Amy Barrett for Supreme Court?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Yea, we're all getting tired with your winning

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

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.

Not every baby achieves viability at the same time. And if the justification for abortion is that the woman has the right to bodily self autonomy, why does she surrendernthatbat some arbitrary point? That makes zero sense, the baby is never any different than it was an hour before.
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

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Precedent isn't unassailable but respect for it is part of the judicial process .

True.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

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/