Posted on 05/07/2022 10:30:50 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
On Friday’s “PBS NewsHour,” New York Times columnist David Brooks argued that Roe v. Wade was always a “fragile” ruling and pointed out that former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed similar concerns about the decision back in 1992. Brooks also argued that it was always a risky proposition to hang abortion’s legality on the Roe decision and it’s important to note that there is a difference between arguing abortion is a constitutional right and arguing for its legality as a matter of policy.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
“Fragile” as in “Unconstitutional”
It is obvious, but it is at least marginally useful to have a CINO like Brooks say it.
It should be said on all talk shows: Ginsburg would have voted against Roe. No proof but this is what the left does. Two can play this game.
Fragile because it was a complete and utter unconstitutional ruling.
Just the perfect example of legislating from the Bench.
Roe ‘Was Fragile’ because it was utterly unconstitutional and corrupt, becoming moldy and decayed almost immediately.
And that’s one of the things that’s making the lunatic left completely unhinged....their “saint” Ruth predicted it wouldn’t last
Great philosopher Brooks asks: “...there are two separate issues here: Should abortion be a right that people get to enjoy?” Enjoy and abortion in one sentence....
Agree, better to have a CINO with mainstream-media credibility say it, to create a new frontier in the conversation on this issue.
The idea that you can kill someone in “private” is about as sick as it gets.
And we let morons like the nine Supremes have the final say on all aspects of our lives?
There’s got to be a better way.
Even she admitted it. #AbortionRuth
“Fragile” as in “Major Constitutional Scandal” works too imo.
“3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition [emphasis added].” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
Trump's red tsunami of patriot supporters are also reminded that they need to peacefully exercise their voting power to effectively make Section 3 of the 14th Amendment work to fire very corrupt, alleged election-ignoring, elite Democratic and RINO federal and state career elected government leaders in the 2022 midterm elections, replacing them with Trump-endorsed patriots, since Congress cannot be trusted to do its job to make Section 3 work.
"14th Amendment, Section 3: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof [emphases added]. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
The Supreme Court exceeded its authority with Roe vs. Wade, just as it did on the issue with gay marriage. Those are state decisions since they are not part of the federal constitution.
He saw the internal polling.
How dare brooks intimate Notorious rbg might have questioned the ruling. He’ll be in trouble now.
I disagree. Ginsburg would have filed an opinion concurring in the result, but dissenting in the reasoning. She wanted to get to the same place via the 14th Amendment. If she’d been on the court in place of one of the majority the case would have had the same result
But at least Corpseburg’s Supreme Court seat was more important to her than Roe v Wade, thank The Lord.
JMO, YMMV
That is correct.
Ginsburg was rabidly pro-abortion and wanted a decision enshrining a right to kill babies to be written based on her ideology.
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.