That's exactly right. You do realize that R v W was decided on a law in Texas and an activist court ruled that Texas law was unconstitutional and therefore all state abortion laws were unconstitutional? That was a direct abridging of the constitutional protections of the 10th amendment. For a conservative activist court to overturn R v W without sending it back to the states then it would be guilty of the same damned thing. That has been Bush's "litmus test" all along. Not a court that slashes and burns "liberal courts" past decisions but places the interpretations of constitutionality back within the parameters of the constitution as it reads today NOT how it read before the ink was dry. Much of the judicial activism we see today is a direct results of several subsequent amendments far after the original. To actually get back to "original intent" then we have to repeal at least half of the constitutional amendments in place now.
And you do realize that without a moralistic backdrop to serve as the foundation on which the constitution was written it is worthless? That is self evident, right? The constitution is not capable of directly addressing all of lifes evils and usurptations of power, right? There is some higher more comprehensive all encompassing law...right? Otherwise we'd all be dancin' Between the lines...right?
Wow...kinda where we are today! It's just a blob of tissue....it's all relative to what you think....no biggie.....except for that blob of tissue with 10 fingers, 10 toes, a beating heart and functioning brain with complete human dna....to him or her it's relative too....and pretty damn personal.
Texasforever...meet the all encompassing law that should guide your morals. It's God's word.
Your lost and dancin' between the lines without it....and doomed. Don't drag your children and their's along. Christ alone is your guide.
And you do realize that without a moralistic backdrop to serve as the foundation on which the constitution was written.... it is worthless? That is self evident, right? The constitution is not capable of directly addressing all of lifes evils and usurptations of power, right? Not even reams and volumes of federal and state statutes can cover all of life's choices. There is some higher more comprehensive all encompassing law...right? Otherwise we'd all be dancin' Between the lines...right?
Wow...kinda where we are today!
It's just a blob of tissue....it's all relative to what you think....no biggie.....except for that blob of tissue with 10 fingers, 10 toes, a beating heart and functioning brain with complete human dna....to him or her it's relative too....and pretty damn personal.
Texasforever...meet the all encompassing law that should guide your morals. It's God's word.
Your lost and dancin' between the lines without it....and doomed. Don't drag your children and their's along. Christ alone is your guide.
I think the current court reconstituted around SOC and Rehnquist will not revisit RvW unless tried up as you say which really is a formality but if they revisit it the question of viablity will be paramount.
And in that regard the question of the previous decision could protect life at the federal level in a way that hasn't been expressed before.
In other words, the federal gubmint may extend protection to the unborn and define life for the first time. Overall, not a bad thing in my book.
How do you feel about Gonzales?