Supreme Court Will Strike Down Roe v Wade

[CountValentine]

?

There was no evidence presented to overturn RvW. The only thing that changed from the original decision is the viability of the fetus. Have no issue with them changing RvW to come in line with that. I am leaving my personal views/morals/religion out of it.

[imayid2]

No it does not let the voters decide. It lets the politicians decide.

Like every other issue that people disagree on in this country. Should every issue be up to a national vote?

Would you be for a national vote on this issue?

Why not a state vote?

[imayid2]

There was no evidence presented to overturn RvW. The only thing that changed from the original decision is the viability of the fetus. Have no issue with them changing RvW to come in line with that. I am leaving my personal views/morals/religion out of it.

No evidence was necessary. They explained why it was an egregious overreach of privacy laws.

[CountValentine]

Like every other issue that people disagree on in this country. Should every issue be up to a national vote?

You claimed the voters are deciding. I disagree so let's find out. We all understand why you would not be for that. 

Why not a state vote?

This is a national issue.

[CountValentine]

No evidence was necessary. They explained why it was an egregious overreach of privacy laws.

That was their opinion. We should not be overturning SCOTUS decisions because the opinion of the court leans one way or the other.

Privacy laws were at the core of the original decision. Nothing new there except the makeup of the court.

[imayid2]

You claimed the voters are deciding. I disagree so let's find out. We all understand why you would not be for that.  ;)This is a national issue.

Are you for real? Why do you think that a whole bunch of liberals from California should have a say in Indiana law? Can you point to another “national issue” that works that way?
I’m not against a state vote at all. Provided the question was appropriately asked.

[imayid2]

That was their opinion. We should not be overturning SCOTUS decisions because the opinion of the court leans one way or the other.

Privacy laws were at the core of the original decision. Nothing new there except the makeup of the court.

They did devote considerable effort to explain why they felt this is different.
How would you explain why the “right” to use narcotics, prostitution, assisted suicide, euthanasia, are not protected under the constitution according to Roe? If it cannot be explained properly, would that be evidence that either abortion isn’t a right, or that the above are?

[CountValentine]

Are you for real?

It makes no sense to have a national issue like abortion, gun control and a host of other issues decided state by state. Why would you want 100 different laws for a national issue?

Does your religion's view of abortion change state by state? 

[CountValentine]

They did devote considerable effort to explain why they felt this is different.
How would you explain why the “right” to use narcotics, prostitution, assisted suicide, euthanasia, are not protected under the constitution according to Roe? If it cannot be explained properly, would that be evidence that either abortion isn’t a right, or that the above are?

I am no constitutional expert. Privacy was at the core of the original decision. I understand the current court is under the opinion that it does not pertain to abortion. That is fine but is not reason to overturn.

The current court is on a mission to overturn every decision they don't agree on. If that isn't proof enough of their agenda, then nothing is.

[imayid2]

It makes no sense to have a national issue like abortion, gun control and a host of other issues decided state by state. Why would you want 100 different laws for a national issue?

Wait. Gun rights is a by all accounts in the constitution. A clarification on those, which is sorely necessary, would inherently affect all states. If we except that abortion is not of course it should be up to the states. Are you joking? Which other issue not in the constitution works like that?

[CountValentine]

Wait. Gun rights is a by all accounts in the constitution.

Are you for real?

You need to twist it into a pretzel for it to give every person the right to conceal carry.

[imayid2]

The current court is on a mission to overturn every decision they don't agree on. If that isn't proof enough of their agenda

Well they certainly made it difficult for themselves by the guidelines of Stares Decisis that they mandated.

[CountValentine]

Does your religion's view of abortion change state by state? 

I think you missed this question.

[imayid2]

You need to twist it into a pretzel for it to give every person the right to conceal carry.

Ok. So assuming concealed carry isn’t a constitutional right, do voters in California decide if Texas state law should allow it?

[imayid2]

I think you missed this question.

I’m not sure how it’s relevant to our discussion. The answer is “of course not.”

[CountValentine]

Well they certainly made it difficult for themselves by the guidelines of Stares Decisis that they mandated.

They threw Stares Decisis out the window with RvW.

[imayid2]

Why does California get the same amount of senators as Idaho btw?

[imayid2]

They threw Stares Decisis out the window with RvW.

No Justice of this Court has ever argued that the Court should never overrule a constitutional decision, but overrul- ing a precedent is a serious matter. It is not a step that should be taken lightly. Our cases have attempted to provide a framework for deciding when a precedent should be overruled, and they have identified factors that should be considered in making such a decision.
In this case, five factors weigh strongly in favor of over- ruling Roe and Casey: the nature of their error, the quality of their reasoning, the “workability” of the rules they im- posed on the country, their disruptive effect on other areas of the law, and the absence of concrete reliance.

[CountValentine]

Ok. So assuming concealed carry isn’t a constitutional right, do voters in California decide if Texas state law should allow it?

Not when it is a national issue. That is why the gun issue is so messed up. You have every state doing their own thing.

[imayid2]

Not when it is a national issue. That is why the gun issue is so messed up. You have every state doing their own thing.

Why do you think Californians should have a say in Texas?
I’m really not understanding your position here. Because it’s also an issue in California that gives them a say in Texas?