Posted on 12/01/2021 7:04:04 AM PST by Cboldt
To her, rights are selective and flexible depending on application.
I am having trouble reading Roberts. He seems to be asking the solicitor to make a very focused argument, so focused it that may not apply.
Gorsuch seems friendly.
Barrett saying that this case is mostly about Stare Decisis. Her question isn’t necessary friendly.
Hush Republican. She is unqualified in every way. Abortionists deserve zero respect.
Indeed.
Viability means nothing at all when a baby can be murdered after it exits the birth canal and can be aborted outside the womb - including leaving it in a drawer to starve to death.
The liberals lean heavily on stare decisis for outcomes they prefer, and I think it is correct to view overcoming the error of ROE and its progeny as turning on stare decisis.
Reading between the lines, I’m thinking he may be thinking removing of viability as a standard, but keeping a reworked “undue burden” standard.
Keep in mind that all of the lower courts held viability was the absolute line and that no regulation before viability was valid.
Roberts may be thinking about removing that line, and then reworking the undue burden standard of Casey. That would be classic Roberts of trying to play the middle ground.
The Founders IMO mislabeled it a mistake calling it the ‘Supreme’ Court. For only our Supreme Being , God Almighty has His Supreme Court in Heaven. Flawed and corrupted humanity can never be Supreme. Look at all those past and present black robed hacks giving us unwise rulings. Call it the Primary Court or some such but not Supreme because in eternity it doesn’t have the final say.
Pro-abortion attorney making an argument based on equality. Thomas leads with case about a woman ingesting cocaine while pregnant, and she responded that there can be no criminal child neglect. Does a pregnant mother have the right to ingest cocaine pre-viability. She dodged the question. This could be a significant argument going forward.
So far, I’m very confident that we have Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas on our side.
Kavanaugh hasn’t spoke yet.
Roberts seems to be leaning toward removing viability as a controlling standard, but may be considering keeping “undue burden.”
Barrett is hard to read.
Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer are clearly against us.
We need two of Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett.
Roberts just gave the pro-abortion attorney a soft-ball question about whether a change from viability to 15 weeks would harm women.
You don’t have to like the judge to apply proper decorum in court. There’s nothing wrong with displaying respect for our judicial branch of government.
Don't rely on Roberts.
Robert’s question is clearly geared toward removing viability as a standard.
I do think he’s trying to strike some type of “middle ground.”
The label “Supreme” had been around before, and likely states had then, as they do now, “Supreme” courts.
https://usconstitution.net/articles.html <- Articles of Confederation
The basic problem with ours is rooted in it being a tool of the devil. It, as a deliberative body, seeks not guidance from the Almighty Creator.
This is an issue with law in general. It is arrogant to the point of being blind.
He might be arguing for that. He just brought in a comparison to China and North Korea within a larger global standard. However, he doesn't seem to push the point and is allowing the attorney to counter it.
Barrett is trying to get a distinction between the “burdens of pregnancy” and the “burdens of parenting” by bring in Safe haven Baby Drop-off.
"Rights" apply to ALL people, not just one specific sex. Where is the equitable application empowering men to exercise their Constitutional right to abortion by disclaiming their parentage? In lieu of requiring a dead body, it would seem to be a fair accommodation to forbid women from forcing men to become parents against their will.
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.