Trump picks Brett Kavanaugh for Supreme Court

the 1973 court was not a conservative court, I'd say more of a moderate court with a leftward tilt.

there are a number of articles that say that roe vs wade was weak legally and flawed.

never say never.

people thought dred scott decision would never be reversed. it was reversed in the 1950's. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

were they?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/voxnova...-1973-liberal/

Were Republican-appointed Justices who favored Roe in 1973 “liberal”?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b044f827a78f87

Roe v. Wade Was Decided By A Republican-Nominated Supreme Court

remember that the Court can't just decide to re-visit old rulings. they need a new case, broad enough to completely overturn a previous ruling. and Kavanaugh has stated he believes in precedent in the Court's rulings. Even if Trump put 10 ultra pro-life justices on the Court, where is the case that will give them the opportunity to completely reverse Row V Wade?

were they?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/voxnova...-1973-liberal/

Were Republican-appointed Justices who favored Roe in 1973 “liberal”?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b044f827a78f87

Roe v. Wade Was Decided By A Republican-Nominated Supreme Court

remember that the Court can't just decide to re-visit old rulings. they need a new case, broad enough to completely overturn a previous ruling. and Kavanaugh has stated he believes in precedent in the Court's rulings. Even if Trump put 10 ultra pro-life justices on the Court, where is the case that will give them the opportunity to completely reverse Row V Wade? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

you are right that the court can't revisit old rulings, but a new case to overturn the previous ruling.

I think the state of Nebraska passed a law a restrictive abortion law, one that granted fetus "human status" if its heart is detected within 4 weeks. one could have an abortion before that. it was something like that.

It was not a conservative court even though it was majority republican. I was not aware of that make up.

it was basically a moderate court. one thing to note, the moderate justices on the court swung left or right regardless of party affiliation.

you had

3 libs (2 democrats & 1 republican who was brennan)
3 moderates (republicans)
3 conservatives (1 democrat & 2 republicans) which includes Rehnquist (didn't know he was a judge back then)

you actually had 2 conservatives (1 democrat and 1 republican) dissenting.

the articles did not mention if they were conservative or liberal, just said that it was a republican court.

This is the asshole who is willing to let Twitler take complete and supreme control of the Reichstag.

This is only about shutting down Mueller.

Do you think Twitler gives a fuck about Roe v Wade?

Of course he knows you’d rather kill them babies after they’re out of the womb, so he’ll say anything to consolidate his power,

Stupid fucks refuse to acknowledge the Orange elephant in the room.

This is the asshole who is willing to let Twitler take complete and supreme control of the Reichstag.

This is only about shutting down Mueller.

Do you think Twitler gives a fuck about Roe v Wade?

Of course he knows you’d rather kill them babies after they’re out of the womb, so he’ll say anything to consolidate his power,

Stupid fucks refuse to acknowledge the Orange elephant in the room. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

...

under what grounds would the Supreme Court even consider reversing Row v Wade? it was established in 1973 by a majority conservative court. the Court doesn't just decide to review old rulings. a new case would have to be brought forward, and they would have to agree to review it.

... Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

"old rulings" are frequently "revisited" ... either used as precedent or distinguished from the existing facts in the current case being decided. The best examples are "criminal rights" and "discrimination" cases.

As social/cultural norms and/or technology/science change then the application of "the law" to those new set of facts and circumstances change.

In effect prior decisions become obsolete.

The "Roe/Wade" hysteria is a "red herring" and the media with their cheerleader "Shmucker" are making fools of themselves with the outrageous speculation. "Shmucker" will finally resort to blubbering like a baby again ... because the Court won't allow the liberals to separate parents from their children with a scalpel and forceps in the future.

people thought dred scott decision would never be reversed. it was reversed in the 1950's. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

??? Er dilbert, wtf are you talking about? Dred Scott was overturned in 1868... by the 14th Amendment.

This is the asshole who is willing to let Twitler take complete and supreme control of the Reichstag.

This is only about shutting down Mueller.

Do you think Twitler gives a fuck about Roe v Wade?

Of course he knows you’d rather kill them babies after they’re out of the womb, so he’ll say anything to consolidate his power,

Stupid fucks refuse to acknowledge the Orange elephant in the room. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Hey you dumbfuck, it’s the DOJs own protocol that a sitting POTUS can’t be indicted. Have someone read you the first paragraph:

https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/...al-prosecution

To watch these dimtards protest, you'd think Trump launched a nuke on Los Angeles. What's even more stupid is the media coverage of this paid astroturfing. Like some posters have pointed out, Rowe v Wade isn't going to be overturned just like on the previous Trump nomination. Even if Bader Ginsberg dies tomorrow () it still isn't in play.

??? Er dilbert, wtf are you talking about? Dred Scott was overturned in 1868... by the 14th Amendment. Originally Posted by lustylad

I was referring to the separate but equal ruling that was overturned.

I was referring to the separate but equal ruling that was overturned. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Your background in Constitutional law is quite tenuous.

The separate-but-equal doctrine was established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), not the pre-Civil War Dred Scott decision (1857). It was overturned in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (1954).

Hey you dumbfuck, it’s the DOJs own protocol that a sitting POTUS can’t be indicted. Have someone read you the first paragraph:

https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/...al-prosecution Originally Posted by bambino

which Mueller says he agrees with. so what's the point of this witch hunt again? i mean .. other than it's a witch hunt ..

Your background in Constitutional law is quite tenuous.

The separate-but-equal doctrine was established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), not the pre-Civil War Dred Scott decision (1857). It was overturned in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (1954). Originally Posted by lustylad

sorry, I got the cases confused. that one was the one I referred to. thanx for the correction.

sorry, I got the DICKS confused. that one was the one I referred to. thanx for the DICK. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Always about DICKS with you, Brilliante!

Hey you dumbfuck, it’s the DOJs own protocol that a sitting POTUS can’t be indicted. Have someone read you the first paragraph:

https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/...al-prosecution Originally Posted by bambino

He sure will need someone to read it for him. When The Barrow Hog isn't wallowing in shit outside of his gloryholes, he's taking cumshots to his face from his " therapy clients ". Claims that it helps him / her " keep his / her youthful look ". Another lie he's told...and to him/herself !

He sure will need someone to read it for him. When The Barrow Hog isn't wallowing in shit outside of his gloryholes, he's taking cumshots to his face from his " therapy clients ". Claims that it helps him / her " keep his / her youthful look ". Another lie he's told...and to him/herself ! Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

Are you describing ...

... the one who can't talk a rub girl out of her thong?