promotion image of download ymail app
Promoted
Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentLaw & Ethics · 3 years ago

Why do libs always say that Roe cant be overturned because it is "precedent?" Plessy v. Ferguson was precedent too?

Do libs argue that Plessy V. Ferguson should have never been overturned by Brown v. Board of Education, just because the seperate but equal doctrine was precedent?

That is patently absurd. As Antonin Scalia said, the Supreme Court has not just the ability, but the DUTY to reverse it's earlier mistakes. To do anything less is judicial activism.

No honest person, through a natural reading of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, will come to the conclusion that it in any way covers some imaginary "right" to commit infanticide with "privacy" and impunity. It was designed merely to grant freemen equal protection in society without respect to their race.

At a minimum, it is a tenth amendment issue left to the States.

More likely, the equal protection clause that you claim protects abortionists could ACTUALLY be properly constued to protect the right to life. Along with the due process clause, as Clarence Thomas has wisely pointed out.

7 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    3 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    They want to kill American children.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • martin
    Lv 7
    3 years ago

    Agree, it should be left to the states, state-by-state. Some sympathize with a woman pregnant against her will and say it would be cruel and unusual punishment to force any woman to give birth against her will. Others lack that sympathy.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    3 years ago

    The social impact would be disastrous. The 2 sides of the abortion debate are so inflexible that keeping the status quo is really the only decision any sane person would make.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 3 years ago

    That's not the only argument, but hey, why not lessen women's rights. Let's get rid of the 19th amendment too. I've never been big on being able to make my own choices. I'm not insinuating you're a man with the picture. It's just to point out the absurdity. Also, I've personally never heard anyone say that. As in real life in front of you personally. I also have not once used that as an argument.

    Attachment image
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 3 years ago

    I think it's a good question. I can't answer it for sure, except to point out that EVERY Supreme Court nominee named by Reagan or either of the Bushes was promised to the Religious Right to be the single swing-vote needed to overturn Roe v. Wade, but in 37 years now they haven't even taken up the case. I'm sure there have been plenty of cases presented to them, but the Supreme Court itself decides what cases it will hear and they haven't picked up one on Roe v. Wade.

    What all Republican SC justices have had in common since Reagan was not Pro Life but Pro Corporation, Pro Tax Cuts for Rich People, Pro Corporate Bribery.

    My feeling is that the GOP has played the Religious Right for suckers all these years. They really haven't done diddly for Christians when it comes to hot-button issues like abortion, gay marriage, prayer in schools, the Ten Commandments in courthouses, etc.

    Also, Roe v Wade was not decided based on the 'citizenship rights' of the pre-born in the way Plessy or Brown v. Board of Education had to do with the rights of minorities. It was decided based on 'privacy', and I don't think even a conservative court would say Americans have no right to privacy (even though, yes, as they pointed out at the time, the word 'privacy' doesn't even appear in the Constitution). I think that might have something to do with it.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 3 years ago

    Making abortion illegal after 45 years seems to me to go backward and not making progress. Women will return to aborting fetuses without medical care, going to quacks, and getting infections. Thats why we had to legalize it, to save their lives. You cannot legislate morality if you feel this is a moral issue. You cannot tell people not to procreate, or have sex. You would return to a time when people in authority could force sterilization.

    • Doris
      Lv 7
      3 years agoReport

      LOL, your argument is weakened by YOU supporting Trump's campaign to legislate morality with appointment of more conservative judges.... business morality... wealth makes right. And Trump being anti-Muslim, restricting Muslim immigrants. He is now "pro-Life", you reap what you sow.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 3 years ago

    I think that the SCOTUS IF they decide to hear a case on this matter will most likely refer it to the states for decision and law because more and more people, whether they personally agree with a woman's decision on the matter, agree that it is NOT the place of Government (at least federal government) to decide this issue. This Should be between the woman and her doctor and NO woman should be forced to submit to pregnancy with the knowledge the child is going to be unwanted, possibly abused, possibly drug addicted at birth, etc.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.