Breaking! Biden signs executive order on abortion, declares Supreme Court 'out of control'

[ZNP]

And those judgments should represent the will of the people. Just one example, Clarence Thomas has already said he wants to come after same-sex marriage next when 70% of America support same-sex marriage
This lets us know that they do not represent the will of the people

I agree, the judgements should represent the will of the people. Over the last 50 years it has been made real clear that the Roe v. Wade decision was not the will of the people.

We also know that after the Roe v. Wade decision was overturned that only a minority of people in this country cared. It isn't their #1 concern or even their #2 concern. Instead we have a bunch of vicious, vile and despicable people threatening judges and trying to institute mob rule. The antithesis of representing the will of the people.

I am not familiar with what Clarence Thomas has said concerning same sex marriage, however, I do feel that he often represents my will and that he easily represents the will of 1/9th of Americans.

There are justices that do not represent my will. When Sonia Sotamayer said that many babies are born as zombies, she was not representing me or my opinions or will. Still, I am not clamoring to have her removed. So be careful what you wish for. If Clarence represents 50% of the country and they remove him you can be sure the 50% will rise up and remove the lame brains like Sotamayer and the woman who can't define what a woman is.

 

[Dude653]

I agree, the judgements should represent the will of the people. Over the last 50 years it has been made real clear that the Roe v. Wade decision was not the will of the people.

We also know that after the Roe v. Wade decision was overturned that only a minority of people in this country cared. It isn't their #1 concern or even their #2 concern. Instead we have a bunch of vicious, vile and despicable people threatening judges and trying to institute mob rule. The antithesis of representing the will of the people.

I am not familiar with what Clarence Thomas has said concerning same sex marriage, however, I do feel that he often represents my will and that he easily represents the will of 1/9th of Americans.

There are justices that do not represent my will. When Sonia Sotamayer said that many babies are born as zombies, she was not representing me or my opinions or will. Still, I am not clamoring to have her removed. So be careful what you wish for. If Clarence represents 50% of the country and they remove him you can be sure the 50% will rise up and remove the lame brains like Sotamayer and the woman who can't define what a woman is.

Gallup polls indicate that 60% of America is pro choice

 

[ZNP]

Gallup polls indicate that 60% of America is pro choice

If that is true then why all the protests? Democrats control both houses and the President. Pass a law, pass an amendment to the constitution.

The problem is that Gallup is the same ones that said Hillary had a 14 point lead on Donald Trump.

 

[Gojira]

Yeah when nine people get to decide what the Constitution means, isn't it a dictatorship?

You could argue that for the entire judicial branch. Judges can be impeached. That is one of the checks on their power.

 

[Billyd]

Gallup polls indicate that 60% of America is pro choice

If that's true, congress won't have any problem passing an abortion bill or amending the Constitution to allow it.

 

[Gojira]

And those judgments should represent the will of the people. Just one example, Clarence Thomas has already said he wants to come after same-sex marriage next when 70% of America support same-sex marriage
This lets us know that they do not represent the will of the people

They are not there to represent the will of thje people, but of the constitution. That's the whole point. They must be independent of the mob.

 

[Gojira]

If that's true, congress won't have any problem passing an abortion bill or amending the Constitution to allow it.

3/4 of the states must approve such an amendment. With 22 of them already severely limited abortion access, that's not likely to happen.

 

[Billyd]

You could argue that for the entire judicial branch. Judges can be impeached. That is one of the checks on their power.

The checks on their power occurs when the senate approves the presidential nomination and by appointments over multiple presidents an multiple senates.

 

[Gojira]

The checks on their power occurs when the senate approves the presidential nomination and by appointments over multiple presidents an multiple senates.

And they can be impeached.

And, Congress and the President still have some say over what is and is not constitutional.

 

[Bluesproverb]

If that's true, congress won't have any problem passing an abortion bill or amending the Constitution to allow it.

Statutory overrides by Congress afford a solution. As the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act demonstrated. Made possible in part due to the active effort and foresight of then Justice Ginsburg.

 

[Billyd]

3/4 of the states must approve such an amendment. With 22 of them already severely limited abortion access, that's not likely to happen.

If you want to change a SCOTUS decision, that's the proper way to do it.

 

[Bluesproverb]

And they can be impeached.

And, Congress and the President still have some say over what is and is not constitutional.

https://www.ajs.org/how-to-impeach-a-supreme-court-justice/

 

[Dude653]

They are not there to represent the will of thje people, but of the constitution. That's the whole point. They must be independent of the mob.

If they were to decide that marriage isn't constitutionally protected and wants to stop States from denying any marriage for any reason?
Imagine the lawsuits when some bigoted county clerk says he won't recognize interracial marriages

 

[Billyd]

And they can be impeached.

And, Congress and the President still have some say over what is and is not constitutional.

A decision that doesn't go your way is not grounds for impeachment.

The ultimate decision of constitutionality lies with SCOTUS.

 

[Bluesproverb]

They are not there to represent the will of thje people, but of the constitution. That's the whole point. They must be independent of the mob.

The mob?

 

[ZNP]

If they were to decide that marriage isn't constitutionally protected and wants to stop States from denying any marriage for any reason?
Imagine the lawsuits when some bigoted county clerk says he won't recognize interracial marriages

Imagine the Supreme court didn't overturn Roe v. Wade, they would be flooded with lawsuits and they knew it.

 

[Bluesproverb]

Imagine the Supreme court didn't overturn Roe v. Wade, they would be flooded with lawsuits and they knew it.

Who would be sued?

 

[ZNP]

Who would be sued?

Mississippi was just the tip of the iceberg, there were another 20+ states that were going to enact laws to whittle away at Roe v. Wade and it is highly likely that Pro Choice activist would have sued every single one. If the Supreme court had only ruled on Mississippi saying it was constitutional which is what Robert's wanted you know that 20 other states would have immediately passed similar laws and yet in every case they would be a little different.

The judges saw this coming and bailed.

50 years later people had not accepted Roe v. Wade and the situation had gotten worse and the Mississippi verdict would have certainly added rocket fuel to the Pro life movement in the country.

 

[Bluesproverb]

Mississippi was just the tip of the iceberg, there were another 20+ states that were going to enact laws to whittle away at Roe v. Wade and it is highly likely that Pro Choice activist would have sued every single one. If the Supreme court had only ruled on Mississippi saying it was constitutional which is what Robert's wanted you know that 20 other states would have immediately passed similar laws and yet in every case they would be a little different.

The judges saw this coming and bailed.

50 years later people had not accepted Roe v. Wade and the situation had gotten worse and the Mississippi verdict would have certainly added rocket fuel to the Pro life movement in the country.

Who are you claiming pro-life activists could sue?

 

[ZNP]

Who are you claiming pro-life activists could sue?

If the state passes a law you can challenge the law in court, ultimately it will be up to the Supreme court to decide if the law is constitutional. Mississippi had passed a heartbeat law and that was challenged and hence it ended up in the Supreme court.