Posted on 05/15/2019 7:52:13 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Now here's a surprise. MSNBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos went on today's Morning Joe and flatly declared that Roe v. Wade is "ripe to be overturned" because "even if you are pro-choice, the right to privacy [upon which Roe was based] does not exist either in the history or the text of the Constitution." Cevallos also said that Roe "stands on a weak foundational basis."
[snip]
Joe Scarborough didn't express a personal opinion on Cevallos' statement. But he did note that back in law school, his "very progressive" constitutional law prof, while agreeing with Roe's conclusion, acknowledged that it was "a terribly written case, and its logic is baffling at times."
Get the rest of the story and view the video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
A hell-freezes-over moment on MSNBC.
Ping to Liberal Media Criticism list.
The problem is not unwanted babies. The problem is unwanted mothers.
Never should ahve happened in the first place. Murder is murder. It cannot be less.
The whole thing never needed to happen in the first place.
Poor Harry Blackmun was hard of hearing. Jane Roe was asking for “a woman’s right to SHOES”. He heard it wrong, and the rest is history.
What should be the punishment for a woman who has an abortion?
Abortion will be legal, based on a state by state basis.
The SCOTUS cannot make this a right.
There never has been a penumbric emanation of a right to privacy that somehow means abortion on demand. The muh Consachooshun is utterly silent on abortion. Lefty legal scholars quit defending the “reasoning” in Roe decades ago. Second year law students could wreck seasoned leftist Con-law professors on it. It’s just not in there.
Or in an abortion clinic, for that matter, which is the "privacy" right the Biden democrats were asserting then, and continue to defend today.
If you shake a little one and it dies...you go to prison. Like I said...murder is murder. Prison works for me. This has to stop.
But it appears that states are now challenging Roe...and that will create a snowball.
Agreed. Yet there’s not a Dem running for president who doesn’t say that “defending” Roe is of vital importance. They never give a legal analysis in defense, of course. Not necessary for liberals: it’s more important to believe the ‘right’ things.
I’m looking forward to Ginsburg assuming room temperature. Has anyone actually seen her lately? It would be great if the Donald gets to nominate a pro life judge in 2020. There is that gal from Alabama I think who is next in line.
I hope Graham skips the committee show trial and sends her nomination straight to the floor. A good reason is to avoid the abuse Kavanaugh took.
They want to scare the left to the polls.
NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY???????????????
*********************
Juat what does it mean, to whom, to be SECURE in your homes,papers,etc.???
Kinda like there’s no ifs, ands,or puts, in the right to bear arms!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
**********************************
Gunny G @PlanetWTF?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY???????????????
*********************
Juat what does it mean, to whom, to be SECURE in your homes,papers,etc.???
Kinda like there’s no ifs, ands,or puts, in the right to bear arms!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
**********************************
Gunny G @PlanetWTF?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Even the Alabama law only punishes the abortionist. I think that if people have the courage of their convictions, the woman would be punished, too.
The typical response is something along the lines, “it is such a stressful decision for women, they can’t be held responsible.” But that is patronizing and condescending. If a woman hires a hitman to kill someone, they are just as liable as the person who pulls the trigger. The same concept would apply here. I think most politicians worry that punishing the woman would be very unpopular, even with people who are generally pro-life.
Not sure what this guy is on about.
Roe V. Wade is about progressive judges finding “emanations and penumbras” in the Constitution - far-fetched and imagined rights produced from imagining intent and torturing the text to get a legal result they want.
Its about taking away from States the right to make basic decisions about public morality and behavior
It will never be stopped. Neither should it be the law of the land.
The best we can hope for imo is it be left up to individual States.
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.