• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How likely is it that Roe v. Wade will be overturned by Trump's appointed judges?

How likely is it that R v. W will be overturned by Trump's judges?

  • Total voters
    122
Cephus said:
Post #32, where you say: "Sure, let's through racism in with abortion and start a real donnybrook!! "

No mention of staying on topic at all. You just didn't buy that it had happened and were wrong.
Click to expand...

No, what I posted is called sarcasm (even with my grammatical error) and clearly it went right over your head.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I read that Senator McCain (of all people) was pushing for Ted Cruz to be nominated for the seat left open by Scalia's death, but I can't find it on Google right now.
Click to expand...

Graham. I thought it was funny, because it more or less balances the Supreme Court to where it was before Scalia's death (but maybe not Scalia's intellect) and rids Senate Republicans of the biggest thorn in their side.
 
AGENT J said:
Because it rally certain voters, while at the same time it doesn't lose any voters you didn't have anyway and it's a nice talking point. Heck just look at the globe, what country similar to ours tech wise and freedom and rights wise is going backwards on abortion??

Rvw may get tighter, like go to 20,21,22 weeks but i actually thought that would happen regardless sometime in the future but never banning or mostly banning. We are a first world country, banning is usually 3rd world stuff..
Click to expand...

I totally get that they are rallying their voters, but if they get enough pro-life judges, a pro-life group is going to find a case and ride it to the USSC. Saying that they only want to appeal to the their constituents but have no intention of trying to reverse it, smells like a barnyard substance to me. (To quote Peggy Noonan, as I recall.)
 
CanadaJohn said:
No, what I posted is called sarcasm (even with my grammatical error) and clearly it went right over your head.
Click to expand...

Should we take a poll and see how many other people saw your "sarcasm"?
 
CanadaJohn said:
One has to remember that Trump, until he miraculously/conveniently became a conservative, was a liberal Democrat who supported abortion rights. While his Supreme Court pick, and perhaps picks in the future, will be less social liberal renegades who believe it's their right to legislate from the bench than they would have been had Clinton won, they will, nonetheless, likely not be conservative constitutional originalist like Scalia. As such, it's not likely that there will ever be any significant reversal.
Click to expand...

Is Donald Trump's short list for cabinet positions largely safe bets for conservatives? Was Donald Trump's list for judges comfortable for conservatives?

Just because Donald Trump himself is fairly agnostic and has proclivities to being uninterested in details does not mean that he feels he wants to or is able to do a 180 after running fairly hard in the Republican primary.
 
Fiddytree said:
Graham. I thought it was funny, because it more or less balances the Supreme Court to where it was before Scalia's death (but maybe not Scalia's intellect) and rids Senate Republicans of the biggest thorn in their side.
Click to expand...

So Graham made the suggestion?
 
Cephus said:
Should we take a poll and see how many other people saw your "sarcasm"?
Click to expand...

If you want to be embarrassed, sure, go right ahead. I would note, however, that Josie started a thread that wasn't about me nor was it about you.
 
Gina said:
I want to understand why that is the litmus test. You're saying there is absolutely no intention of overturning Roe, yes? So conservative presidents of the past, are misrepresenting the reason for only considering pro-life judges? Because they are giving false hope to people who truly want to see it overturned.

Trump's intention is to send it back to the states. How does that happen? Doesn't it mean Roe must be overturned in order to do that? Handing it back to the states means Roe v. Wade ceases being the law of the country, as far as I can tell.



And, Mike Pence has stated it's his goal:

Mike Pence: "We Will Defund Planned Parenthood and Reverse Roe v. Wade" | LifeNews.com
Click to expand...

I'm saying it's entirely political. They know it will never happen, but they know certain people want to hear that it's on their "to do" list. It doesn't really matter what they say about it or the "litmus test" because it's just a political ploy to get conservative votes.

What about you? Do you think it's very likely or somewhat likely it will happen?
 
Cephus said:
Just like every other politician out there. You don't think these people make campaign promises because they expect to keep them, do you? Politicians make campaign promises to get votes. Hillary did the same thing, so did Obama, so does every politician.
Click to expand...

So if a conservative president were to manage to get a right-leaning, pro-life court, they won't seek to reverse/overturn Roe? That's not something we should pay attention to?
 
Beaudreaux said:
So Graham made the suggestion?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but again, Graham was the same guy who said that picking between Trump and Cruz was like picking being shot in the head or being poisoned. So it's a pretty convenient appointment to suggest :p
 
Fiddytree said:
Is Donald Trump's short list for cabinet positions largely safe bets for conservatives? Was Donald Trump's list for judges comfortable for conservatives?

Just because Donald Trump himself is fairly agnostic and has proclivities to being uninterested in details does not mean that he feels he wants to or is able to do a 180 after running fairly hard in the Republican primary.
Click to expand...

Maybe so - Trump strikes me, however, as a one term President who will have none of the inclinations to play it safe in his supposedly first term in order to protect a reelection. I can't see him staying away from his business interests for 8 year. But that's just speculation.
 
Josie said:
I'm saying it's entirely political. They know it will never happen, but they know certain people want to hear that it's on their "to do" list. It doesn't really matter what they say about it or the "litmus test" because it's just a political ploy to get conservative votes.

What about you? Do you think it's very likely or somewhat likely it will happen?
Click to expand...
Same question to you as I just posed to Cephus:

So if a conservative president were to manage to get a right-leaning, pro-life court, they won't seek to reverse/overturn Roe? That's not something we should pay attention to?
 
Gina said:
So if a conservative president were to manage to get a right-leaning, pro-life court, they won't seek to reverse/overturn Roe? That's not something we should pay attention to?
Click to expand...

I don't buy for a second that the court would actually overturn a thing. As I've pointed out before, the court is ridiculously resistant to overturning past decisions, especially when there's a huge amount of case law built upon it. Overturning RvW would essentially gut privacy laws everywhere. Thinking this would happen is abject paranoia.
 
Gina said:
Same question to you as I just posed to Cephus:

So if a conservative president were to manage to get a right-leaning, pro-life court, they won't seek to reverse/overturn Roe? That's not something we should pay attention to?
Click to expand...

Nah, I don't think they will. Maybe they'd alter things a bit, but abortion will never go away.

Can you answer my question now? :)
 
I think there is a chance, but it's small.
 
humbolt said:
What? You don't believe in constitutional penumbras? Yes, it's bad law. However, it's pretty much part of the fabric of our society. I think perhaps a narrowing of circumstances surrounding abortion would be as far as they can go.
Click to expand...

It's not even the penumbra that is the problem with it. It's that fact that the "right" has only ever been applied to 2 circumstances. Which shows that it wasn't really a right but a pretense to force the legalization of abortion. Ginsburg has even admitted as much. So because or a poor ruling abortion is a part of our society and now as such shouldn't be taken away? I think the SCOTUS will have the backbone to make a proper ruling.
 
Gina said:
I totally get that they are rallying their voters, but if they get enough pro-life judges, a pro-life group is going to find a case and ride it to the USSC. Saying that they only want to appeal to the their constituents but have no intention of trying to reverse it, smells like a barnyard substance to me. (To quote Peggy Noonan, as I recall.)
Click to expand...

LOL nice!
It's possible but unlikely. Like I said just unlikely if we are talking full overturn for the reasons i listed in post 20, it will take a little more than just riding one case to SCOTUS.
I don't really believe its more than that, "completely overrunning it" is what smells like the barnyard to me ;) but I could be wrong. Like I said we are a first world country, banning it is mainly a 3rd world thing. Why would we go backwards like that? and like I said it would only create a flood in a different direction for mid term elections and the next presidential election. Trump would be one and done for sure. There's not enough time, or perfect pieces or majority of people who REALLY want it to make it happen IMO.

third_world_map.jpg
screen_shot_2014_12_19_at_9_36_11_am.png(mediaclass-base-page-main.d2c518cc99acd7f6b176d3cced63a.jpg
 
Gina said:
I totally get that they are rallying their voters, but if they get enough pro-life judges, a pro-life group is going to find a case and ride it to the USSC. Saying that they only want to appeal to the their constituents but have no intention of trying to reverse it, smells like a barnyard substance to me. (To quote Peggy Noonan, as I recall.)
Click to expand...

It's true that there's a lot of noise every two to four years about Roe, but the number of actual Republicans that see Roe as a critical platform plank is getting smaller every year. Like J and I said, it may get restricted as medicine advances, but never overturned.

We as a culture are finally moving toward the universal understanding that was written in our Declaration Independence, that all men (the generic men, and in mankind) are created equal, and that entails certain rights such as equal protection, due process, privacy, and freedom of choice in all things. Something the GOP stood for back when we were created and Lincoln was elected to champion - I'm glad to say we're starting to return to our roots, even if back then the roots were on the surface and until 1868, 1964, 1965, and so on with a recent strengthening of our roots in the foundation of our Constitution being June 26, 2015, we keep digging those roots deeper. Ever try to get a 240 year old stump and roots out of the ground? Can't do it without destroying the surrounding land, and using something like dynamite or heavy machinery. The metaphorical equivalent of violence, which will not happen.
 
Very, very unlikely. I have a better chance of being struck by lightening.....twice than RvW being overturned.

I remember talking to a friend just days after George W was inaugurated and all she was worried about was abortion. "OMG! He's going to overturn RvW! OMG! OMG!" She was a well trained, well groomed and molded dedicated democrat who bought into the fear mongering perpetuated by the left. Just like the asinine protesters we're seeing on TV lately.

Since 1981 there have been three pro life presidents occupying the White House, totaling 20 years. I don't recall RvW ever coming close to being threatened.
 
Cephus said:
I don't buy for a second that the court would actually overturn a thing. As I've pointed out before, the court is ridiculously resistant to overturning past decisions, especially when there's a huge amount of case law built upon it. Overturning RvW would essentially gut privacy laws everywhere. Thinking this would happen is abject paranoia.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to be that complacent. If that were to happen, a pro-life group would bring a case to the USSC as fast as they could manage. Those people are motivated. It would be a mistake to take them for granted.

Especially when there is evidence like Citizens United:
The majority decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

The results of that decision, to overrule the precedent set in the prior decision, has had a huge impact.

Roberts and Alito both said they would respect precedent. It's not the only precedent they've overruled, but it is a very damaging decision.

Josie said:
Nah, I don't think they will. Maybe they'd alter things a bit, but abortion will never go away.

Can you answer my question now? :)
Click to expand...
See my answer to Cephus. Precedents are not safe under the Roberts court and those on the pro-choice side would be foolish to be lulled by such assurances after Citizens United. And altering, is not acceptable either.

I can only answer your question by saying, it depends. It depends on how many pro-life justices Trump/Pence to get on the court. Because Pence, has every intention of getting Roe overturned. He has said so. Words have meanings. These are his.

“I long to see the day that Roe vs. Wade is consigned to the ash heap of history where it belongs and we again embrace a culture of life in America. (applause).
Click to expand...
 
I think we are at the beginning of the pendulum swing back right... so lots of things we might not have thought possible before are suddenly on the horizon. At minimum, it should be possible that abortion laws will revert back to what they should always have been and had been in the first place, a State's Right issue. Not a woman's choice, but a State's.
 
Beaudreaux said:
It's true that there's a lot of noise every two to four years about Roe, but the number of actual Republicans that see Roe as a critical platform plank is getting smaller every year. Like J and I said, it may get restricted as medicine advances, but never overturned.

We as a culture are finally moving toward the universal understanding that was written in our Declaration Independence, that all men (the generic men, and in mankind) are created equal, and that entails certain rights such as equal protection, due process, privacy, and freedom of choice in all things. Something the GOP stood for back when we were created and Lincoln was elected to champion - I'm glad to say we're starting to return to our roots, even if back then the roots were on the surface and until 1868, 1964, 1965, and so on with a recent strengthening of our roots in the foundation of our Constitution being June 26, 2015, we keep digging those roots deeper. Ever try to get a 240 year old stump and roots out of the ground? Can't do it without destroying the surrounding land, and using something like dynamite or heavy machinery. The metaphorical equivalent of violence, which will not happen.
Click to expand...

See Mike Pence:
“I long to see the day that Roe vs. Wade is consigned to the ash heap of history where it belongs and we again embrace a culture of life in America. (applause).
Click to expand...

There are none so shocked as the complacent. Hillary found that out. ;)
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
I think we are at the beginning of the pendulum swing back right... so lots of things we might not have thought possible before are suddenly on the horizon. At minimum, it should be possible that abortion laws will revert back to what they should always have been and had been in the first place, a State's Right issue. Not a woman's choice, but a State's.
Click to expand...

can you give a rational argument for punishing women who want to abort non-viable fetuses without invoking "god". Tell us how society as a whole is better off by jailing a pregnant mother who decides she doesnt' want to bring the pregnancy to term
 
Gina said:
See Mike Pence:


There are none so shocked as the complacent. Hillary found that out. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm sadly aware of Mike Pence and his neolithic views. He has no power, unless something happens to Trump. Which should be more than enough motivation for the left to get the protesters, and rioters, and people threatening the President-elect under control.

Mike Pence is vocal and very visible, but he's not representative of the majority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom