Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: L,TOWM
What do you mean, "we"?

Roe v. Wade won't change. It had and has major political support. There is no way President Bush will let that fight start again. Trying to start it up will lose and the losers will suffer, just as Kerry did for bringing the Vietnam War back up as an issue. Try to win it all and you'll lose it all.

But it is possible to keep things like Roe v. Wade from happening again. Given the existing federal bench, that means leadership, and leaders don't get much better than Guliani.

163 posted on 11/09/2004 3:15:20 PM PST by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies ]


To: Thud
Roe v. Wade won't change."""

Yes it will, incrementally as a reconstituted court permits states to place regulations, rollbacks and restrictions on abortions within their borders.

181 posted on 11/09/2004 3:19:54 PM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies ]

To: Thud

"We" being defined as the people that believe it is wrong for the fedgov to prohibit states from outlawing people paying money to murder unborn babies.

You know, people that actually have some decency.

You apparently did'nt read or comprehend my post. Roe v. Wade was bad law. Only the court can reverse it. A strict constructionist position would have the contract killing of the unborn regulated or permitted by individual states. Common criminal law is not a federal matter.

No need to fight the battle politically. Just get enough people on the court to reverse bad law. Dred Scott was reversed, Plessy v. Ferguson was reversed, etc., etc.


208 posted on 11/09/2004 3:29:14 PM PST by L,TOWM (Time to take the kid gloves OFF, Mr. President...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies ]

To: Thud
But it is possible to keep things like Roe v. Wade from happening again.

Concur, and the other things I want to see are,

1. SCOTUS forced to take the Emerson RKBA/VAWA case, and

2. Overturning the Lawrence sodomy imbecility, Presser vs. Illinois, and Miller. And if they really want to pull the stinkweeds out by the roots, they need to revisit Cruikshank on the subject of what a "right" is under the Bill of Rights.

290 posted on 11/09/2004 4:17:56 PM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson