Posted on 07/11/2018 4:13:58 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Tomi Lahren began her appearance on Fox and Friends this morning by saying she wanted to “clarify” her statements in which she argued against overturning Roe v. Wade. Instead, Lahren doubled down, adding fuel to the fire by saying that conservatives who want to go after Roe “might as well spit on the Constitution.” Said Lahren:
“My problem is with some of my fellow conservatives who have put it out there that we are, quote: “coming for Roe v. Wade. That is a mistake, because we are putting it out there and implying that we are sending a justice to the bench to carry out religious judicial activism which is a mistake and it’s unconstitutional. And if we as conservatives are going to imply that, if that’s going to be our messaging, we might as well spit on the Constitution.”
Get the rest of the story and view the video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at finkelblogger.com ...
Oh, Tomi, Roe v. Wade WAS judicial activism. It wasn’t enough for them to strike down the law in question, but then the court imposed a three-trimester system as to what level restrictions would be permissible in which trimester. This sounds like kritarchy (rule by judges) to me.
She seems pretty shallow.
Maybe she's worried about a little ‘accident’ interfering with her ‘career.
I used to get her confused with Liz Wheeler of OANN. She is a fierce conservative.
Mincing words, IMHO. The problem here is that SCOTUS is not absolute on this and admits as much in its own decision. Congress failed to act for reasons we could debate ad nauseam, but are patently-obvious: It’s a great political argument.
One interpretation of the decision is as follows:
The Court agreed with Roe and held that “the right to privacy includes the abortion decision.” The Court emphasized that abortion rights were not absolute. “The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy…[I]t is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved.” States could not ban abortion during the first trimester, but as pregnancy progressed, the Court held, the state’s interest in protecting life could begin to outweigh the woman’s liberty. Therefore states could restrict the procedure later in pregnancy.
I find no fault with that interpretation, but I do have a problem: Deifying RvW has hamstrung the ability of the States to regulate abortion as prescribed by RvW. The fault of the Court was multi-faceted in denying rights to the fetus while ascribing a fictional right as a result of a biased interpretation of the definition of “life”. That definition can be clarified for the States by Congress and override certain elements of RvW, in particular the fictional “right” to abortion, an over-broad term which requires redefining.
Simply, RvW is defective in form simply because you cannot grant a right not guaranteed by the Constitution on the basis of a narrow set of rules which usurp said “right”.
A direct analogy would be restricting 1A rights of religion as follows:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, except for those not worshiping God.”
That’s equivalent to SCOTUS defining life during the 1st trimester for the purpose of their assigned “right”: Who defines what is God?
Congress could easily have addressed this pathetic, tragic abomination of Judicial malfeasance decades ago; they chose not to do so in the name of stoking political divide.
How’s that working out for everyone? 2 extremes do not make a right or a wrong; they only make for perpetual conflict...
...a tragic stalemate on this battle front where the only real casualties are the only ones who, ironically, have no rights in this country whatsoever.
It wasn’t until Dec. 1973, ironically, before the first process was perfected which led to the “personal pregnancy test”. We are in a new era, which includes the “morning after pill”. Lack of personal responsibility has piled upon bad decisions leading to histrionic emotional outcry to justify deifying RvW and its defective premise at the expense of innocents, all due to lack of action on one group of people:
Thanks for nothing, Congress.
And no, I’m not wading into the ‘activist Court’ debate...other than to state that SCOTUS should have “interpreted” the Constitution and laid this at the feet of Congress.
.02
She might have, had that not been a decade before she was born.
Tomi Lahren is empty headed eye candy. No one should be looking for wisdom from this bleached blonde oracle.
Harry Blackmun and 6 other justices spat on the Constitution with the Roe vs Wade decision. Here is why.
There is no wording in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights having to do with abortion. (See Amendment 10 below). At the time when Roe vs. Wade was enacted, 48 States had restrictions on abortion. One State had partial restrictions and one State had free access to abortion.
10th AMENDMENT
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
11TH AMENDMENT
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
This is indicative of her generation, and the effect of academia and media.
From a different angle. . No one knows when we are endowed with our rights by God, immediately after conception or after birth. My point is simply that because the Constitution recognizes that life is precious and has the mission to “secure” the “blessings” of liberty, then it is in the interest of society and thus, for the Constitution, to err on the side of assuming life and that inalienable rights are endowed at conception. An abortion “right,” therefore, is antithetical to the Constitution.
You make a valid point for sure.
I am in agreement with you, and I bet most other people would be as well.
I hope you’re right.
And none of my buddies are too stupid to understand simple facts and mischaracterize people’s positions. Pointing out “separation of church and state” and how it relates to Tomi’s comment is NOT advocating infanticide.
Never mind. Go get your mom to explain it.
You are so right. I am looking for a place where I can click “Like” with hearts and flowers!
Which States would that be that had legal abortion prior to Roe?
Fox Nation is coming soon: your favorite personalities, outspoken opinions, exclusive shows and no-holds-barred conversation. Click here to sign up and stay informed! https://t.co/TqvTLY2hRN pic.twitter.com/pf0nDqm3ht— Fox Nation (@foxnation) July 9, 2018
Tomi Lahren is an idiot.
The Roe and Casey decisions went against the Constituion.
Overturning them is respecting the Constitution.
There is no point to a GOP that allows babies to be murdered.
Abortion law authorizes women to kill men’s daughters and sons over the objections of the men.
Do you want to save some or none?
All.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.