He sure ****ing did. Lying about it doesn’t make it true.
www.nbcnews.com
And again the left demonstrates it's lack of basic US government knowledge.
And again they blame the Supreme Court for doing their jobs right and NOT blaming the DNC in Congress for not doing their jobs (passing a federal abortion guarantee which they 100% could have done).
Cool story but it's not how US government works. The US Supreme Court is who overturns US Supreme Court rulings.Trump: 'I was able to kill Roe v. Wade'
Trump: 'I was able to kill Roe v. Wade'
The former president and front-runner for the 2024 Republican nomination leans into his key role in eliminating federal abortion rights, taking credit for state-level bans.
Trump brags about ending Roe.
Loading…
www.politico.com
I mean doing what highly qualified legal professionals and judges do in their legitimate way. You personally may not like it, but that doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things.
The point is that *rump claims he killed it, takes full responsibility for ending it, brags about it, and his supporters give him credit for killing it because he appointed the SCOTUS judges who made it happen.
So, we're not going to "suspend" it if Trump wins? There is, of course, no sane reason to do that but he did say it.
Your opinion is duly noted and dismissed. Trump told Americans, on recorded video, that he would only appoint SC justices who would overturn Roe. He did that, and they did that. Trump effectively overturned Roe and has since many times bragged about it.
Making up legal texts and pretending they're real is not a legitimate function of honest lawyers and judges. Judges and lawyers are familiar with the laws so they can point a non-professional in the right direction easily by citing a law or set of laws that a non-professional might never locate on their own, but if the lawyers can't do that or do it in a way that's clearly wrong, then it's not legitimate.
I personally like the Supreme Court's decision. It's you that has a problem with it, but of course the left likes to appeal to authority and only to those they personally like!
Trump has no authority to suspend the Constitution, but I'm hoping if he wins that he will work with Republicans to un-suspend it in, for example, leftist states that don't follow the second amendment.
Then it's clear Trump was interested in appointing honest SC justices who actually follow the US Constitution and not bad actors like Sotomayor.
That is your bias. Again, there is plenty of legal activity that uses different methods of interpretation.
Yup, in both of our cases, we are measuring outcomes versus our ideology. Given that there is no objective ways of measuring this, this is how people will always do it.
I blame the person who put them there: Donald Trump. I remember him promising justices who would do what they did. And i remember my Trump supporting family members celebrating their ruling. And now you want to gaslight everyone about it, well it ain’t going to work.
I'm a leftist, and I have no problem with the second amendment. Again, Trump is the only one who wrote "termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution". He wrote that, of course, in support of his proven lie that the 2020 election was stolen.
I blame them both. But I give congress a little more slack as they were misled by all three of Trump's appointees. No one in congress believed they would go against what they testified to in the confirmation hearings. Some of us all believe they lied under oath.
That doesn't make them correct. They make mistakes all the time. This one has turned out to be dangerous and caused suffering to millions of women. I hope your happy that so many innocent women, their families and their doctors are suffering.
Yes, there is an objective way of measuring it, and I just told you what it is: your side claims it's in the US Constitution, so point it out. The current sitting justices certainly couldn't. Maybe you can do better.
Who is crying and screaming? I'm content with the Supreme Court's correct decision. It's the left that has a problem with it because they didn't get their way.
If he really was going to do that, he would have done it in 2020 or early 2021. I go by what he actually did, like for example putting justices on the Supreme Court that actually follow the US Constitution.
You could point out these lies? From reading Barrett's responses it was abundantly clear Roe was in trouble, and from reading the members' questions it was abundantly clear they knew.
Oh wow so everyone knew except the left's gullible DNC morons apparently, eh?
Wow the DNC must be REALLY stupid if 40 years of this "power grab" went unnoticed.
all analysis methods draw from the wording of the constitution. As I already pointed out, the ruling in roe vs wade found support in the 14th amendment.Yes, there is an objective way of measuring it, and I just told you what it is: your side claims it's in the US Constitution, so point it out. The current sitting justices certainly couldn't. Maybe you can do better.
So does figuring out the speed limit on a particular road. The left is pointing to a sign that says 40 and "interpreting" it as 400.
OK so quote what part of it you think does this.
No, if the sign says 40, it's 40, not 400. This is right out of the left's "pregnant people" or "men can have vaginas" pile of nonsense.
Yes, and Trump appointed three SCOTUS judges who specifically were going to do that for him, and he bragged about being successful.
That's a poor analogy.
I have no need to. Its commonly known that this was based on the 14th amendment.
If it was as cut and dry as you believe, there would never have been competing interpretive philosophies to begin with. People don't debate whether the sky is blue on a sunny and clear day, for example.
It's known as picking justices that follow the US Constitution.
Roevember! Queen Kamala!
It's an excellent analogy. And you just demonstrated that when you failed to point out the specific text that supports your position. The same as the hypothetical person in my previous post failing to demonstrate the presence of the second 0 on the speed limit sign.
You sure? This is the left we're talking about with their pregnant men.
So you don't think the decision in Roe vs Wade was based on the 14th amendment?It's known as picking justices that follow the US Constitution.
Roevember! Queen Kamala!
It's an excellent analogy. And you just demonstrated that when you failed to point out the specific text that supports your position. The same as the hypothetical person in my previous post failing to demonstrate the presence of the second 0 on the speed limit sign.
This is an example of competing interpretations, come people conflate gender and sex while others see them as independent concepts.
I think you're trying to shift the burden of proof.
Thanks for making my point for me.
I admit, I am having a bit of fun on this subtopic.
Your point was that different people have different interpretations of legal or social meanings for words and that those different interpretations lead into things like competing judicial philosophies the whole time???
"Murdering babies is a states' rights issue" is found nowhere in the constitution.
Very sad deflection attempt.Roevember! Queen Kamala!
No, my point is that the left is ridiculous and disingenuous pretending their extremely specious positions are somehow just as valid as anything else.
Guess we shall see how the population feels about this, won't we?