Posted on 09/01/2021 9:23:12 PM PDT by Az Joe
WASHINGTON, Sept 2 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to block a Texas ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, dealing a major blow to abortion rights and allowing a law prohibiting the vast majority of abortions in the state that took effect on Wednesday to remain in place.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Yet 4 murderous judges still thought murdering babies should be legal. The supreme court is broken.
“....women’s health....”? How about infants’ health?
Let the 10th Amendment sing. State rights, saving this country from those that would just ignore the constitution.
Re: 7;- Did you read the ruling?
Dad you read the ruling?
Did you read the ruling?
Did you read the ruling?
Did you read the ruling?
Sorry, all.
But the point is - how many posters actually READ the ruling before writing what Robert’s did or did not do?
If you read it, what was Robert’s reason for dissenting?
That Roberts guy really is a creep.
He just HAD to go with the Left “justices” didn’t he?
Depends. It preserves Roe v Wade’s precedent when there is a majority to overturn it.
I’m wrong. They didn’t refuse to hear case, only to enjoin Texas in the meantime.
It might be if we knew why Deep State did it...
Wow. justice pedophile is emphatic in urging that others’ votes don’t mean Roe v Wade is pushed aside and is madder than Hell at the majority. where was this outrage when SCOTUS refused to hear the Trump cases?
Yes, I did. In fact, I was up late waiting for this since the justices had yet to officially act on it after a day of the law of being in effect, so I knew it was likely to be juicy.
BTW, I read almost everything that comes out of SCOTUS, so pull that crap with someone else. I’m tired of the “fair and balanced” games you try to play. Sometimes they just don’t apply.
This forum doesn’t have an ignore button, but I will never reply to you again. On anything. Good day.
I think the incremental approach is best.
The 15-week law in MISS goes to the court this fall. Roberts agrees Casey is flawed ... undue burden, etc. How do you define an undue burden on a constitutional right?
Seems like the Obama dark cloud of illegal adoption over his head is still there
Good grief.
Your initial post was:
“No surprise scumbag Roberts was one of the four dissenters.”
and then after I asked posters what the reasons were for Robert’s dissent, you ignored that question. Completely. But your choice!
The knee jerk reactions by so many about Roberts regarding this case really does indicate that very few understand the reasons for his dissent. People can think Roberts is a squish (I do regarding many of his opinions) -and- try to understand his dissent.
And “polite and respectful” is more what I hope for on certain FR threads such as subjects like COVID-19, when threads sometimes devolve into FReepers on both sides hoping those on the other side get sick.
Re: ignore - thank you for explaining.
Okay, then where is the fix? It looks as if it got away. Is the Court going to reverse itself in some fashion?
What are you talking about?
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.