LINK Roe v Wade: Trump says Supreme Court ruling on abortion 'possible'
The US president said it is "certainly possible" his Supreme Court pick will be involved in a ruling revisiting a 1973 decision to legalise abortion.
Given that Judge Barrett has LITERALLY and REPEATEDLY said the exact opposite, that overturning or revising Roe V. Wade was unlikely, it's this kind of talk that makes the timing of her appointment a potential detriment to Trump getting elected.
0
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
5 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Middle Way is baiting conservatives. I have no interest in any discussion in which I will learn nothing.
TimTuolomne
Level 9
Sep 27, 2020
2
You reached this conclusion by participating in conversations from which you learned nothing?
I don't understand what you're asking. It IS certainly possible a case will be reviewed by SCOTUS that's related to abortion--or to privacy--that might result in basic suppositions within and resultant from Roe being reconsidered, overturned or limited in scope. The opinion that such a ruling is unlikely is just that: an opinion.
govols
Level 8
Sep 27, 2020
1
@TheMiddleWay
My understanding is that the justices work in teams to weigh cases being appealed, each team considering a certain collection of circuit decisions. One can sit on a panel and presume a question won't be raised, be wrong, and see it elevated. And also presume an outcome and be wro6.
There is no such thing as settled law. Roe is perpetually up for reconsideration, even if conventional wisdom assumes it won't be adjusted given specifics of ongoing arguments.
The post is conflating "certainly possible" with an expectation of revisitation. Ridiculous on the face of the question.
TimTuolomne
Level 9
Sep 27, 2020
2
@TheMiddleWay When she said that she was still an academic right? And she was talking about what she thought would happen or not with the current makeup of the court at that time or in the near future? If such was the case, then it really has nothing to do with what might happen with a very different court that no one expected to come about due to one president having three Supreme Courts Justice nominations in one term, two of which are replacing pro Roe v Wade judges. Just a thought. I've given up trying to predict what Republican appointed Justices will or won't do when actually on the bench.
Besides, I think overturning that ruling from 1973 would in the long run undermine the SC as a whole. Meaning, no ruling they give from there on out would carry any true meaning if later on any said decisions could simply be overturned, and that would potentially affect many other issues besides abortion. In other words... once the SC rules on an issue that ruling should stand, to do otherwise would be the same as saying the prior ruling is subject to change later on, and that would ultimately undermine the SC as a whole.
SpikeTalon
Level 10
Sep 27, 2020
0
@TheMiddleWay Generally speaking when a law/issue has been ruled on, I think the original ruling should stand unless there is strong evidence presented that human rights violations have occured. To do otherwise equates to saying that laws aren't that important if they could be done away with or altered later on.
"No law is set in stone, nor should it be", quote from your comment above. Really now? So... a law against committing murder should never be set in stone then? At the very least there are exceptions to what you stated above.
I certainly get you on the last part there, and no disagreements from me on that much. I concur with Barrett's assessment on the matter, Roe versus Wade at this point would be difficult to overturn and frankly not worth the effort being that so many states have strict regulations in place in regards to abortion procedures. So all in all I do mostly agree with the main point you brought up.
@TheMiddleWay Those examples are not classified as murder though.
I can't think of any good reason to challenge murder, assuming it would be determined such beyond any doubt, as muder is precisely that, murder. With that said I remain open minded to how any such cases could possibly be challenged otherwise.
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.