Sure, the appeals courts are brimming over with challenges. These challenges are normal and have yet to work their way though.
That brings us back to the Supreme Court.
You know, that any judge who has uttered in public any opinion about Roe, will not get through the Congress. So, forgetaboutit!
We need judges! Not friggin activists.
Drop the pretenses and just say that you want advocate activists on the court.
That is what you want, but it will not happen.
Spector is right about that. It might be the only thing he is right about.
Dear Cold Heat,
"Sure, the appeals courts are brimming over with challenges. These challenges are normal and have yet to work their way though."
Plenty of challenges have already made their way to the Supreme Court.
Some very minor forms of regulation of abortion (parental notification with judicial bypass, minor waiting periods, and informed consent come to mind) have been permitted.
No real restriction of abortion has been permitted.
Including Nebraska's ban on partial birth abortion. Ruled not allowable under Roe.
But, wait, northward of 70% of folks want a ban on partial birth abortion! How can that be?? Huge majorities of folks want something not permitted under Roe!! How is that possible??
LOL.
As for activist judges, if we wanted activist judges, we'd want folks who would go beyond overturning Roe to enunciating that abortion itself is a constitutional violation, and must be banned forthwith.
But that is not what we seek. We seek that judges will read themselves OUT of the debate, and turn the matter back over to the political process, the legislative process.
Why do you fear that result? Afraid that people might support more restrictions than you'd like?
sitetest