Much like a legislature claiming to have balanced the budget, beginning in year 2027, in 2018.
would like to see gay marriage overturned as well- and have the court overturn the ‘separation of church and state’ ‘endorsement’ law issued by activist SC judges-
Just keep thinking that.
LOL. You're right about that, Bradley. Keep telling your liberal audience that so we can see them cry and freak out. Its amusing to us on the Right.
CNN, you’re so out of touch and desperate. Sorta like Hitler in his bunker assigning non-existent divisions in the defense of Berlin. CNN=Crazy Nutty Nazis
This is just wishful thinking on the part of democrats.
They are hoping that something earthshaking happens by November to rescue them from their own ass-hatery.
They were pining their hopes on a nuclear attack by North Korea but President Trump foiled that.
Now they are hoping against hope that they can convince voters that a Trump SCOTUS appointee will somehow overturn Roe v Wade.
And they want to get it done in time to make their dream of a November Blue Wave come true.
But realistically, barring some sort of holocaust, Civil War-2, or muslim takeover of the government, Roe v Wade will never be overturned in its entirety.
Can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube...
doubtful it will sink him. it becomes a state issue again.
Yep, I remember when the Obamacare mandate was overturned by the court.
Roe V will not be overturned. And if you give a damn about unborn babies, you know that is not going to help any if it were overturned.
Abortion is here to stay, like rape and murder. There will always be people who kill their babies, mostly for convenience but also because they don’t want a baby with disabilities. It will never be performed in a dark alley with a coat hanger. People with medical degrees will perform them, and some will be your neighborhood obgyn, calling it a D&C following a miscarriage.
The way to make fewer abortions is hearts and minds, empowering young people to hold off on sex sometimes, strong ultrasound machines showing that beating heart 3 weeks post orgasm, and financial incentives to staying pregnant.
tyranny is 9 unelected justices forcing social-engineering schemes on the entire nation, and taking power away from the elected representatives of each state.
Roe V Wade has become the hill to die on for the left.
If a political party is destroyed over the issue it will be the Democrats.
If Roe WAS overturned it would mean the power to approve abortion goes back to the states.
I can assure Bradely Tusk - that with everything we know about New York State - abortion will be legal in that State before the ink's dry on a Supreme Court Ruling.
Abortion was legal in New York State years before Roe.
So like the typical liberal 'elites' everywhere Bradely's an effing liar.
If Roe's overturned liberals will still be able to kill their babies it'll just be a State by State decision...
The dims think we are stupid. Why would we bring a case to SCOTUS that may do that before 2020??
Key "may be". The end of the world "may be" his downfall. (But it isn't very likely to happen in 2020.)
Even if a New Supreme Court did overturn Roe before 2020, the law would revert to where it was prior to Roe -- ie, abortion was legal in some states and not in others. The big blue states where Trump is unpopular would keep it legal. The red Right to Life states (I'm not checking, but off the top of my head I'm guessing the number of states where the majority of voters favor Right to Life is close to 40) won't hold it against Trump.
Is there any case in the pipeline now that could lead to its overturn in the next 18 months?
What a stupid article
What idiots. If the Supremes overturn R v W, all that would happen is that abortion is ruled as not covered by the US Constitution, therefore the ability to deal with this horrible issue falls to each state.
Some commie states (like kalifornica) will allow killing children up to 5 years old and some will not allow any killing of any fetus at any time for any reason.
CNN is untrustworthy, but the overturning of Roe v Wade is not really on the horizon, in my opinion. John Roberts won’t go against stare decisis.
Does there have to be a certain amount of stability in law, so that judges can decide cases with some degree of confidence that they are following correct interpretations? Sure. Even religious denominations have doctrine.
But, what about something that is clearly a patchwork of political expediency such as Roe v Wade was back in the 70s? It is more an example of “tradition” than it is of “doctrine”. “We do it this way because we do it this way.” is the only explanation for Roe. They can’t say, “We do it this way because that’s the best interpretation of the text.”
RvW is not a law. It cannot be repealed or overturned. It can be declared invalid as a ‘decision’, since it’s not a written law.
It’s in the same category of “laws” as regulations. Regulations are imposed, depending on the wishes of those in power at the moment. Same with RvW, since it was mostly a “decision” by an activist court, and activism is not the way to codify into law any rules or regulations.
If RvW needs to be turned into law, then, let there be a vote by congress to get it done, and then have the president sign the bill into law. My guess? Democrats FEAR getting RvW into bill form, because, it won’t ever be passed.
Most people think that abolishing Roe V Wade equals the abolishing abortion. All it means is that the Federal Government is not in charge of abortion any longer. Which they should have never had authority in the first place. Just like they should not be in charge of Healthcare. The states will now be in charge of this.