I don’t believe roe v wade has anything to do with it.
It’s all about getting Pres. Donald J Trump.
I have read arguments that this is really about the second amendment. RvW is simply the facade they project, because it is the most emotional issue.
I’m inclined to agree - the long game plan for dems is confiscation of firearms, so they can rule with impunity.
Well, I think the primary “problem” with Trump is that he really is pro-life and he chooses judges that are pro-life.
The Left wants to get Trump for that reason. Trump is a Nazi? Trump is racist? Trump is a homophobe? Trump hates women? Trump is Putin’s puppet? None of these silly accusations makes sense. But they are all cover for the Left to “get” Trump before he gets Roe overturned.
Kavanaugh, of course, is a concrete example of Trump’s “dangerous” pro-life views. So they very much need to “get” Kavanaugh. But the root of the “problem” is Trump.
I think everything we’ve seen since 2016 is really about Abortion. It seems to be the only thing the Left really cares about.
If I were to expand beyond abortion, I would also say that Trump and Kavanaugh support the Second Amendment, and gun control is probably the Number Two issue for the Left. This provides another reason to constantly attack Trump and (of course) Kavanaugh.
“I don’t believe roe v wade has anything to do with it.”
I think it’s more about getting their resistance groups lined up and thoroughly brainwashed, and techniques polished in order to take down our republic.
Roe is important because of 500 million political money from PP, Naral and their allies.
There is a lot tied up in this. Keep a GOP off the SCOTUS is just ONE angle. Being able to destroy ANY man with an accusation is also a goal. They have a lot of goals here. Watch “The Red Pill”, you will not be sorry you did.
I agree with you.Trump is showing the US what is possible.The Dems want to keep people stupid.
I humbly disagree.
As much as they have a white-hot seething hatred for Trump, Abortion is a religion to these people.
I agree.
Roe v Wade is the cover story and the rallying cry to gain support from those who might not bother if they knew the truth.
Yes it is about Trump. But IMHO it is deeper than that.
It's about power and democrats belief that only they should control America and Americans.
And at this time it is worse than usual because democrats see their hegemony and power slipping away as exemplified by the Trump defeat of their sainted Hillary.
In 2010 they were om top of the world with a democrat president, control of the House and Senate and a slightly left leaning Supreme Court.
They were able to steam-roller the entire nation with whatever globalist/socialist scam and cuckoo idea they had.
Remember Pelosi's circus parade at the passing of Obamacare?
Remember Obama's $800 billion "Stimulus" slush fund?
Remember their "Cash for Clunkers" and shutting down car dealerships.
Remember the Obama Airlift of $1.4 billion in cash to his fellow muslims in Iran?
Now it has all been lost and even their vaunted 2018 Blue Wave seems to be turning into a dribble.
So in a way, this is the hill they chose to die on.
And in their fanatical push to prevail they have stepped outside the bounds of cnivil behavior ad shown their true\ly evil character to the world.
Let's hope this really is the hill the globalist/socialist/democrat movement really does die on.
I think it’s more than roe v wade or Donald Trump. It’s about democrats’ fear of having too many SC justices who actually follow the constitution and rule of law. Democrats’ goal is to have enough liberal judges who aren’t afraid to twist the interpretation and change a law that they don’t like.
I don’t believe roe v wade has anything to do with it.
It’s all about getting Pres. Donald J Trump.”””
Yes- and also about the 2nd Amendment & our right to have guns.
I also think there is another hidden agenda item that the Dems are concerned about.
Obama got to be President because no one truly challenged his ELIGIBILITY status. We got stung for 8 years and we do not need an encore....
I believe that the clarification of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN eligibility status of ANY candidate will be coming up in front of the Supreme Court in the near future. I am basing this on the hard push the Dems are putting behind Kamala Harris for a Presidential candidate.
Kalama is NOT ELIGIBLE to be POTUS OR to hold any position that can succeed POTUS.
Both of her parents were born in other countries-—Jamaica and India. They came to the USA, met, married, and had Kamala. However , NEITHER was a citizen of the USA when Kamala was born. They became citizens about 5-6 years later. I understand that NATURAL BORN CITIZEN means that you are the USA born offspring of 2 parents who were BOTH AMERICAN CITIZENS at the time of that birth.
Obama was not NATURAL BORN, as his father was NOT an American citizen. BUT—Obama never got properly vetted by the DNC, led at that time by Howard Dean. Then Pelosi & others ‘assured & signed off’ on the idea that Obama was eligible. We were lied to and snookered from the start. Bill Clinton knew that Obama was NOT eligible. He tried to point it out to Kate Snow in Africa in 2008, but Snow never caught the hint. Clinton even repeated the phrase “IF he is eligible”.
After all that publicity, I don’t think that scam can be pulled off another time in the USA. There will be legal challenges when it arises again.
IMO, Kavanaugh will be very strong in supporting the eligibility of a President to be based upon the fact that BOTH parents MUST be USA citizens at the time of their child’s birth to have a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Kamala is NATIVE BORN, for having been born in the USA. She is an ANCHOR BABY-——She is NOT eligible to be President.
Kavanaugh is standing in the way of her becoming President, IMO.
All the Trump crazy of the last year mostly had to do with the Senate races in Nov.
The GOP was looking at a possible 8 State pickup.
Now thanks to the GOP-e, its probably closer to 4-5
‘It’s all about getting Pres. Donald J Trump.’
that, and keeping a Trump nominated male from replacing a liberal justice; Gorsuch replaced Scalia, so no net difference there...