion law and they have not done so. Roe vs. Wade is not a law, only an interpretation.

There is no federal abortion law, it died in the Senate.

There is no settled decision by the Supreme Court (see the recent leaked draft and segregation).

You shouild know better but ir appears that you do not.
Click to expand...

It's been the law of the land. Over 70% of the current population has lived their entire life w/ abortion being safe, legal and available.

You can argue semantics all you want, but that's the reality.
 
BartenderElite said:
It's been the law of the land. Over 70% of the current population has lived their entire life w/ abortion being safe, legal and available.

You can argue semantics all you want, but that's the reality.
Click to expand...

Post the US Code showing a federal abortion law passed by the US Congress.

I'll wait.

Roe vs. Wade is not a law but an interpretation of the Constitution.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark ***decision*** of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.
 
Earl said:
Post the US Code showing a federal abortion law passed by the US Congress.

I'll wait.

Roe vs. Wade is not a law but an interpretation of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

You can wait all you want. Abortion has been legal for more than a generation. Ergo, it's legality is the law of the land.

You're looking for a distinction without a difference.
 
BartenderElite said:
Because, hey - now the VOTERS get to decide if a woman has rights nor not.
Click to expand...
Just one question:

What is moral about killing your own child?

BartenderElite said:
Why would anyone be opposed to that? Don't you trust voters to do the right thing?
Click to expand...
Democrats don't.
BartenderElite said:
I've already heard it a half dozen times in the past day. If you oppose overturning a 50+ year old precedent and what has been the law of the land for a generation, you're against democracy. You're against Americans.
Click to expand...
What democracy? The United States was never organized as a democracy.
BartenderElite said:
They really play us all for fools.
Click to expand...
Because you are fools. Hell, you can't decide what gender someone is.
 
evince said:
Trump appointed three of these judges


All because the Russians fixed an election for him


And because turtle head illegally kept Obama from his constitutional right to appoint a SCOTUS member
Click to expand...

The Russians would rather have Democrats in power.
The President does not have authority to appoint a judge on the Supreme Court. He only has the authority to offer a candidate.
 
BartenderElite said:
I wonder how dudes would feel if basic rights over their body were put out to statewide votes?
Click to expand...
There is no inherent right to murder.

What about the right to bodily autonomy (and making one's own healthcare decisions)? Liberals sure don't support that, forcing people to wear masks and undergo invasive medical procedures against their will.
 
BartenderElite said:
So, you don't support a woman's rights over her own body?
Click to expand...
It is YOU who doesn't support this. YOU are the one who wants to force that same woman to wear a mask and to undergo invasive medical procedures against her will lest she lose her job and be banned from the town square because she doesn't have a vaccine passport.

BartenderElite said:
Quite a few of the trigger laws out there don't allow exceptions for rape & incest. Sorry - this debate is about freedom.
Click to expand...
You hate freedom.

There is no inherent right to murder, dude.
 
Into the Night said:
Are you saying most States have no constitution?
Click to expand...

That is not what it says. Some state constitutions allow referendum on legislative issues, others do not, some allow referendum on constitutional amendments, some have initiative.

In my state we have never voted on issues other than constitutional amendments.
 
BartenderElite said:
It's been the law of the land. Over 70% of the current population has lived their entire life w/ abortion being safe, legal and available.

You can argue semantics all you want, but that's the reality.
Click to expand...

It is not the law of the land. The Supreme Court has NO authority to change the Constitution. It is past time that this was corrected. This is a State right, and the federal government has NO authority over abortion.
Abortion is NOT safe. It kills. That is it's purpose.

It is YOU making a semantics fallacy. Inversion fallacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top