Blacks don't own guns? Blacks aren't straight? Blacks don't smoke? Blacks aren't male? Blacks can't be racist? Blacks aren't Christian? LMAO!!!!!!
Everyone knows what that statement means: that they’re not going to answer your question. It’s the same answer nominees from both sides give about any hot button decision.
This country is pure trash. A rotting shell of our former greatness. We clearly aren’t going to make it much longer.
Chew on this. Thanks to Jill Stein voters in 2016 and Ralph Nader voters in 2000 we have a 6-3 most conservative court in history vs 7-1 likely the most liberal court in history.
In 2012, the ordeal of Savita Halappanavar, a young woman in Ireland, began very similarly to that of Ms. Prudente. Ms. Halappanavar’s amniotic sac ruptured prematurely, but the heart of the fetus inside her continued to beat. At the time, abortion was illegal in Ireland, so doctors refused to remove the fetus. Six days later, Ms. Halappanavar developed sepsis, went into cardiac arrest and died. The same grim sequence played out last year in Poland, where a 2020 legal decision removed nearly all exceptions to the country's abortion ban, when a young woman named Izabela Sajbor was admitted to the hospital after her water broke at 22 weeks’ gestation. Doctors refused to remove the fetus while a heartbeat was detectable. By the time they did, Ms. Sajbor already had a severe infection. She, too, died.
LOL at wanting moderates on the day the GOP successfully overturns Roe v Wade. Who are the extremists again? Just a staggering lack of self awareness.
Manchin isn’t that stupid. These people (USSC nominees) will say whatever they need to say to get appointed then do whatever they want when they are appointed.
Yeah, Manchin and Collins are either pretending to be idiots right now, or (less likely) are actually idiots. Anyone who has listened to more than one or two judicial nominees knows damn well those nominees didn’t commit to them that a case (particularly one they expressly declined to call “super precedent”) couldn’t be overruled.
Yes they are. They each said that long standing rights that were supported by several cases were precedents that should be respected. In other news Sen. Susan Collins has issued a strong statement of deep concern.
It yours that need working on. To be sure I googled it and the NYTimes article on 5/6/2022 said the Mississippi law bans "Almost all abortions after 15 weeks" so tell me how to interpret that.
Did you read the quotes in the article I linked? Alito: ""Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973, so it has been on the books for a long time," he said. "It is a precedent that has now been on the books for several decades. It has been challenged. It has been reaffirmed. But it is an issue that is involved in litigation now at all levels."" Gorusch: "Gorsuch took the uncontroversial line that Roe is a precedent. Precedent is the "anchor of law," he said. "It is the starting place for a judge." "I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed," he said. "A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other."" Kavanaugh: In particular, much was made of a private meeting between Kavanaugh and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who said the nominee had told her he considered Roe to be "settled law." "It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis," he said. "The Supreme Court has recognized the right to abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. It has reaffirmed it many times." Roberts: "During his confirmation hearing, Roberts repeatedly declined to comment on Roe beyond saying he believed it was "settled as a precedent of the court." For the court to overturn a prior decision, Roberts said he thought it was not sufficient to believe the case had been wrongly decided. The justices would have to consider other factors too, he said, "like settled expectations, like the legitimacy of the court, like whether a particular precedent is workable or not, whether a precedent has been eroded by subsequent developments.""
