Posted on 07/03/2018 8:11:36 AM PDT by DWW1990
Theres precedent and then theres precedent. It seems for Maines Senator Susan Collinswhos never been considered a conservative and is the very definition of a RINOprecedent is everything, except when it isnt. According to Townhall recently,
Maine's moderate Republican Senator Susan Collins told CNN's Jake Tapper today that she would not be supporting a Supreme Court nominee who has demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because, in her mind, that would be a justice who does not respect established precedent.
As most today well know, much of what modern liberals hold dear was achieved because of the efforts of rogue judges who happened to find in the U.S. Constitution what had so long escaped so many others (because, of course, it was never really there). Liberals look at the Constitution like an NBA referee: based on whos playing the game, the rules are changed. Of course, liberals wouldnt describe it as such; they simply justify this foolish mental and moral gymnastics by claiming a living Constitution.
As the late, great Justice Antonin Scaliawho repeatedly stood against such nonsensesaid, the Constitution is not an organism, it is a legal document
(it) is an enduring document but not a living one, and its meaning must be protected and not repeatedly altered to suit the whims of society.
And once liberals magically find a right in the Constitutionand thus, make lawwere supposed to revere said law because of precedent. How absurd. If precedent really mattered to anyone with a sound legal and moral mind, Obergefell v. Hodges wouldve been laughed out of the courtroom in 30 seconds
(Excerpt) Read more at trevorgrantthomas.com ...
No matter how things “seem” to change, the basics seem to stay the same. At least the ancient Canaanites and Israelites sacrificed babies to a supposed god, even though we know it to be a false god. Our abortion in modern times is simply a human sacrifice to “self” . . . the god of ME. How dare that “fetus” interfere with living my life like I want to? To me, that makes it even worse.
Thank you. That was a good read.
Baby killer.
How can liberals refer to Rowe v Wade as “the law of the land”? It wasn’t a law passed by congress and signed by a president, was it? If anything, its a precedent. An interpretation made up of whole cloth, so to speak. As such, until it’s codified, a future court can overturn it. The Civil Rights Act codified all men are created equal. Democraps have had ample opportunities to codify the right to choose, but, like amnesty, open borders, and climate change, when they had their majorities, they conveniently didn’t. In Obama’s case, he was too busy partying, golfing, and vacationing. The Democrats are about to find out Rowe v Wade is not the law of the land, and murder, inc is out of business.
Roe vs. Wade stretches any reasonable person's credulity to be asked to believe in this convolution which passes for reasoning. It gives rationalizing a bad name.
If a law student and submitted this argument on a paper, his professor would not give a passing grade.
Ask Collins if she thinks Plessy vs Ferguson should be overturned.
Those who make law via the courts, can have it taken away via the courts. I certainly hope you’re right about Roe v. Wade.
Roe v. Wade is a legal obscenity that allows a moral obscenity.
Demonicrats are ALL about reversing precedent. What the heck are they talking about?
A good turn, but I would much rather a constitutional amendment be enacted. Otherwise, the next leftist Supreme Court majority will just reverse the overturned decisions.
I mean, come on! We were PROMISED such an amendment in the event that courts got out of control.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.