[Charles Henrickson]

Short of an explicit constitutional amendement banning abortions in all states, what you would need then is five Supreme Court justices who would read the Constitution that way and rule on a relevant case and strike down all state laws permitting abortion--kind of the reverse of Roe v. Wade, in the other direction, a complete 180. Do you really think that's going to happen, regardless of who is the president for the next four years?

I'll be happy with just getting Roe v. Wade overturned and returning it to the states. That would be the biggest accomplishment we've had in the last 40 years. Then we can take it from there.

[EternalVigilance]

You act as if unconstitutional court opinions give the officers of the other branches a legitimate excuse to fail to do their own primary duty.

You’re displaying the symptoms of a full-blown case of judicial supremacism.

Which is anti-republican, and entirely unconstitutional.

Not an uncommon ailment in today’s Republican Party.

[EternalVigilance]

I ask again: Other than the supreme right, the right to live, which other God-given, unalienable rights of the people do you think states can alienate if they want?

[Tau Food]

Roe v. Wade demonstrates only that a Supreme Court is capable of producing evil. We knew that long before 1973. The fact remains, as spelled out in our Declaration of Independence, that the right to life is granted by God and not by government.

If a President Romney were to pack the Supreme Court with Mormons and that Supreme Court were to rule that the states must permit or even require polygamy, would you then feel that we would need an explicit constitutional amendment to restore morality?

Trust God, not the Supreme Court.