Posted on 07/06/2018 8:57:40 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Despite what many of us want to believe, President Donald Trump is the front-runner in 2020. If you supported him in 2016, you have little reason to regret your choice -- he's working hard to fulfill all his campaign promises. Sure, the polls often show that Trump's approval rating is underwater. But voters are a lot more than just data points graphed onto projections.
No incumbent president in recent history has presided over a strong economy, not been enmeshed in a ground war and lost the next election. So, for those of us who desperately want to see a new president, just telling ourselves that a majority of the voters in key states will see what we see and feel how we feel isn't enough to actually win. It's going to take more than the constant tearing of garments and endless howls of outrage to beat him. It's going to take an outside factor -- like Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement.
There's no easily foreseeable reason the Senate won't be able to confirm whomever Trump nominates. In theory, Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, could join the 49 Democrats and slow the process, but it may not be realistic to expect every Democrat to stick together, particularly ones up for re-election in red states....
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
The article is baseless.
A more conservative USSC will almost definitely revise RvW around the edges, but will stop far short of overturning it.
The party of we’ve got nothing to offer but fear itself is just using baby murder as a point of political rhetoric to scare women voters.
If Roe WAS overturned it would mean the power to approve abortion goes back to the states.
I can assure Bradely Tusk - that with everything we know about New York State - abortion will be legal in that State before the ink's dry on a Supreme Court Ruling.
Abortion was legal in New York State years before Roe.
So like the typical liberal 'elites' everywhere Bradely's an effing liar.
If Roe's overturned liberals will still be able to kill their babies it'll just be a State by State decision...
The dims think we are stupid. Why would we bring a case to SCOTUS that may do that before 2020??
montage favs
“beginning of the end”
and
“flame out”
cover at least 1 million of those obits
Key "may be". The end of the world "may be" his downfall. (But it isn't very likely to happen in 2020.)
Even if a New Supreme Court did overturn Roe before 2020, the law would revert to where it was prior to Roe -- ie, abortion was legal in some states and not in others. The big blue states where Trump is unpopular would keep it legal. The red Right to Life states (I'm not checking, but off the top of my head I'm guessing the number of states where the majority of voters favor Right to Life is close to 40) won't hold it against Trump.
lol.
oh but oops!!! But we got him THIS time! Oh but . . . oops! Okay REALLY THIS TIME we got him! Uh oh . . . oops!!!!
;D
Is there any case in the pipeline now that could lead to its overturn in the next 18 months?
What a stupid article
There have been cases. The most recent regarded a Texas law putting restrictions on abortion providers. It was overruled 5-3.
If Scalia were still around and Kennedy's replacement in place, that likely would have gone the other way. Somewhat less likely, they could have overturned Roe v Wade entirely. I don't think they would have, but it's possible.
It only takes another similar case to give them the opportunity.
What idiots. If the Supremes overturn R v W, all that would happen is that abortion is ruled as not covered by the US Constitution, therefore the ability to deal with this horrible issue falls to each state.
Some commie states (like kalifornica) will allow killing children up to 5 years old and some will not allow any killing of any fetus at any time for any reason.
enough with the this truth BS ;)
There are still a few #neverTrump FReaks here who feel obliged to get angry when Trump is favorably compared to Reagan.
CNN is untrustworthy, but the overturning of Roe v Wade is not really on the horizon, in my opinion. John Roberts won’t go against stare decisis.
Does there have to be a certain amount of stability in law, so that judges can decide cases with some degree of confidence that they are following correct interpretations? Sure. Even religious denominations have doctrine.
But, what about something that is clearly a patchwork of political expediency such as Roe v Wade was back in the 70s? It is more an example of “tradition” than it is of “doctrine”. “We do it this way because we do it this way.” is the only explanation for Roe. They can’t say, “We do it this way because that’s the best interpretation of the text.”
Even if it is overturned, it will then be up to each state to individually decide. So unless all of these racist, population control, sex without consequence, child murderers know in their deepest darkest that they are wrong and not supported by the majority in their states, what are they worried about?
Nice summary! Oh and they need to keep the ones that do vote for them in the rat cage of manipulation to keep ‘em in the corral. The red meat they throw them to keep them all ginned up on the wheel. Just keeps getting more and more deluded. Oh want a psych/treasonous fest they are on the left!!!
RvW is not a law. It cannot be repealed or overturned. It can be declared invalid as a ‘decision’, since it’s not a written law.
It’s in the same category of “laws” as regulations. Regulations are imposed, depending on the wishes of those in power at the moment. Same with RvW, since it was mostly a “decision” by an activist court, and activism is not the way to codify into law any rules or regulations.
If RvW needs to be turned into law, then, let there be a vote by congress to get it done, and then have the president sign the bill into law. My guess? Democrats FEAR getting RvW into bill form, because, it won’t ever be passed.
Most people think that abolishing Roe V Wade equals the abolishing abortion. All it means is that the Federal Government is not in charge of abortion any longer. Which they should have never had authority in the first place. Just like they should not be in charge of Healthcare. The states will now be in charge of this.
It's probably more likely that control over abortion will be returned to the individual states, with restrictions upheld by the Court.
John Roberts won’t go against stare decisis.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Agree.
They still have a 5-4 majority for Roe even with a new Justice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.