Collins says she wants a Justice who "respects precedent."
Somebody needs to ask Collins the following:
Do you believe that a Congress can bind a future Congress? In other words, can this Congress pass a law that forbids a future Congress from changing it?If not, then why do you believe that the Supreme Court can make a ruling that forbids a future court from changing it?
The Framers didn't make a Constitution that could not be changed in the future. The President cannot issue executive orders that can't be changed in the future. Congress cannot pass a law that cannot be changed in the future. So why do you think that the Supreme Court is the only body that must be bound in the future?
-PJ
You’re so cute - using logic on a female legislator, expecting accountability.
That’s precious.
It’s easy - who ever 45 picks goes up there and says, “I believe in stare decisis.”
There you go. Done.
What’s she going to do?
As for Roe v. Wade - whatever. Best you can do is through it to the states again, which is entirely appropriate. Laboratories of democracy.
The way it has to happen is for a state like Alabama or Utah to jump up and say, “We’re banning abortion in almost every case but a few (rape and medical necessity)”
Somebody will complain, and it will go to the SCOTUS. They’ll uphold it in Utah.
Nevada, however, will pop up and say, “We’re soulless - come to Las Vegas and whack out your flesh and blood - then gamble!”
Nevada will do huge business in killing kids.
There you go.
“But I’m pregnant, and can’t afford to go to Nevada.”
OK, then have the baby and put it up for adoption. Think of it as a 9 month biological probationary period for not having a goalie in front of the net. Side benefit, you’ll likely be able to have kids when you are older and less stupid. Oh, and you won’t have a murdered child on your conscious. Oh, and a kid gets the chance to grow up and be something.
Everybody wins.
Precedent for centuries was....abortion is unlawful...and murder of a human being.