Roe v Wade Overturned

I admire his intelligence, I admire his overcoming obstacles and reaching a high position. A very focused and disciplined man. I do NOT admire how he has exercised his power in ways that affect his race. Race absolutely matters, and he has an obligation to his within the bounds of the law, and those bounds are flexible. He is not.

BTW, principles are wonderful. I wish most Congressional republicans, especially in the House, had some. But, some use principle to justify their rigidity. Different principles come into play on issues affecting blacks. Thomas has never referred to one that benefitted his race. (I may have overlooked an opinion of his that showed sympathy for blacks. Perhaps someone will refresh me if that’s the case.)

 

I like to mix things up.

Obviously you can blame lots of people. All I am saying is Democrats, within swing states, had it in their own control to prevent this. Not just on turnout but by simply avoiding the shiny third party object.

 

You are probably correct.

 

You're being far too generous. Clarence Thomas doesn't have principles. This is a man who benefitted from affirmative action and then has spent his life intent on pulling the ladder up behind him. This is a man who was accused by multiple women of sexual misconduct and used his race to get out of it. This is a man who has acted unethically while on the Supreme Court, including repeatedly failing to recuse himself in cases where his right-wing nutjob wife and her political organizations were involved.

And don't even get me started on his jurisprudence. He's an originalist as long as it advances the political outcomes he seeks to achieve. Thomas is a partisan hack who has spent his time on the Supreme Court looking to get even with the Democrats who humiliated him.

 

You said: "He has completely rejected his race in every way." Perhaps I would agree with you if you provided some obvious examples.

 

Your point is nonsensical. He tried to instigate a coup. The fact that his coup and violent insurrection failed are why the transfer of power happened. He doesn't get credit for transferring power simply because he failed, despite his best efforts, to stop it.

 

Prohibiting the murder of fetuses is quite a stretch for making "women property of the state."

But if that's how you feel.

 

By that reasoning, isn't every supreme court decision anti-democracy?

 

Also given that the fetus isn't guaranteed to survive to birth, and the woman already has legal standing.

 

Have fun using the latest leftist buzz words du jour. It still doesn't change a factual outcome.

 

Man points a loaded gun at his wife, she runs for cover, he fires the gun at her until it is empty, and due to his bad aim, fails to hit her. He then puts the empty gun down.

Crusher: "Listen, we shouldn't be too hard on him. Yes, he pointed his gun at his wife, but he put the gun down without killing anybody."

 

Define "mattered."

Would it have mattered as to the issue of whether abortion is a Constitutional right? No.

Would it have mattered as to whether an abortion is permissible, or whether abortions are protected by law? Absolutely.

Roe was a political decision. All this case did was undo a political decision, so that the politics are left to Congress and the states. If you live in New York or California, this decision will probably not affect you at all. It's the poor, sexually active people in the Bible belt that this would be affecting.

 

Wrong.

 

How?

Are you saying that this Supreme Court would have ruled laws in New York or California protecting abortion unconstitutional? Are you saying this Supreme Court would have ruled a federal law on abortion unconstitutional?

 

Conflation much. Go back and read my posts. I've never absolved him of doing any of the things he did do...but we can play your game if you like. Yes or No questions:

1) Is Donald Trump still President?
2) Did he have to be physically forcibly removed from office/White House?

If you can't answer either of these two questions with an affirmative, then my point stands as fact...regardless of all the buts, what ifs, or wherefores.

 

You've only proven my point.
"1) Is the man's wife still alive?
2) Did the man voluntarily put the gun down?"

 

The latter.

 

Why is precedent the end all be all when it comes to Roe v. Wade, but not Plessy v. Ferguson?

Give me a reason that is not rooted in "Plessy v. Ferguson is evil and bad, and Brown v. Board of Education just corrected a decision that should have never happened," because that is the exact same rationale pro-lifers use with Roe v. Wade.

Precedent is important, it's not everything as the Supreme Court has repeatedly shown throughout history in decisions both sides agree on to this day.

 

I don't think so. If that were the case, however, that would mean a federal ban on abortions would be unconstitutional as well.

 

Nope. You're assuming a level of consistency that the politicians in charge of the judiciary don't remotely care about.