"I thought you said it was the job of all justices to adhere to the Constitution?"

Correct. I said that, and I stand by it.

"Even the SCOTUS Chief Justice has said it's settled law."

So was slavery at one time. Ever heard of the Dredd Scott case? That was settled law, thanks to a horrific mistake by the SCOTUS, which was later corrected. Should subsequent courts have thoughtlessly deferred to their predecessors who legalized slavery, out of the blind respect you apparently have for "precedent"?

Not your best day.

.

I’d like to see pro life people sponsor a child till they are 18. Better yet, why not financially support the single mom and her kid so that they can have a decent quality of life. But instead.. it’s F-you welfare whore... get a job. And while she’s at work the kid is locked up at home playing call of duty. And we all wonder why kids are so screwed up these days.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"The American people, almost 7/10 don't want roe v Wade overturned"

I don't think it will be overturned. I said I think Amy Barrett should bee the nominee for other reasons.

"40 years of precedent says it shouldn't be overturned."

Ahh, precedent. Slavery was legal. So was segregation. According to you and Spence, once SCOTUS settled these issues, we should have stopped debating. Right? We should have just dropped it? Try making that wrong. Go ahead, and try to respond to that.

Earth to you and Spence...the SCOTUS is capable of royally screwing up. They are human. There is nothing that says their rulings are carved in stone forever.

"The only way it is overturned is if he puts an activist judge in"

Exactly wrong. The only way it got settled in the first place, was because of activist judges. The constitution lists specific powers enumerated to the feds, and it explicitly states that everything else, is left to the states. The word abortion isn't in there. They justified it, by claiming that the federal protection against "unreasonable search and seizure" implies that abortion is OK? That's quite a leap, which is akin to activism. In my opinion, it should go to the states, the vast majority of which would uphold it, because as you say, that's what people want.

"I trust every woman on Earth far more to make that decision than I trust Jim"

Who is asking you to trust me? There are lots and lots of women opposed to it. Are they all self-loathing masochists? Or go watch a hi-def ultrasound of a 4 month old baby, and tell me that it's no more alive than a mole or a tattoo to be removed.

"He thinks he can't have more kids"

Well my urologist went to Harvard, and he gave me the old snip-snip, so it's not some crazy theory of mine that I can't have any more kids. Not sure where the hell you got that idea.

"Lucky for him, no one, other than maybe his church, gets to tell him how many kids he has to have"

You must be some theology scholar! Please tell me, what church tells its members how many kids to have? I am unaware of one that does so, sure as hell not my church. Please enlighten me!

"I’d like to see pro life people sponsor a child till they are 18"

Oh give me a break. I'd like to see you take in a family of refugees who don't speak English. Using your logic, until you are prepared to do so, you can't advocate for the rights of refugees.

"Better yet, why not financially support the single mom and her kid so that they can have a decent quality of life."

I do that. I pay federal taxes to support such programs, I pay state taxes to support such programs, and I give money to my church to support such programs. If we need more money for those programs, let's cut stupid wasteful spending which helps nobody, and transfer that money to fund the programs you describe. I'm all for that.

"But instead.. it’s F-you welfare whore... get a job"

Never heard anybody say that. Well, Bill Clinton sort of said that, and he's still a hero of the left. I keep asking for someone to explain why that is, and nobody even tries. Can you?

"And we all wonder why kids are so screwed up these days."

Liberals wonder why. Conservatives know why. erosion of family values, which while they seem antiquated to liberals, they have been shown to work. An inconvenient truth.

Maybe he's at the park with Dad, throwing a baseball around.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are mostly correct in everything you say here. Just one very important thing you should correct. It's not that the word abortion isn't in the Constitution. There are, and will eventually be, an unlimited amount of words (concepts) that are not in the Constitution, but which the federal government has the power to regulate. What makes a concept subject to federal regulation is if it fits within the sphere of a federal enumerated power.

What so-called judicial activism does is twist and stretch beyond all sense the meaning of a word or concept so that it can theoretically appear to fall within the sphere of an enumerated power. Of course, brilliant minds with sinister intent can do that with almost any word or concept. So, for a judicial activist, the Constitution can be shaped to mean whatever the activist claims it means. And he can justify his verbal machination with the judicial cover of "interpretation."

Correct, something doesn’t have to be explicitly in there to be constitutional. But connecting search and seizure with abortion? Evil Kineval couldn’t make that leap. I guess the difference between sound judgment and radical judicial activism, has to do with how far you are willing to stretch the bounds of common sense. As you say, a sinister genius can be quite effective in this regard.

I’m curious to see who he picks. I also wonder if Clarence Thomas is giving any thought to retiring while the gop has the White House and senate. Ginsberg screwed up royally by not retiring when obama was in office.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yea, we're all getting tired with your winning :doh:

Precedent doesn't just mean a single judgement was found. Roe has been repeatedly tested in the courts and stood up. Even if it wasn't the best example of a ruling technically speaking, it was essentially fixed with Casey in 1992. To really make a dent on abortion rights you'd have to flip all these decisions.

Per your other blabber, neither slavery or Dred Scott were overturned in the courts, they were both made square via Constitutional amendment. You might want to pick some relevant examples next time.

Oh i see. So it’s ok to turn precedence on its head via constitutional amendment,but it’s wrong for some reason to pursue it in the courts.

We have new knowledge now, new data, of what is going on in the womb, information not remotely available when roe v Wade was decided.

If the founding fathers intended for precedent to be unassailable in the courts, they would have designed it to be such. They didn’t.

It’s moot, because neither one of us sees it being overturned.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The supreme Court ruled on right to abortion up until viability. The time frame has moved from 23 or 24 weeks to 22 or 23 weeks. Nothing has changed that should allow for overturning that ruling. The supreme Court did not make a mistake just because it offends the morals of some.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And again, what was not viable then, is obviously viable now, thanks to awesome advances in technology. Thanks to western medicine, viability occurs earlier and earlier.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Precedent isn't unassailable but respect for it is part of the judicial process without which you'd have chaos in the courts. We're not talking about a bad ruling on littering here, this is a super precedent. To really make abortion illegal would likely require an amendment.

True.

It would be easy in this day and age for states to make it legal, which most probably would. Abortion legality is not the primary consideration. It's most importantly about maintaining the constitutional order and keeping political power where it belongs--the people, not the Court.

The Court's decision in Roe rested on a misreading of various portions and amendments in the Constitution. A Court revisit of the matter could correctly return power over a hotly disputed societal issue back into the hands of the people where it belongs.

It has hardly changed. Awesome advances have made it so viability has improved by a week or so in a limited percentage of cases. Nothing in that to change roe v. Wade. Appreciate you confirming that though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There seems to be a disconnect between what you say and what various pundits on the left are worried about re the future of Roe v. Wade and abortion if Trump can stack the court in favor strict construction originalists:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-ma...r-scotus-news/

If 45 years ago I’d have said that in 2018 abortion would be permitted in Ireland and they will be trying to outlaw it in the USA you’d have thought I was nuts
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Interesting . . .

R v W IMO is here to stay. Those wishing to terminate their potential children is ingrained in our culture. To many women it's an agonizing decision, but sadly many others use it as a routine method of birth control.

But what could come into play in the SC is tax payer funding of organizations that perform abortions. If you want to terminate your child you shouldn't depend on others to pay for it.

It's worth noting though that taxpayer funding of abortions is already illegal.

Yes, I'm thinking the Planned Parenthood defunding issue. I'm sure if it were defunded the case would rise to the SC.

The thing is, most of the federal money that goes to Planned Parenthood is from preventative care reimbursements for people who qualify for Medicaid and Title X. It's not like there's a taxpayer line item in the budget for PP. They're just providing federally funded service like any hospital. Oh, and hospitals perform abortions as well...

I think we can all find some humor here, except maybe the Super Elite
https://thenib.com/socialist-surpris...tm_source=link

Understood.

This would be a brilliant idea.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.60e1575f446c

"The thing is, most of the federal money that goes to Planned Parenthood is from preventative care reimbursements for people"

The other thing is, and you know this, is that cash is liquid, so if the feds give PP $100 to buy mammogram equipment, that's $100 more that PP can free up to fund abortions. That's why if this wasn't about funding abortions, liberals would embrace the conservative notion of defunding PP, but diverting every cent of that (thus no cuts to overall funding) to clinics that don't perform abortions. Problem solved. But liberals won't get on board, and there's only one reason why. It's about abortion.

Coming from the guy who thinks that GOP presidential nominees should pick extremely liberal democrats, as their VP pick.

A good idea for you. A laughable suggestion for me, and I can't imagine Trump's response, but it probably ends with, "and the horse you rode in on".

Meanwhile, the unofficial list of 3 finalists includes the name Amy Barrett, but sadly omits the name Merrick Garland.

We need more such, like Gore-such.

But the feds don't give PP cash to buy equipment. They're also a non-profit organization so it's not like profit from a health screening could be used to offset abortion costs.

Texas did eliminated funding for PP and replaced it with a Pro-life organization, how well did that work.
https://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/...ned-parenthood