A sitting member of congress calls for open defiance of the Supreme Court

[durangodawood]

Sounds like you're advocating for anarchy. Is that what you want?

I dont see why not. If you can invent your own "rules" like 'its not legit for a president to nominate a justice in the last year of his term', then you can invent your own other rules as you please. Or ignore other rules.

Its about what you can get away with.

 

[hislegacy]

Every year for the last 20 years or so Republican lawmakers in various states passed anti Roe legislation and every year they got slapped down or stayed.


I can't recall you complaining.

That is probably why our forum rules tell us to address the topic of the thread and not the poster.

FYI it's not defiance of the supreme court she's calling for. It's defiance of the state laws, obviously.

She never mentioned the states, did she?

 

[evoeth]

She never mentioned the states, did she?

It isn't the Supreme Court that had outlawed abortion. It is the states.

 

[hislegacy]

It isn't the Supreme Court that had outlawed abortion. It is the states.

What does that have to do with Maxine’s words. That do not mention states, but do directly address the Court

 

[Maria Billingsley]

First we saw Church Schumer publicly call out specific justices if they voted against what he wanted in ROE.

and now we have a Democratic member of Congress openly calling for defiance of the Court Ruling.

“Women are going to control their bodies no matter how they try and stop us,” Waters told journalists at the Court. “The hell with the Supreme Court—we will defy them.

Please note: The quote is well within forum guidelines:

• Quotes in the linked article containing profanity will be from public figures such as political leaders, and not in the commentary by the author of the article or a non-public figure.

It is a direct quote from a political leader.

Here is my point. The Court is the final authority on laws. What gives these Democratic Leaders the right to first threaten the Justices and then call for open defiance of law?

Do you support them?

They lied during the confirmation hearings first of all. Secondly, who are you speaking of ? You have a nameless quote.
Thanks for sharing.

Edit: Oh I see now Waters. Yes, women will still get abortions despite the Supreme court's ruling.

 

[Aldebaran]

This level of spin is quite impressive given what actually happened - two presidents each elected by a minority of voters appointed a bunch of activist justices, and they are now being exposed for the political hacks they are. The Roberts court is now known for the one which has lost the trust of the American public based on their actions ... and the spin is "the left has exposed themselves" for seeing these facts.

To paraphrase a quote from the late Harry Reid, "The pro-abortionists didn't win, did they"?

 

[Aldebaran]

I dont see why not. If you can invent your own "rules" like 'its not legit for a president to nominate a justice in the last year of his term', then you can invent your own other rules as you please. Or ignore other rules.

Its about what you can get away with.

QFE----Quoted for exposure.

 

[JSRG]

They lied during the confirmation hearings first of all.

Where? When? About what? Give me the exact quotes, not vague assertions.

If this is a claim that they "lied" about not overturning Roe v. Wade, as far as I can tell they never said that. They just (like basically all justices, whether nominated by Republicans or Democrats) ducked saying anything definite about it, at most referring to it (or other cases) as important precedents, or entitled to stare decisis, or other similar verbiage, but never saying they wouldn't overturn it.

NPR, hardly a conservative source, had a writeup about it:
What conservative justices said — and didn't say — about Roe at their confirmations

As it repeatedly notes, they might use terms like "important precedent" but never any statement that it couldn't be overturned. No lies here that I see.

 

[civilwarbuff]

As it repeatedly notes, they might use terms like "important precedent" but never any statement that it couldn't be overturned.

https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...times-the-supreme-court-reversed-a-precedent/
List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia
List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is a list of decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States that have been explicitly overruled, in part or in whole, by a subsequent decision of the Court. It does not include decisions that have been abrogated by subsequent constitutional amendment or by subsequent amending statutes.

 

[grasping the after wind]

It isn't the Supreme Court that had outlawed abortion. It is the states.

Do you think Maxine Waters actually knows that?

 

[loveofourlord]

Do you think Maxine Waters actually knows that?

you think were too stupid to know they overturned roe v wade to ban it?

 

[grasping the after wind]

you think were too stupid to know they overturned roe v wade to ban it?

The Supreme Court cannot ban abortion. They do not have the legislative power to do so. They simply admitted the prior Court did not have the power to make abortion a right. Which means that abortion will be legal in any state that wishes it to be legal, restricted in any state that wishes to restrict it and banned in any state that wishes to ban it. Each of those states has democratically elected representatives of the people so if a majority of the people in those states are determined to have legal abortion, they will have it.

 

[durangodawood]

QFE----Quoted for exposure.

Thank you! People should be aware of the way things are now.

 

[hislegacy]

you think were too stupid to know they overturned roe v wade to ban it?

The Supreme Court overturned it because it the arguments to keep it failed. The Supreme Court is NOT banning abortion, but returning the decision to the States.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Where? When? About what? Give me the exact quotes, not vague assertions.

If this is a claim that they "lied" about not overturning Roe v. Wade, as far as I can tell they never said that. They just (like basically all justices, whether nominated by Republicans or Democrats) ducked saying anything definite about it, at most referring to it (or other cases) as important precedents, or entitled to stare decisis, or other similar verbiage, but never saying they wouldn't overturn it.

NPR, hardly a conservative source, had a writeup about it:
What conservative justices said — and didn't say — about Roe at their confirmations

As it repeatedly notes, they might use terms like "important precedent" but never any statement that it couldn't be overturned. No lies here that I see.

Statments:
"I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed," he said. "A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other." Neil Gorsech

Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973, so it has been on the books for a long time," he said. "It is a precedent that has now been on the books for several decades. It has been challenged. It has been reaffirmed. .Alito
"It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis," he said. "The Supreme Court has recognized the right to abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. It has reaffirmed it many times." Kavenaugh

 

[hislegacy]

Statments:
"I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed," he said. "A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other." Neil Gorsech

Read the decision - that is exactly what they did. They then weighed that against the arguments against and ruled. He did not lie.

 

[rocknanchor]

I'll stay with their characterizations.

Too many are foaming out rebellion, defying, nothing resembling Trump's call to
"peacefully" assemble is counted on as insurrection, none of the pro-choice leadership has called them into a peaceful encounter "into the streets". That is, the lure and groundwork of insurrection has entered, God can turn the tide.

I coin it, The J23rd insurrection.

 

[JSRG]

Statments:
"I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed," he said. "A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other." Neil Gorsech

So he said that it was a precedent, was reaffirmed, and that it is "worthy as treatment of precedent like any other." But precedents have been overturned. So it isn't a statement not to overturn it.

Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973, so it has been on the books for a long time," he said. "It is a precedent that has now been on the books for several decades. It has been challenged. It has been reaffirmed. . Alito

All of this is just stating historical fact with no statement not to overturn. No lies here. Also, Alito was confirmed 15 years ago. Even if he did say he thought Roe v. Wade was right or shouldn't be overturned (neither of which he said), is that not more than enough time to change one's position naturally?

"It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis," he said. "The Supreme Court has recognized the right to abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. It has reaffirmed it many times." Kavenaugh

Again, a simple statement of fact that it's precedent and entitled to respect under stare decisis. But precedents can be overturned, and stare decisis is not a statement that precedent cannot be overturned.

So there are no lies in these statements.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I think credit should be given to the bravery of these Justices who did the right thing in spite of the vicious threats of the mob. God bless them and may God finally bless this country again for it's repentance of the sin of abortion.

No , they didn't do the right thing. And should be fired. If you do believe in abortions . Don't get one or cause. But leave our rights to safe abortions , BC and medical info alone.

 

[Aldebaran]

No , they didn't do the right thing. And should be fired. If you do believe in abortions . Don't get one or cause. But leave our rights to safe abortions , BC and medical info alone.

Fired? That's not how it works. Regular court judges get elected or replaced by another elected judge. SCOTUS justices are appointed for life by an elected president.