Justice Kennedy announces his retirement from SCOTUS
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
This is an extract from a February 2016 interview with Trump: David Brody: “But beyond judges, do you believe Roe V. Wade was wrongly decided back in the day, back in 1973?” Donald Trump: ‘Well I do. It’s been very strongly decided but it can be changed. Things are put there and they’re passed but they can be unpassed with time but it’s going to take time because you have a lot of judges to go.” ================================== Well, not "a lot of judges"...just two. We are there now. The only question is will Trump try getting his nomination through the Senate quickly and perhaps risk losing someone like Susan Collins on the Roe v Wade question. Or will he make it an election issue to really pump up his evangelical base more. The thought of having Roe v Wade overturned will be compelling, either way. It has now become the number one issue for Republicans and should be for Democrats likewise. But maybe not all the Dems...
-
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Schmidt Wrote:This is an extract from a February 2016 interview with Trump: David Brody: “But beyond judges, do you believe Roe V. Wade was wrongly decided back in the day, back in 1973?” Donald Trump: ‘Well I do. It’s been very strongly decided but it can be changed. Things are put there and they’re passed but they can be unpassed with time but it’s going to take time because you have a lot of judges to go.” ================================== Well, not "a lot of judges"...just two. We are there now. The only question is will Trump try getting his nomination through the Senate quickly and perhaps risk losing someone like Susan Collins on the Roe v Wade question. Or will he make it an election issue to really pump up his evangelical base more. The thought of having Roe v Wade overturned will be compelling, either way. It has now become the number one issue for Republicans and should be for Democrats likewise. But maybe not all the Dems... Appointments for life are as nutty as anything in this country; let alone an Supreme Court which looks more like an old age home. I miss the "wigs" like in Britain. It is sure time to get another government structure; good examples enough in the world to copy even our neighbor ( Canada) has a better system.
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Schmidt Wrote:Well, not "a lot of judges"...just two. We are there now. The only question is will Trump try getting his nomination through the Senate quickly and perhaps risk losing someone like Susan Collins on the Roe v Wade question. Or will he make it an election issue to really pump up his evangelical base more. The thought of having Roe v Wade overturned will be compelling, either way. Roe v Wade will be a hot topic during grilling of the SC nominee, but IMO, the issue has been settled and the SC wants it to stay that way. IMHO, to take away a right already granted to women is extremely high legal bar I do concede that trump is extremely dangerous as POTUS. He loves to blow things up. Imagine if he were to make "Roe v Wade" another campaign issue equal to immigration, and issuing an executive order that directly\institutionally violates Roe v Wade, thus forcing the SC handle the issue. It would be huge gamble in his part betting that that the majority on the SC already wants to over-turn Roe v Wade. I can easily see him abusing Presidential power in such a way that forces the SC to make political decisions.
-
-
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Schmidt Wrote: Well, not "a lot of judges"...just two. We are there now. The only question is will Trump try getting his nomination through the Senate quickly and perhaps risk losing someone like Susan Collins on the Roe v Wade question. Or will he make it an election issue to really pump up his evangelical base more. The thought of having Roe v Wade overturned will be compelling, either way.It has now become the number one issue for Republicans and should be for Democrats likewise. But maybe not all the Dems... I'd be shocked if he waited because he'd be screwed if the Democrats somehow take over the Senate and refuse to take up any nomination. The Senate map is abysmal, but Donald is also historically unpopular, so anything can happen this November. My guess is that he will move now and dare Collins and Murkowski to go against him. He can afford to lose one of them and still have Pence be the tie breaking vote. Two other potential wild cards are Senators Flake and Corker. I wouldn't hold my breath expecting any of them voting down Donald's eventual nominee, but if they ever wanted to stand up to the President and show him who his boss actually is then now would be the time to do it. However, I am well aware that's very wishful thinking and fully expect both of them to get in line. This is a crisis of our own making and we Democrats must own up to it. We sat out the 2014 elections and we allowed a bunch of angry Bernie or busters to overrule the will of the majority of Americans in 2016, so if we get angry with anyone, we should look in the mirror.
-
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
someone like stephen miller, or one of his sons. He won't do that, but that would be his ideal. Trump: "Where does it say they have to have a legal degree?" supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx The basic assumption is that the vetting process will flush out unqualified individuals.
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Roe v Wade History It is unclear to me what would happen if Roe v Wade was challenged in the Supreme Court. Prior to 7-2 ruling in 1973, abortion was allowed in a few states (Hawaii, New York, Alaska and Washington). Would it revert to states rights to legislate or would the court legislate from the bench and unilaterally ban abortion in all trimesters for all America? In effect the court would have to rule that the 14th Amendment does NOT apply. It would be a major setback for women declaring that abortion is not a right granted under the 14th amendment. What is playing out here is the power of the religious right to dictate government policy. In looking at the above history of Roe v Wade I find it interesting that the decisions to ban abortion in the past seem to be driven more by political motivations than by Biblical edict. From the above link: "In the late 1850s, the newly established American Medical Association began calling for the criminalization of abortion, partly in an effort to eliminate doctors’ competitors such as midwives and homeopaths. "Additionally, some nativists, alarmed by the country’s growing population of immigrants, were anti-abortion because they feared declining birth rates among white, American-born, Protestant women. "In 1869, the Catholic Church banned abortion at any stage of pregnancy, while in 1873, Congress passed the Comstock law, which made it illegal to distribute contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs through the U.S. mail. By the 1880s, abortion was outlawed across most of the country." Likewise as the Huffington Post reports, no where in the Bible can anyone find a decree that specifically addresses abortion and for good reason. "Biblical writers don’t talk about sperm fertilizing eggs. They talk about male “seed” planted in fertile female ground. " My opinion is that it is more to so with nativist (e.g. white American protestant, Catholics, Mormons, etc.) worrying about the declining number of adherents to their respective faiths if abortion is practiced in a big way. Not only is abortion banned within their respective churches but they are also encouraged to have large families (usually four or more) so that they can grow their religion from within as well as converting others to their beliefs. In any case, Trump has made it a political football now to pander to the religious right for votes. I doubt whether he understands or gives a shit about abortion per se but he can count votes.
-
|