Thread: Roe V Wade overturned

From the dissenting opinion, and this is how much these fucking scum hate women.

Under state restrictions, “a woman will have to bear her rapist’s child or a young girl her father’s – no matter if doing so will destroy her life”, the liberal justices wrote.

If only the Dems would have the balls to appoint another four Supreme Court justices

Originally Posted by panama hat

If only the Dems would have the balls to appoint another four Supreme Court justices

They're too wishy washy to play hardball.

A sad day in American history.

Originally Posted by bsnub

A sad day in American history.

Literally beyond belief. Beyond embarrassing.

Now the assholes want to make gun laws even more lenient. Fcuk me.

Originally Posted by aging one

Now the assholes want to make gun laws even more lenient. Fcuk me.

Not a question of want. They did. This current SCOTUS is the most reprehensible court in American history and is hell-bent on agenda rather than established precedent. It is truly a kangaroo court.

Originally Posted by bsnub

A sad day in American history.

Indeed, and a convincing case for reform of SCOTUS.

Originally Posted by malmomike77

Indeed, and a convincing case for reform of SCOTUS.

I have been in favor of this for some time, starting with term limits. Lifetime court appointments should end at all levels.

There needs to be a way to ensure it remains Apolitical

Originally Posted by malmomike77

There needs to be a way to ensure it remains Apolitical

Term limits would do a great deal to help with that. The fact is that America is really two countries at this point and hopelessly divided.

Originally Posted by panama hat

If only the Dems would have the balls to appoint another four Supreme Court justices

The only way to do that will open a door that will never close.

If they did it, the next time round the Republicans will absolutely appoint five.

It solves nothing.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The only way to do that will open a door that will never close.

If they did it, the next time round the Republicans will absolutely appoint five.

It solves nothing.

No doubt this idea will gain momentum in the near future.


The Reckless Race to Confirm Amy Coney Barrett Justifies Court Packing


We used to reject court packing as a dangerous game. Now we believe it may be the best way to restore the Court’s legitimacy.

Barely a week after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, before the late justice had even been buried, President Donald Trump hosted a Rose Garden ceremony to formally announce his nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to fill the open seat on the Supreme Court. A week later, it appears that the inauspicious ceremony may have been at the center of the coronavirus outbreak now plaguing the White House and the Senate. Yet even with the president hospitalized and three Republican senators infected with the virus, the Republican Party is barreling ahead with its effort to install Barrett mere weeks before Election Day. The reckless rush to vote is an indication of the desperate and corrosive power grab at play, one that places the future of the Court at risk. If Republicans succeed, and Democrats win the Senate and the White House in November, Democrats must add seats for additional justices—not as a means of political one-upmanship, but, paradoxically, to save the Court.

For the past few years, court packing has largely been a fringe idea, promulgated by leftist scholars and activists infuriated by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s refusal to hold Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland in 2016. For the most part, the Democratic establishment has been resistant to the notion, on the grounds that Republicans would someday surely try to respond in kind.
We understand these objections; until recently, we shared them, and dismissed court packing as institutionally corrosive and politically unserious. But no longer. The current battle over the Supreme Court changes the calculus; if Barrett is confirmed and Trump loses the election, adhering to norms and accepting the status quo on January 20 poses a greater harm than expanding the Court would. We have now come to believe, more in sorrow than in anger, that adding justices may be the only way to restore the institutional legitimacy of the Court.



The Skeptic'''s Case for Court Packing - The Atlantic

Originally Posted by malmomike77

There needs to be a way to ensure it remains Apolitical

There's no such thing.

^ Not in the US apparently but the law should not be political.

Rachel Maddow, on the direction we’re headed in the US, with SCOTUS.

The answer is obvious. Abolish the supreme court.
Lawmakers are responsible for making laws, judges should be responsible only for administering it.
They shouldn't be able to change laws they don't like, that should be a government process.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

From the dissenting opinion, and this is how much these fucking scum hate women.

Percentage of abortions being rape victims is piss all.

I am not pro or anti abortion. Its just pathetic how partisan it is.

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

No wonder indeed that Septics find Thailand so alluring and feel at home here, they clearly share a propensity for systemic fuckwittery.

That's pretty rich coming from you being there are far more Brits living here then States folks. Why did you move here again? Why are you still here? ....Oh Yeah...that duck thing.

Horrendous and backward.

Originally Posted by Harrybarracuda

The problem is….

SCOTUS has become vindictively political.

"The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years," a former clerk remembered Thomas – who was 43 years old when confirmed – saying, according to The New York Times. "And I'm going to make their lives miserable for 43 years."

Clarence Thomas Told His Clerks He Wants to Make Liberals Miserable

Things change with time. The 7-2 Roe vs Wade decision was made by a court having a large majority of Republican Pres appointed judges.

Originally Posted by Cujo

The answer is obvious. Abolish the supreme court.

silly