Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Say-Hello-for-me:
Why do you think Roe v. Wade is about to be overturned? From my count there is only two judges on the Supreme Court who want to overturn Roe. Almost all the judges were appointed by pro-life Republicans. So what makes you think that future judges appointed by Pro-Life Republicans will want to overturn Roe (especially with a Pro-Choice head of the judiciary committee). And that is even assuming the next three judges will be apointed by a Pro-Life Republican. In addition, according to the Christian Science Monitor, GOP appointed judges control 10 out of 13 appeals courts. None of the appeals courts seem to be chomping at the bit to overturn Roe.
|
Lots to say on this, but its a bit loose and fuzzy.
1. You don't have to be Pro-Life to be anti-Roe. This ain't a ticket to heaven or a popularity contest on Earth. This is making government what it was intended to be and what people want it to be. Namely, local or non-existent in lots of ways it is not now.
2. I assume you are talking Thomas and Scalia. My understanding from some fuzzy and distant writings is that there are two others who are believed to have held off on presenting their views on Roe, and will only set them forth to directly address the issue of Roe. Both are supposedly thought to be generally in favor of overturning Roe on the basis that the opinion had no basis (queue the gray mist and "permutations" quote... who's got it again").
3. Pro-choice head of the Judiciary committee? That asshole almost lost that position in November, but promised to put out whatever the White House put in. I was paying attention at the time, and it was after he made a silly public comment. Anyhoo, if he doesn't play ball, I'm sure Rove can find someone who will
4. There is no way an Appeals court can overturn Roe, and it would be fairly pointless for anyone on one of these courts to even make such noises.
Bit I end where I began. You don't have to be pro-Life and/or Catholic. You don't have to believe in God. You don't have to be a strict constructionist. You just have to believe that courts have no business legislating from a bench in a democracy. If the majority of the country wants a national law either way, let em pass a law. Better yet, pass an amendment.
Still, full disclaimer. pro-Life, basically Catholic, believer, text and background matter (i.e., not a strict constructionist), and a firm believer that the federal government shouldn't intrude into community morality and what-have-you. So one could legitimately claim that I started with the answer, and then tried to justify it.
