That's clear from the post I responded to. This 'all we need are officers who will follow the Constitution' stuff. The implication is clear. RvW can stand.
Well, that proves his argument is a straw dog for sure. Palin is terrible because she's not pro-life (even though she claims to be). Yet, we don't need no Constitutional amendment. Let the law stand. We just need people who'll follow the Constitution. So what if there's a law in place for years that makes abortion legal. Who cares? It's really all about Palin, nothing about abortion.
As I wrote; delusional. Oh, I forgot, and biased to the core.
Wow. What a twisting of everything I’ve said.
And still, not a single Palin supporter can explain what other unalienable rights the states can “decide,” other than the right to live, of course.
On what basis would you “overturn Roe”? Make your argument.