Roe v. Wade

[wader]

Not looking for a political discussion on this - so please don't start one.

All of this talk about revisiting the above law has me wondering why? If RvW was ruled as being within the framework of the Constitution - which is what the Supreme Court is charged with doing - how can the Supreme Court now potentially revisit it with the possibility of overturning it?

Somebody school me because I don't get it (leaving politics aside of course).
It's either Constitutional acceptable or it's not.

I should state here - that I am neither pro-abortion or right to life. I am however pro-choice.

 

[CELLFISH]

It’s a distraction from the major problems… cellfish…

 

[wader]

It’s a distraction from the major problems… cellfish…

they've been talking this for decades now - so I'm not going with that.

 

[CELLFISH]

they've been talking this for decades now - so I'm not going with that.

Not at this level… cellfish…

 

[wader]

Not at this level… cellfish…

we've never been dived at this level either..

 

[CELLFISH]

I said my peace…

 

[wader]

I said my peace…

and I appreciate it..

I just don't understand why the SC might visit something that a previous SC ruled on. It's either Constitutionally acceptable or it's not. The Constitution does not change.

 

[movetheboat]

not political?? good luck with that!

here's the mentality

vaccine..my body my choice

abortion...your body my choice

here's another

PRO-LIFE all life is sacred
Also PRO DEATH PENALTY and WAR

kapeesh?

 

[Avenger]

In Dred Scott vs Sandford the Supreme Court ruled that slaves are property. Why would they bother revisiting and possibly overturning previous decisions?

 

[wader]

In Dred Scott vs Sandford the Supreme Court ruled that slaves are property. Why would they bother revisiting and possibly overturning previous decisions?

because in my mind it's either legal or not - it can't be both - it then become a pollical decision which not supposed to be in the preview - they are supposed to deal with Constitutional law & set politics aside - that is their purpose for existence - if they are simply going to follow their political beliefs & not the Constitution then the SC should be dissolved as they are not following what they were set up to do

 

[cany]

 

[movetheboat]

PUT down the popcorn and shut it down before it attracts that whack pack lol

 

[cany]

PUT down the popcorn and shut it down before it attracts that whack pack lol

It hasnt yet

 

[TonySmjc]

PUT down the popcorn and shut it down before it attracts that whack pack lol

It already has
You and the other guy are here

 

[OVERBORED]

The constitution hasn't changed but the interpretation of law by the current justices just might.

As was mentioned before, they say no to abortion. Yes to death penalty. Why? Life is life, right?

Contradictions abound.

Can the "land of the free" mandate anything? Is THAT constitutional?

I'm not smart or non biased enough to answer those questions.