SUPER precedent.....seriously????

www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-k...nfirmation-hearings/

"Gorsuch said that the Roe decision was “precedent,” but declined to call it “super precedent,” a loosely defined term indicating a deeply rooted, repeatedly upheld precedent. He also declined to give his opinion on whether he thought the court’s ruling was correct." THE SHIT SHOW EXPLAINED.

Since when is a precedent automatically good, just, and constitutional? Roe v Wade was an unconstitutional decision that should not have been left to 9 people. Unprecedented stupidity and the opposite of democracy.

u missed the point by a mile......they did NOT reply truthfully,they hedged their bets for a vote. THEY LIED THRU THEIR TEETH (AND THIS IS OUR HIGHEST OF HIGH INSTITUTION.)

“Multiple Supreme Court Justices lied during their confirmation process about their view of #RoeVWade and stare decisis. Those are the facts.” (Stare decisis, Latin for “to stand by things decided,” is a legal doctrine that courts generally follow when ruling on a similar case.) this quote from the link.......

WOW Yet another SUPER OUTRAGE.

Get a grip.

BTW, this if from your link.
"A close examination of the carefully worded answers by the three Trump appointees, however, shows that while each acknowledged at their hearings that Roe was precedent, and should be afforded the weight that that carries, none specifically committed to refusing to consider overturning it."

Maybe those justices opinions evolved? Maybe they decided voters and legislators should decide if abortions were legal, not nine men in 1973.
A few years ago, Irish citizens legalized abortion. Better direct democracy or should the Supreme Court decide everything?

Blazer Bob wrote: WOW Yet another SUPER OUTRAGE.

Get a grip.

BTW, this if from your link.
"A close examination of the carefully worded answers by the three Trump appointees, however, shows that while each acknowledged at their hearings that Roe was precedent, and should be afforded the weight that that carries, none specifically committed to refusing to consider overturning it."

and there is this....... (Stare decisis, Latin for “to stand by things decided,” is a legal doctrine that courts generally follow when ruling on a similar case.

CALL IT....THEY LIED TO PASS THE CONFIRMATION HEARING.

Blazer Bob wrote: WOW Yet another SUPER OUTRAGE.

Get a grip.

BTW, this if from your link.
"A close examination of the carefully worded answers by the three Trump appointees, however, shows that while each acknowledged at their hearings that Roe was precedent, and should be afforded the weight that that carries, none specifically committed to refusing to consider overturning it."

LET ME EDUCATE U....HERE IS A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE FUBAR FAST APPROACHING. AND
U THINK IT IS BOGUS (get a grip)

www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exc...y_News_Update_active

"We should all be outraged that we have folks who have no medical training, no background in medical education, or healthcare at all, who are now making decisions about what we can say, what we can do, and how we provide care for our communities," Jamila Perritt, MD, MPH, president and CEO of Physicians for Reproductive Health, told MedPage Today.

LOL, but the Left was fine with uneducated Supreme Court Justices who had no medical training when it gave them "Roe V. Wade" right?

Is it better is ballot measures decide 20 weeks is a good, common sense, limit?

Or if elected state senators and governors decide 15 weeks is a good compromise?

Or should we have the Surgeon General decide if abortion limits are acceptable? Or a group of higher-ups at the CDC?

Would a medical-ocracy be the best ones to decide abortion limits?

I would wish to hear arguments that abortion is a medical procedure and nothing more. The decision to have an abortion has profound moral and societal implications.