Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

No, I said constituents should be represented. You went on to argue against that and presented off topic strawman arguments.

Strawman. Zero relevance to the topic of courts overstepping their role and returning legislation to the people which is the topic of this thread.

Meanwhile, EVERY wrong you've cited were addressed and corrected within a constitutional republic.

 

I'm not religious.

 

Fixed it

 

Good for you. What does that have to do with knowing or not knowing who Jesus is?

 

what does Jesus have to do with Dobbs?

 

Is this Jesus a character in the new disney plus show?
can you watch disney plus in florida?

did all the binary teachers leave florida?

 

And at one time constituents thought black people should not have equal rights. So should constituents be represented then?

Thanks to progressives, not conservatives.

 

Shock of the day

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, on Friday suggested that conservative Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch broke a promise they made to her after both ruled in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, the watershed 1973 ruling enshrining America's constitutional right to abortion.

"This decision is inconsistent with what Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said in their testimony and their meetings with me, where they both were insistent on the importance of supporting long-standing precedents," she told CNN.

She also added that "throwing out a precedent overnight that the country has relied upon for half a century is not conservative. It is a sudden and radical jolt to the country that will lead to political chas, anger, and a further loss of confidence in our government."

 

20 million black people have been aborted since 1973.

Lincoln was a Republican.

 

then she clearly hasn't read the pages and pages and pages Alito wrote in the decision about overturning precedents

 

@Sweet Lou 4 2

 

And? How is that relevant to you saying that constituents should be respected even if they want to take away rights?

20 million black people being aborted doesn't move me, it would if they were forced to abort those babies, that would be Eugenics.

Republican is a party identifier and that's all. The GOP has been progressive on some issues throughout history, slavery was one of them.

 

What Alito wrote doesn't change what the Justices promised.

 

I'm pretty sure prospective justices are quite cagey about what they "promise" and what they don't "promise." There have been dozens of articles written over the years about how nominees to ALL kinds of positions respond to questions about how they would act/rule on future hypotheticals. And most jurists are EXTREMELY careful not to get caught in the trap of speculating about hypotheticals. So I don't really trust what Collins or anyone else says on this. Collins is right now trying to cover her own ass politically by disavowing herself of her confirmation votes.

 

Kermit Gosnell faints.

 

You're right. The strawman that you brought into this thread is irrelevant.

Yes, because using the race card cudgel in THIS case doesn't work for you.

Correct. Protecting life is a progressive cause as well.

 

Except for the ERA which the right has blocked.

 

It wasn't a strawman since you're the one saying that constituents should be represented, you're the one that made that argument, I was just poking a hole in your argument that we don't always support the majority of opinion.

So I asked do you think constituents should be represented if they, for instance, think blacks should be slaves and I might have broken you because you refuse to answer that.

Talk about a strawman...

So you know what is and isn't a life? Is it life at 1 weeks old then?