Scrapping Roe v. Wade will simply be one more step of many for the United States in its quest to abandon the moniker..
moniker "Leader of the Free World" in favor of a new one: "Regressive Third World Theocracy"
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Subsumedpat · 36-40, M
I imagine that Democrats will scrap the filibuster and pass a law on the federal guaranteeing them the same rights they had under roe v wade, they might also pack the court while they are at it. Republican blunder to fill the court with someone who they know will overturn it. Like a dog chasing a car and catching it what to do now.
eli1601 · 70-79, M
@Subsumedpat Not likely
@Subsumedpat I should hope the filibuster and gerrymandering will both be scrapped, as they are both tactics to disrupt the process of democracy.
Subsumedpat · 36-40, M
@eli1601 Yes likely if they don't their base will stay home and they will be out of a job.
eli1601 · 70-79, M
@Subsumedpat Tell that to Manchin and Sinema who are not up for reelection
Subsumedpat · 36-40, M
@CorvusBlackthorne Maybe, but Democracy is not always what it is cracked up to be, 3 sheep and 4 volves taking a vote on dinner is democracy.
fanuc2013 · 51-55, F
@Subsumedpat Congress can pass all the laws they want, but they will all be struck down because the Supreme Court has declared it unconstitutional. This has happened in the past with other laws, one I can think of is the "line item veto" law enacted during the Clinton years. The abortion issue will have to be decided by the individual States.
Subsumedpat · 36-40, M
@fanuc2013 There has not been a federal law recognizing the legality of abortion so there has never been such a law to strike down so you can't say that it is unconstitutional do so. This is a big screw up despite what people are trying to tell you if they strike down roe v wade there are other decisions which will loose their underpinnings. It is a deviation from precedent which the justices have promised to maintain. It means the court is a political body instead of one based on the law.
ElwoodBlues · M
@Subsumedpat Right. SCOTUS calls it [i]stare decisis[/i], Latin for “to stand by things decided.” The idea being that if Congress really doesn't like a decision, they can always pass legislation to override the decision; it's NOT the job of SCOTUS to constantly revisit old decisions.
But if SCOTUS decides once its OK to jettison [i]stare decisis[/i], then the gates are open. A future SCOTUS could reverse Citizen's United, and corporations would stop being people. A future SCOTUS could reverse 2008's DC vs Heller, thus reconnecting gun possession with state militias; a connection that goes back nearly 100 years. And of course a future SCOTUS could reinstitute Roe v Wade.
We are looking at the total politicization of SCOTUS, if this court rejects [i]stare decisis[/i].
But if SCOTUS decides once its OK to jettison [i]stare decisis[/i], then the gates are open. A future SCOTUS could reverse Citizen's United, and corporations would stop being people. A future SCOTUS could reverse 2008's DC vs Heller, thus reconnecting gun possession with state militias; a connection that goes back nearly 100 years. And of course a future SCOTUS could reinstitute Roe v Wade.
We are looking at the total politicization of SCOTUS, if this court rejects [i]stare decisis[/i].
Subsumedpat · 36-40, M
@ElwoodBlues Yes by getting rid of stare decisis we can get rid of all sorts of rights people once think they had.