• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Roe v. Wade will be overturned if Trump wins, Pence says

Objective Voice said:
But even if that were to happen, the Chief Justice would have to agree to take up case similar to Roe v Wade again. The likelihood of that happening is extremely scarce. Moreover, none of the new appointees would SCOTUS would have the seniority to supplant any judge currently serving nor hold much sway.

Pence is way over his head on this one.
Click to expand...

I do not share your confidence, and a generation of females growing up having the same restrictions on their own bodies that I had is terrifying to me.
 
DiAnna said:
I do not share your confidence, and a generation of females growing up having the same restrictions on their own bodies that I had is terrifying to me.
Click to expand...

Well, take this as comfort: As long as the SCOTUS doesn't take up another abortion case dealing with women's liberty or female patient privacy where abortions are concerned, I'd say your right to choose will remain yours. :mrgreen:
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Too bad Harry Reid changed the senate rules to eliminate judicial filibuster, Trump +51 GOP in senate means those judges are appointed.
Click to expand...

In the United States Senate, a hold is a parliamentary procedure permitted by the Standing Rules of the United States Senate which allows one or more Senators to prevent a motion from reaching a vote on the Senate floor.


This is what they've been doing to Merrick and other appointments. They aren't even allowing a vote, and it will absolutely come around back to them if trump wins, as obama threatened. It can cripple much of the government, since we're talking about 1,000 appointments.
 
danarhea said:
That would be the president +50 in the Senate + the VP tiebreaker.
Click to expand...

does the VP cast a tiebreaker in a nomination? I thought that was for legislation?
 
chromium said:
In the United States Senate, a hold is a parliamentary procedure permitted by the Standing Rules of the United States Senate which allows one or more Senators to prevent a motion from reaching a vote on the Senate floor.


This is what they've been doing to Merrick and other appointments. They aren't even allowing a vote, and it will absolutely come around back to them if trump wins, as obama threatened. It can cripple much of the government, since we're talking about 1,000 appointments.
Click to expand...

But the rules of the senate can be changed by simple majority.
 
chromium said:
In the United States Senate, a hold is a parliamentary procedure permitted by the Standing Rules of the United States Senate which allows one or more Senators to prevent a motion from reaching a vote on the Senate floor.


This is what they've been doing to Merrick and other appointments. They aren't even allowing a vote, and it will absolutely come around back to them if trump wins, as obama threatened. It can cripple much of the government, since we're talking about 1,000 appointments.
Click to expand...

That rule can also be changed by a majority vote.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
He has talked about prosecuting women seeking abortions before. Trump: "Some Form Of Punishment" For Women if Abortion Becomes Illegal; UPDATE | Video | RealClearPolitics
Click to expand...

That was a response to a hypothetical question. Someone asked Trump whether, in the case of abortion being illegal, women who sought one ought to be punished, and he said that it seemed like the case to him.

Then the media turned that into TRUMP WANTS TO PROSECUTE WOMEN WHO HAVE AN ABORTION.

And everyone wonders why mainstream news is rapidly loosing credibility.

'In fairness to Trump, the question was very difficult to answer given its largely rhetorical nature (especially given that it has no "right" answer, and any answer would inevitably disappoint a large segment of the audience).

Donald Trump responded to a question by saying there should be "some form of punishment for the woman" who obtained an abortion if the procedure were illegal, but that answer appeared to be one made in the context of a hypothetical discussion about bans on abortion that do not currently exist. Trump did not state that women should be subject to punishment for having abortions under the law as it stands, nor did he voice a forceful opinion without extensive wheedling from Matthews.

The scenario in which Trump's remarks occurred is often presented with the stated intent of prompting abortion opponents to consider the full extent of their position rather than to elicit an honest answer. Trump didn't appear to have any position on hypothetical consequences for abortions were they outlawed before the question was asked, and he made several attempts to dodge the thread of the discussion (but was pressed for an answer by Matthews). Since the clip began circulating, the Trump campaign had made multiple attempts to clarify his position on abortion, and we were unable to locate any prior statements from Trump proactively suggesting that women who had abortions should be punished.'

Donald Trump Supports 'Some Form of Punishment' for Abortions : snopes.com

If this reveals anything about Trump, it's that he doesn't often think about banning abortion as an actual, tenable policy, which is the exact opposite of what the media usually implies.

SouthernDemocrat said:
He has also revealed his list of SCOTUS appointees, all of which would overturn Roe V. Wade given the opportunity.

Donald Trump unveils his potential Supreme Court nominees - CNNPolitics.com

If Trump is elected we will have the most far right court since the early 30s.
Click to expand...

He won't be able to get those people through confirmation hearings. This is the perfect politician's promise. 'Hey guys, I'll put originalist hardliners in, it will be GREAT.' Later on, 'Ugh, I really tried, but the terrible Democrats are giving me such a hard time so I need to cut a deal.' *Trump appoints the moderate candidates that he would have preferred to select in the first place, his pandering to the base seems genuine, and his opposition takes a hit while he looks magnanimous.*
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
And there you have it. No more little laws, picking at Roe v. Wade. They are finally telling the truth instead of beating around the bush.

If Trump is elected, my plans are to invest in a coat-hanger factory. Business is going to be YUUUUGEEEE.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

Lmao you do realize that's beyond the scope of any potus


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
chromium said:
then he shouldn't have picked a fundamentalist

it's like those saying trump isn't anti gay...i don't know what else to call a presidency that picks a VP and SCOTUS list that has been so extremely anti gay

so yes, trump is either fundamentalist, or doesn't give a damn about his country, and only craves power
Click to expand...

or maybe he figures the gay vote is mainly going to hillary anyway so he picks a guy to make sure those who sat home in 2012 over Romney being a "faux Christian" won't fail to vote this time.
 
danarhea said:
And there you have it. No more little laws, picking at Roe v. Wade. They are finally telling the truth instead of beating around the bush.

If Trump is elected, my plans are to invest in a coat-hanger factory. Business is going to be YUUUUGEEEE.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

That is a bunch of bull****.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) RvW will not be "overturned"
2.) trump will not be our next president

and yes I numbered them that way because #2 has no bearing on number #1 :)

Honestly in the political world there aren't many worst VP picks than Penance not named Cruz
Click to expand...

From a progressive perspective Gingrich would of been worse


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
From a progressive perspective Gingrich would of been worse


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well Im not a progressive BUT I cant disagree. IMO from any perspective except their own those are bad picks when it comes to winning votes. It makes the ticket even worse and that's quite a task.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
They're not going to overturn Roe v Wade, they may weaken it, but they will not fully overturn it.
Click to expand...

as I said, even if RvW is completely obliterated all that means is some bible thumping states can ban abortion. Blue states and purple states will not. while it would suck for a poor woman who lives in the heart of Holly Rollerville, she can still legally get an abortion in probably at least 35 states even if RvW is overturned. because there is no way in hell the federal government will ban abortion nationally. in fact I don't recall it ever having done so
 
danarhea said:
And there you have it. No more little laws, picking at Roe v. Wade. They are finally telling the truth instead of beating around the bush.

If Trump is elected, my plans are to invest in a coat-hanger factory. Business is going to be YUUUUGEEEE.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

Pence isn't a Supreme Court Justice. This is just rhetoric for the sake of rhetoric.
 
Carjosse said:
Why does the VP get to do it? Should that not be more of the speaker's role?
Click to expand...

Because the VPs official constitutional duty is to be the presiding official over the senate, in practice this is rarely the case but it is the VPs duty. The original constitution never even designated the Vp as a presidential successor

This is in article 1 of the constitution, in fact I thnk this is the only constitutional power of the Vice President

"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."
 
Last edited:
DiAnna said:
Not if that POTUS has the potential of appointing 3 or more Supreme Court Justices.
Click to expand...

So, what you're saying is that the law of the land should be about the rulers du jour, rather than jurisprudence? Because if you study the original Roe v Wade ruling, it would be hard to accuse those judges of liberal or conservative bias.

Even if the bench had three more conservative judges added, they'd have to violate prior precedent by making a completely new precedent, something that goes against the tradition of the courts. That's the main reason why SCOTUS rulings are rarely undone. Have you noticed that challenges to Roe v Wade have all failed since it was created, even though the bench changed hands many times since then?

It's not a matter of stacking the deck with people sympathetic to the issue. Anyone sitting on that bench better be razor sharp on the law and the Constitution, and if they are they won't undo past rulings without a DAMN good argument. You have a better chance at influencing the legislature than SCOTUS.

DiAnna said:
It's not a trivial issue to me.
Click to expand...

Me neither, but the security of our court process matters more to me than partisan politics.

If you want to stack the courts because of your politics, then your opinion is unhealthy to the polity IMO. I'd rather have balanced judges who make the best decisions rather than always the ones I agree with, but that's just me.
 
Last edited:
chromium said:
you'd think after 40 years the numbskull voters would get this, but then, they are trumpites for a reason. They'll believe anything they hear
Click to expand...

I don't think they're numbskulls. They live in a reality where abortion is a huge issue and they don't realize it's actually a small, sidebar issue for the major players in politics. The only time the big players pull out the abortion card is when they want to stoke the emotions of the audiences and create useful controversy.

Trump himself has flip flopped several times already on a stated abortion policy. He doesn't care.
 
Crovax said:
There could easily be enough justices that die/retire in the next 4-8 years to create what ever kind of SCOTUS a president wants. So it seems entirely possible.
Click to expand...

Which is the main reason that Hillary concerns me. If Trump is elected, Ginsburg and Kennedy will stay until they die, which may be another decade or more. If Hillary is elected, Ginsburg is off to retirement and Kennedy won't be far behind, plus the vacancy left by Scalia... well, there it is - at lease one to two generations of "the Constitution means whatever we want it to mean to fit our Progressive agenda."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom