[fireman15]

That is, until he appoints his conservative judges. Right now he just has greater priorities to deal with. He can deal with the filthy rump riders later. The interviewer was baiting him.

That is exactly what I was thinking. He said in the last debate that the judges he was planning on appointing would reverse Row v Wade. It is not much of a reach to think that they would also overturn this nonsense as well. So why stir them all up?

[chaosagent]

That is exactly what I was thinking. He said in the last debate that the judges he was planning on appointing would reverse Row v Wade. It is not much of a reach to think that they would also overturn this nonsense as well.

---

Roe v Wade is one thing. You just stop it. But as much as I’m against the same-sex marriage thing, do you really thing that the government is going to ‘un-marry’ tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of couples.

And let’s say they grandfathered in the ones already married, then you’ve got the whole ‘unequal treatment under the law’ thing. Some gays can be married, some can’t.

Unfortunately I think the cat’s out of the bag on this one and Trump is right.

[ZULU]

Correct.

[JediJones]

There is a chance a SCOTUS justice would overturn Roe but keep same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage at least has some basis in stretching the “equal protection” clause of the 14th. But even Ginsburg admitted the Roe decision had no basis in the Constitution whatsoever.