As she stated it, she is absolutely correct. “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.”
Using a religious standard as a basis to make law is unConstitutional. It’s commonly called separation of Church and State. That’s what she’s saying, and she is correct. What would have clarified her position would have been if she had added, “If Republicans were to say they are going to return such court decisions back to the states where they belong, THAT would be Constitutional because it is an action based on the Constitution, not an activist SCOTUS decision.
It would appear that Tomi is a good bit smarter than most of the people jerking their knees.
If Roe was overturned, each state would get to set its own policy, as they could and did before 1973.
No one favors eliminating contraceptives, punishing women or curtailing their reproductive decisions.
Most Americans want the unborn protected in our laws and protecting is a fundamental value of society.
Liberals think Americans who disagree with them want an anti-dystopia out of The Handmaid’s Tale. Nothing could be further from the truth.
And this is a deeply felt issue that Roe simply didn’t settle.
You need to wake up and smell the coffee, sister.
Hardly knee jerking, IMO.
The woman at Fox makes the mistake of assuming Roe v Wade is a litmus test for all conservatives, and it isn’t.
Though as clearly seen, it IS indeed a “single voter issue” for the Left, who would not only willingly throw all their eggs in that basket, but would throw all their eggs in that basket because it is their PLAN. (Because that is the way they do business on the Left)
Most (though not all) Conservatives I know would be just fine with a nominee who states they are not going to “go after” Roe v Wade, but will consider the Constitutional merits of any case that comes up that could potentially overturn it.
After all, what more can we ask? We want things considered in the framework of the Constitution, not on the basis of ideological or personal standing.
And we, as conservatives, are safe having that on our side, because we UNIVERSALLY want what the Constitution enumerates.
The Left doesn’t. It is that simple.
Perhaps we should rid the law of every crime with an obviously religious antecedent. Crimes like murder, theft, perjury. After all, they’re all part of the “guaranteed” right to privacy under the Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, aren’t they—even if they’re not committed exclusively in the home? Why not? The logic is identical.
Logic, however, appears nowhere in the Roe majority opinion. The justification for its repeal lies solely in its utter wrongheadedness and overreach (ask Justice Ginsberg), not in its defiance of natural or religious law (although it obviously violates both).
The “judicial activism” occurred with the Court’s ridiculous ‘73 decision. Returning to the status quo prior to Roe cannot then also be deemed judicial activism. Lahren is wrong on the facts and the logic.
I think this is more about right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness than religion.
The problem is, that Toni thinks all people who are against abortion are,because of religion. That is not the case.
Most people I know who are against abortion don’t go to church. They do know the difference between right and wrong.
Nice "smear-n-run" there, buddy....