Prediction: Roe v wade will be overturned

[Lursa]

The point you are still missing or refusing to accept is that the SCOTUS is not there there to decide the issue on their own. They are there to interpret law, not write law. Abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution. There was nothing for the SCOTUS to interpret. Without a constitutional amendment regarding abortion, it is an issue for the states. I am betting that deep down you and other libruls understand that. Otherwise you would not lose your collective minds every time a conservative is appointed to the US Supreme Court. If unrestricted abortion was the law of the land, you would not worry about it.

And I've asked you to explain what they interpreted incorrectly? They discussed the 9th Amendment in RvW. Previously posted:

They dont invent rights...I'm not surprised you wrote that...a lot of people seem to think that SCOTUS creates rights​

​

Here's a recent explanation, maybe it will help ya out:​

​

Do you know what no one can answer for me? Why the right to an abortion shouldnt be protecte?. I mean, they also referred to the 9th in the RvW decision. It's no different than a right to have consensual sex, a right to reproduce, or a right to travel from state to state. It's accorded to the people unless there are reasons to restrict or ban it. (hint: so no one 'invents' it...they just protect it unless there are reasons not to)​

​

RvW decided that the states may not deny women a safe medical procedure if they choose it. It is much much safer than pregnancy/childbirth. That is *the basis* for the challenge and the decision. So why would that right be denied to women? What would the legal reasons be?​

I addressed your post directly, please answer my questions. Or do you not understand the 9th Amendment? Anyone that says 'there's no right to abortion in the Const.' doesnt understand it. Maybe I helped?

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

And I've asked you to explain what they interpreted incorrectly? They discussed the 9th Amendment in RvW. Previously posted:

They dont invent rights...I'm not surprised you wrote that...a lot of people seem to think that SCOTUS creates rights​

​

Here's a recent explanation, maybe it will help ya out:​

​

Do you know what no one can answer for me? Why the right to an abortion shouldnt be protecte?. I mean, they also referred to the 9th in the RvW decision. It's no different than a right to have consensual sex, a right to reproduce, or a right to travel from state to state. It's accorded to the people unless there are reasons to restrict or ban it. (hint: so no one 'invents' it...they just protect it unless there are reasons not to)​

​

RvW decided that the states may not deny women a safe medical procedure if they choose it. It is much much safer than pregnancy/childbirth. That is *the basis* for the challenge and the decision. So why would that right be denied to women? What would the legal reasons be?​

I addressed your post directly, please answer my questions. Or do you not understand the 9th Amendment? Anyone that says 'there's no right to abortion in the Const.' doesnt understand it. Maybe I helped?

I have to both you and the iguanaman character.

 

[iguanaman]

Stare decisis has limits:

" SUMMARY
Stare decisis, the principle that courts will follow their previous decisions, is a rebuttable presumption in the American judicial process. It helps reduce judges’ “arbitrary discretion” and promotes stability, consistency, and predictability. Precedents, however, are generally less binding in a civil law system, in which courts interpret written law, than in common law systems, where judges’ decisions constitute the law used to decide cases. Supreme Court precedents interpreting the Constitution have less weight than those interpreting statutes. When examining a constitutional precedent’s validity, the Court applies “principles of stare decisis” to reaffirm, overrule, or modify it, resulting in decisions deemed favorable by both conservatives and liberals."

Stare Decisis 101

Stare decisis is a Latin phrase meaning “to stand by things decided.”REF In the judicial context, it is also known as the “doctrine of precedent, under which a court must follow earlier judicial decisions when the same points arise again in litigation.”

www.heritage.org

And how exactly has the court applied “principles of stare decisis” to reaffirm, overrule, or modify it, resulting in decisions deemed favorable by both conservatives and liberals."?

This is a radical politically and religion based and democratically unpopular decision that will inflate the division in this nation. The good news is that it will hurt Republicans in the next election. The court is f***ed.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

the court applied “principles of stare decisis” to reaffirm, overrule, or modify it

At least you grasped the important part. Though you should have grasped that stare decisis has less standing in cases not based on written constitutional law.

 

[iguanaman]

At least you grasped the important part. Though you should have grasped that stare decisis has less standing in cases not based on written constitutional law.

Since Roe determined that abortion was a "Right" under the 9th amendment it has the same "standing" of any right.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Since Roe determined that abortion was a "Right" under the 9th amendment it has the same "standing" of any right.

Again, you are assuming that under the 9th amendment, you can just pull anything out of your ass(rhetorically) and claim it as a right. That's not reality.

 

[Lursa]

I have to both you and the iguanaman character.

So not only have you failed in any way to support your opinion and your claim also fails...you are now posting nonsense.

 

[Lursa]

Again, you are assuming that under the 9th amendment, you can just pull anything out of your ass(rhetorically) and claim it as a right. That's not reality.

I explained why that's not true...did you not read it. Or were you incapable of understanding it?

Show us...address it directly and support your statement.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

I explained why that's not true...did you not read it. Or were you incapable of understanding it?

Show us...address it directly and support your statement.

So we disagree with each other's explanations. I can live with that. can you?

 

[Lursa]

So we disagree with each other's explanations. I can live with that. can you?

Bullshit, I refuted yours and you are unable to support it further. You're wrong.

Why should I live with it? And more importantly, why should women that you dont even know and dont agree?

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Bullshit, I refuted yours and you are unable to support it further. You're wrong.

Why should I live with it? And more importantly, why should women that you dont even know and dont agree?

You do not have any choice. I am not required to get your approval.

 

[Lursa]

You do not have any choice. I am not required to get your approval.

Oh I know. I was just making it clear that I dont agree and that you dont even understand the claim you attempted to make...you have nothing more than a 2nd-hand surface understanding and so are not able to support it.

All good here

 

[iguanaman]

You do not have any choice. I am not required to get your approval.

The answer is to vote all Republicans out of office in November and the SC has just given us a good reason to do that. A vote for any Republican is a vote for insurrectionists and a Govt. that will take away our rights based on religion. They are the party of insurrection, repression and tyranny and voters will see that clearly.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

The answer is to vote all Republicans out of office in November and the SC has just given us a good reason to do that. A vote for any Republican is a vote for insurrectionists and a Govt. that will take away our rights based on religion. They are the party of insurrection, repression and tyranny and voters will see that clearly.

Good luck with that. I think we both know that the House of Reps will be in GOP hands after the November midterms.