Posted on 10/05/2020 12:36:09 PM PDT by Kaslin
Excellent point.
You are absolutely right. We could never count on any of the justices appointed by republican presidents to vote to overturn it.
And how has that been working out?
Given an infinite amount of time, we may be able to convince our fellow Americans that abortion is murder. In the meantime, we have a body count of over 60 million; it's a number that would make a Nazi blush. And it grows by some four thousand a DAY.
Could we eventually prevail? Perhaps. After almost fifty years, would Divine Justice continue to demonstrate such patience with us? I find it almost impossible to believe.
Saint Scalia understood that the Constitution trumps any past court decisions and I believe that his protégé, Amy Coney Barrett, understands that too.
She said that their judicial philosophies are the same:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/26/amy-coney-barrett-pays-homage-to-mentor-antonin-scalia.html
Propose a better route.
Imagine that John, a good man, has a baby daughter who he loves and wants to protect.
However, the Supreme Court declares that anyone who wants to can legally kill John’s baby daughter.
Would you tell John to wait for incremental and generational change?
OR
Would you understand why John demands that it immediately be against the law for anyone to kill his baby daughter?
They've been pretty effective at getting their way on, well, just about everything for the past six months.
If our government is such that the citizenry is incapable of protecting the most innocent and vulnerable of its fellow Americans through the political process put forward by the Founding Fathers, then the flaw in the nation's founding is such that it's not worth saving.
Is that "heresy" here? Probably. But we should all keep in mind that there were never any promises made as to where this experiment in democracy was going to end up; Benjamin Franklin was pretty clear that the Republic would only survive "if (we) could keep it".
This is ridiculous, it doesn’t even I’m close to what’s needed to reverse Roe. If Barrett gets confirmed, that would be three votes to end well. Assuming she would do that. possibly for if John Roberts went back to his normal self.
The problem is the naked assertion of power to enact legislation without the involvement of the legislature, or the people.
If it’s bad law (and it is) it should go.
My apologies.
I should have been more specific.
Propose a route other than mob violence.
The problem with Rue vs. Wade is the systemic murder of millions of innocent little preborn babies.
But the idea of working for "incremental and generational" change strikes one as being terribly absurd. (It would make as much sense as handing out water bottles at train stations throughout Eastern Europe 80 years ago and assuring the Jews crammed inside the train cars that you thought that eventually, you could convince the Nazis that what they deemed to be Untermenschen were, in fact, really human beings (and that you just needed more time).)
I agree with that completely.
It should be up to the states. We have gotten so far away from states rights it awful. The federal government needs to get out of 90 percent of what it sticks its nose into.
Roe v Wade was wrong, but it’s not a law.
But we can dream.
That is as it should be.
IF the Federal Courts won’t extend Fifth Amendment protections (”...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”) to the unborn, then the issue is for the States and People to resolve.
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.