SCOTUS in action!

[FirstBubba]

No matter how you say it, "rule of law" can't be established by "precedent"!
Roe v. Wade was NEVER a law nor an established Constitutional "right".
Just a "precedent"! "Joe Bob ate a donut! That means I can eat one also!"

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ional_law.html

[FirstBubba]

....and THIS should be charged by AG M. Garland!
Wha'cha bet he doesn't touch it!

https://citizenfreepress.com/breakin...arence-thomas/

[FirstBubba]

Firebomb SCOTUS? Sure glad gays and (d)'s aren't violent!

https://citizenfreepress.com/breakin...supreme-court/

[FirstBubba]

Rep. J. Speier (d-CA) 14th Dist calls for violence!
Guys, you can't make this stuff up!
New articles are popping up on "Citizens Free Press" faster than I can copy & past links to them! 🤯

https://youtu.be/L1nsTIytRNE

Just how far will these pro abortion lunatics go?
Maybe we should just "red flag" every one of them and take their guns away!* They are definitely dangerous to the people around them!

* - Remember! "Rules for thee but not for me!" They HAVE guns!

[FirstBubba]

"Peaceful Protests"?
Yeah! Another "Summer of Love"!
Guess who showed up?

ANTIFA!!!!

https://citizenfreepress.com/breakin...-f-you-scotus/

[FirstBubba]

Here's one for AG Garland!

Patagonia (think high dollar outdoor clothing!) is offering to pay bail for any employee arrested for violence while protesting today's SCOTUS decision!
Don't tell me that isn't inciting violence AND rioting!

https://citizenfreepress.com/breakin...rate-violence/

[99explorer]

No matter how you say it, "rule of law" can't be established by "precedent"!
Roe v. Wade was NEVER a law nor an established Constitutional "right".
Just a "precedent"! "Joe Bob ate a donut! That means I can eat one also!"

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ional_law.html

Until it was reversed, Roe v. Wade was the LAW on abortion rights.
It was the precedent that had to be respected by every other court in the land.

[labrador12]

The Penumbra to rule them all, eh Snowhole! The Constitution spoke to that earlier Court and told them that contrary to all thought and morality, murder of Innocents was to be allowed and celebrated as a great freedom of expression. The shadow knows!

Let's GO Brandon!!!!!

[Pmacc60]

Until it was reversed, Roe v. Wade was the LAW on abortion rights.
It was the precedent that had to be respected by every other court in the land.

Trouble here 99 is that it isn’t protected by the constitution with this courts decision ! However I feel about it or you for that matter , abortion isn’t a constitutional right ! It doesn’t mean it can’t be amended into the constitution and all the ruling means is it’s kicked back to the states . Look I don’t see your point here , you don’t care about the Constitution so why now ! You keep saying it was law for 50 years but 2A has been a right for nearly 250 years ! You can’t have it both ways when you cheapen one argument by telling us you have hearing loss over some persons shooting but that’s a small incident compared to millions who are very responsible . However you love to point out that Roe v Wade is law for 50 years but it has been used irresponsibly many more times than used for legit reasons . I don’t think that abortion was to be used for birth control when it became legal . 99 I feel your opinions are very shallow and without conviction !

[jhjimbo]

Don't capitalize law, because it was never based on solid legal ground. Justices said that 50 years ago but the Court looked the other way. Maybe a regulation is a better description.

[jhjimbo]

Why are women so adamant about abortions when there are other means, like pills?
Does anybody know?

[FirstBubba]

Roe v. Wade WAS considered the (ahem!) "law of the land".
Well, Roe v. Wade has now been overturned and is NO LONGER the (ahem!) "law of the land".
The "Dobbs Decision" is now the (ahem!) "law of the land".

The Dobbs Decision DID NOT abolish abortion, it simply turned the decision to allow or not allow abortion back to the state, where, Constitutionally, it always should have been.

For those who prefer, it is the "Dobbs v. Jackson" decision.

[99explorer]

When the president signs a bill enacted by the legislature, it becomes a LAW.
When the Supreme Court reviews it many years later and finds that it lacks constitutional support, the court may amend it, thereby making a NEW LAW.

[labrador12]

When the president signs a bill enacted by the legislature, it becomes a LAW.
When the Supreme Court reviews it many years later and finds that it lacks constitutional support, the court may amend it, thereby making a NEW LAW.

A new law is made when both Houses of Congress pass a Bill and the President signs it. Courts do not have the power to make laws. The Supreme Court does not have the power to create new laws. The Supreme Court can declare a existing law Unconstitutional. Declaring a law Unconstitutional doesn't automatically create a law replacing the Unconstitutional Statute.

Let's GO Brandon!!!!

[FirstBubba]

A new law is made when both Houses of Congress pass a Bill and the President signs it. Courts do not have the power to make laws. The Supreme Court does not have the power to create new laws. The Supreme Court can declare a existing law Unconstitutional. Declaring a law Unconstitutional doesn't automatically create a law replacing the Unconstitutional Statute.

Let's GO Brandon!!!!

If I'm not mistaken...and I have been on occasion...
...the Senate proposes new laws and it has to be ok'd by the House of Representatives.
The House of Representatives proposes budgets that have to be ok'd by the Senate.
That supposedly helps keep both sides in check, or a "check and balance" type affair.

Once a law/budget has been approved by both House and Senate, only then does it go to POTUS to be signed or vetoed.


....and "YES!", "Roe v. Wade" was unconstitutional in that nowhere in the Constitution OR Bill of Rights does it mention the "right" to an abortion.