Quote:Asked by Fox News in an interview that aired Sunday morning if he will ask Supreme Court nominee candidates their views on landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, Trump replied: “Probably not.” But he said he will be “putting conservative people” on the high court during his presidency, and said abortion rights “very well could end up” being decided on a state-by-state basis “at some point.”

http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/ab...ourt-trump

I think this would be the best outcome......making it a State's Rights issue.

Opposing viewpoints should be presented with downside examples please.

Wouldn't surprise me though if they declined hearing R v W outright.

Yeah, could happen even with Trump's second pick. but if His Orangeness gets a second term, he'll probably have one, perhaps even two more SC picks. Hard to imagine the SC avoiding a review of Roe vs Wade forever.

I'm hoping he picks Coney Barrett this go-round. The left will go berserk, well, even more berserk than they already are. As the guy said, love him or hate him, Trump loves a fight.

Doesn't there have to be a case at a lower level to review first? I'm sure there is one out there.

(07-03-2018 09:18 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Doesn't there have to be a case at a lower level to review first? I'm sure there is one out there.

If there's not one out there, there would be soon enough.

Per the constitution there are specific issues which are within federal scope while all other issues are within state scope.


Is the right for an innocent human being to be allowed to live within the scope of the Constitution?


For those who used to demand science be the deciding factor on things, they must defer to science here.

The child in the womb is genetically a human being.

From the moment of conception every piece of genetic information is present. No other genetic information will ever be added from an outside source.

Abortion is a generic term for various procedures which terminate a human life.

(07-03-2018 09:18 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Doesn't there have to be a case at a lower level to review first? I'm sure there is one out there.

I doubt there will be a repeal, but states will be emboldened to pass more restrictions which SCOTUS will eventually let stand.

Making abortions hard is much easier than making them illegal.

(07-03-2018 09:59 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  Per the constitution there are specific issues which are within federal scope while all other issues are within state scope.


Is the right for an innocent human being to allowed to live within the scope of the Constitution?


For those who used to demand science be the deciding factor on things, they must defer to science here.

The child in the womb is genetically a human being.

From the moment of conception every piece of genetic information is present. No other genetic information will ever be added from an outside source.

Abortion is a generic term for various procedures which terminate a human life.

That's about as well as one can state an argument against abortion, well done. +3

Abortion is an issue for the voters, not the courts.

(07-03-2018 09:59 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  Per the constitution there are specific issues which are within federal scope while all other issues are within state scope.


Is the right for an innocent human being to allowed to live within the scope of the Constitution?


For those who used to demand science be the deciding factor on things, they must defer to science here.

The child in the womb is genetically a human being.

From the moment of conception every piece of genetic information is present. No other genetic information will ever be added from an outside source.

Abortion is a generic term for various procedures which terminate a human life.

wait a minute, no, no no, you don't understand HOW to use Science--- Don't you know you can only use science to refer to Left-wing talking points? They teach that at almost every college and university--did you skip a lot of class?

Seriously, though, the American genocide committed by murdering more than 60,000,000 innocent babies will be discussed in future generations with the same revulsion and incomprehensibility we now hold slavery and the Holocaust in.

Ok, so it goes to the States. Which, I assume, means that not much will change. In fact, I can see most states leaving it up to local cities and counties and not wanting to get involved.