Well, Roe has snuffed out about fifty million human lives, so, yes, it is a super precedent.
In college, we were taught, according to the Uniform Commercial Code, that if you are liable for killing a farmer’s cow that is pregnant, you must pay for the cow and her unborn calf.
But DOMA wasn’t a ‘super-precedent’ right, DiFi and Gorsuch?
It concerns me that Gorsuch only referenced the Heller decision as the law of the land when talking about gun rights. No mention of the second amendment.
I took it to mean that he would consider Roe as the law of the land and not consider overturning it.
Thoughts?
Notice that all unusual and divisive issues are women driven.
Liquor, smoking, abortion, anti-gun, gay marriage, contraception...
The gay marriage ruling (”super precedent”) was pretty simple and clear - sexual orientation is under the 14th amendment.
If I remember right, Roe was not simple. (I’m not a lawyer but re-read it a few months ago) They talked about 1st, 2nd, 3rd trimesters and viability and left open the possibility of late term restrictions except in case of the life of the mother. No decisions since have closed the door on late term restrictions - only on the specific laws that have been written to overturn Roe or add restrictions.
Democrats want to claim that ALL abortions fall into the Roe decision on early abortions (it’s a settled “super precedent”). I don’t know why Republicans don’t talk about the uncertainties and potential for restrictions in Roe after viability. My guess is that they want an absolute decision (overturn all of Roe) as much as the Democrats want absolute decision (all abortions legal).
A different decision from the same day as Roe, Doe v. Bolton, is what actually says that pretty much any doctor can decide an abortion is appropriate at any time in pregnancy for any reason they can dream up (e.g. “the financial responsibilities of a child could cause the women mental pain and suffering”). That’s the one that needs to be changed for late term abortions. But it’s pretty vague so hardly a “super precedent” from my layman’s point of view.
I think she stole that “super precedent” term from Arlen Specter, many years ago. Legal-political mumbo jumbo. Clear sign of liars who lie.
What a dumb thought.
Roe was written without clear textual support from the Constitution. If anything, it would be the opposite of a super-precedent; more of a torn facial tissue ruling than a precedent.
2Chron. 18:21 -
“And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his (Ahab) prophets. And the LORD said, You shall entice him, and you shall also prevail: go out, and do even so.”
Another take on if we are required to play by the rules when the wicked seek to use our honesty for evil purposes.
For democrats it is always about the children.
Kill the children that is.
Another doddering octogenarian ruler showing off the massive loss of brain cells.
“unusual and divisive issues are women driven.”
I bring this up often and even some conservative woman do not like the criticism because of the inference that millions of women have destroyed and will continue to destroy this country by shredding the Constitution by being a woman first and American second. Of course it is also brought up that I don’t want women to vote which is ludicrous. Men are not off the hook because they have their own issues because “Pajama boy” is just as bad.
Ever wonder why the football superstar, T.J. Watt, insists on using his middle initial? That’s what Diane Feinstein is. TJWatt minus the “J.”
She is, after all, that much of a doddering old fool.