She’s “pro-life” in exactly the same way that Stephen A. Douglas was “anti-slavery.” Personally against it, thought it was bad, but thought the states could allow it if they wanted.
Clarification is fine. Go for it. But don’t tell me I have to meet the high hurdle of amending a Constitution whose highest purpose has always been the equal protection of the God-given, unalienable rights of the people.
I could care less about “overturning Roe,” in the same way I could care less about “overturning” Dred Scott. It’s ancient history of bad judging. But it isn’t the law of the land. The Constitution is.
“No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
All we need are officers of government who will follow the Constitution. And as this supreme matter demonstrates, Sarah Palin isn’t one who is committed to doing that.
Oh, so you 'could care less'? That means you care. Yet your argument states just the opposite. Which is it?
Methinks you meant that you "couldn't care less"...
Actually, Roe V. Wade is the LAW OF THE LAND as it now stands. So, to say that all we need are officers who will follow the Constitution is both simplistic and delusional.
RvW must be overturned. Let it go back to the states. Then, let the people work within their states to have abortion nullified across the land. It will take years, nay decades. But it will happen. But, I'm no longer sure you care whether that happens or not. You don't want to lose an issue you can use to beat someone over the head whom you don't like.
Do you believe your wrangling trumps the saving of lives? The simple overturning of Roe would do that. As you know the SCOTUS can reverse prior decisions. That is within their Constitutional powers is it not?