Actually, I find some of his statements in this interview extremely disappointing.
He goes over a line when he says that, yes, life begins at conception but, no, it’s wrong for states to have laws against abortion.
Very disappointing. This is more than just saying that he thinks that pressing for a constitutional amendment is inadvisable.
I think he needs to revisit this subject, pronto, or he is COOKED.
It should be overturned.
It should be returned to the states.
People should decide, not by judicial fiat.
That's Federalism in it's purist form. Decision by the PEOPLE, not the courts. To try and get an Amendment or modification to an existing amendment, you still need a majority in the House and Senate AND a number of the states for ratification.
It's not going to happen. The critters in Congress will not support it and there won't be a majority of the states to ratify it.
The BEST we can do is get Constructionist judges on the SCOTUS, the right case to bring to it, overturn RvW and send it back to the States to decide.....WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE BEGINING.
Now, if you've had ANY dealings with State government, you will find it is far easier to create and modify existing state laws than it is Federal law.
The best opportunity is to convince the local citizens of the rightness of banning abortion, which is far easier than getting the Federal legislation support.
This is the simplest way of explaining to the great unwashed here at FR how to go about getting RvW overturned.It's not an overnight process, it's a gradual piece by piece dismantling of the decision that the SCOTUS rendered incorrectly.
He rang the bell. I don’t think he appreciated the ‘consistent conservative’ many voters were looking for.