Susan Collins says she won’t support Supreme Court nominee who shows ‘hostility to Roe v. Wade

Susan Collins, Senator from Maine, the most famous 'Republican-in-name-only' (RINO) has come charging to the forefront of the news to extol her staunch support for the Roe v Wade decision of 1973:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-v-wade/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.211be4739257

Her support is very important to President Trump, given the fact that no matter WHO he picks as the next SCOTUS nominee, every Democrat will automatically vote against that person.

But, it might surprise Ms. Collins, her RINO colleagues, and the entire rabid-Democrat mob to learn that quite a few of us Conservatives do not want to see Roe v Wade overturned!

Sure, the usual America-hating Liberal narrative holds that ALL Republicans (or those who vote Republican) are just CHEWING AT THE STRAPS to overturn Roe v Wade. I argue that is NOT the case... why?

1. For 45 years, Roe v Wade has established and sustained the right of a woman to have exclusive control over what is, and what is not, occurring inside her own body. This is only fair!
2. Any threat against Roe v Wade will instantly make militant, radical Democrats out of the majority of female Americans -- which is reported by the U. S. Census Bureau to be 50.8%.
3. The United States already has a population of well over 326 million people -- with the certainty of millions more in the years to come in the wake of even more illegal aliens, "amnesty" and citizenship to be given to them, etc.

Why would we need even millions more offspring being born to American mothers who didn't even want them in the first place?! Predictably, the vast majority of these unwanted children would just end up being on welfare anyway, which this nearly-bankrupt country can't afford as it is!

Suggestion to President Trump:

Sir,

Please pick a nominee to the Supreme Court who will steadfastly support the Constitution of the United States EXACTLY as it is written and amended. No less, and no more!

And, please, avoid nominating anyone who the hyperliberal Left can use to rally their faction against your administration and its untiring effort to truly "Make America Great Again"!

 

Constituon as written? So you want to abolish the airforce?

 

One wonders why ms Collins is so concerned. The better question is why the administration should be that concerned with her sentiment. Roe is a legislative decision. It created from whole cloth a reason to keep government out of certain health decisions. And yet, she was a loud supporter of Obamacare. There does seem to be an unbridgeable disconnect here, for her, to justify her demand.

 

I think the word you were looking for was "Air Force", and, well, you're just being silly. But, anything to deflect from the topic... right?

 

To late, its anybody Trump picks.

Btw. Great Minds and all that.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/susan-collins-throws-a-wrench-into-the-works.536471/

 

So true that the Rino's need to go, they are nothing but democrats in disguise. If anyone wants to know why with supposedly all three branches of government we still can't get things done, it's because of her and others like her. But that said,

In today's world there is NO REASON for women to use the excuse they should have to kill a baby because they don't want to carry it to term. There are hundreds of means of birth control to keep this from happening, all the way to the morning after pill. Children born can even be handed over to authorities no questions asked these days.

Even if someone was to have some kind of weird condition rendering them unable to take birth control pills, there are IUD's. And worse case scenario should they find themselves having been REMISS to have taken some type of precautions, after trying the morning after pill, they could put the child up for adoption. Why at a time in history when women are no longer ostracized for being pregnant, some even opting to have a child on their own so they don't have to feel burdened by marriage, do they feel it necessary to KILL a child?

And even worse they expect the government to fund the process through planned parenthood which puts the blood of the fetus on the hands of ALL Americans even though many disagree. The whole issue is beyond ludicrous in today's times.

So again, anyone finding themselves pregnant because of THEIR FAILURE to use birth control, who don't want to take the morning after pill like in rape cases, just determined to kill babies;

Should have to take a flight to another country and pay the cost themselves or carry the baby to term and put it up for adoption.

There are plenty of childless parents who would love to have it.

https://deadline.com/2018/07/john-o...change-roe-v-wade-anthony-kennedy-1202420366/

 

Not really, Susan Collins has been screwing the Repubs over for a couple of decades now. McConnell should remove her from all committee assignments. Repubs should do all they can to not make her feel Welcome. She is nothing more than a Demo who has infiltrated the Repubs.

Give her no money and no backing from Repubs. Shun her.....ostracize her. Run a real Republican against her.

 

So sounds like a “real Republican “ would not support Roe v. Wade”. Pretty much ends the assertion of the OPthat Republicans are ok with women having the right to abortion

 

Please tell me what page the Air Force is on. I see the army and the navy, but no Air Force.

 

But, but, Democrats did that, removed it from the Army, Democrats did that.

 

Well Real Republicans are Constitutionalists and know a bad decision is a bad decision. Along with the difference of State law and the Fed.

 

Amidst the theocratic jihad to further transfer control of wombs to The State is the simple reality that the vast majority of Americans prefer that politicians in Washington, eager to impose their bureaucratic dominance over private matters, allow such decisions to be made by the principle party with the counsel of friends, family members, and spiritual advisers whom she trusts rather than an authoritarian regime unaware of and indifferent to her circumstances.

Roe v Wade is the compromise based upon the stages of human gestation. Despite the homunculus advocates who insist that a microscopic, mindless amalgam of cells is a sterling individual, the scientific reality is that a person develops during the process.

 

And?

 

The female John McCain rears her ugly head.

 

Clearly you have no clue. Here is the dissent. Make note about that BS about a compromise upon the stages of human gestation.

Justice William Rehnquist
Dissent in Roe v. Wade


Lack of Evidence of Legitimate Plaintiff

He first argued that there was no plaintiff in the case to whom the Court's ruling could apply. In order for the Court to rule that states could not regulate abortion during the first trimester, it required the presence of a plaintiff who was in her first trimester of pregnancy at some point during the time her case was being tried. There was no evidence that the plaintiff "Jane Roe" had done so while in her first trimester, thus the Court's ruling had no application to the actual case before it.

The Court uses ["Roe's"] complaint against the Texas statute as a fulcrum for deciding that States may impose virtually no restrictions on medical abortions performed during the first trimester of pregnancy. In deciding such a hypothetical lawsuit, the Court departs from the longstanding admonition that it should never "formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied."

http://www.endroe.org/dissentsrehnquist.aspx

Next time try not talking with aliens from other planets.

 

And as usual the leftness can only hang their BO Peep Hope hat, on a Wannabe Republican that has infiltrated their party.

 

Clearly, you are at odds with the vast majority of Americans if you demand that State bureaucrats should seize control of all wombs from the instant a mindless, microscopic amalgam of cells occurs.

 

Like I said.....you clearly don't have a clue about Constitutional Law. Oh and its clear you didn't even read the link. Or you wouldn't have come back with something so easy to tear apart.



In Roe, the court had subjected the Texas abortion laws to "strict scrutiny." The Court demanded that the state prove that its laws were necessary to further a compelling state interest. Texas had argued that it had a compelling interest in protecting the life of the unborn, but the Court ruled that this interest did not become compelling until the fetus became "viable." Thus, it concluded, states could not pass laws protecting the unborn prior to viability.

Moreover, he pointed out, the "right" that Blackmun and the rest of the majority claimed to discover was apparently unknown to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment itself. At the time that Amendment was passed in 1868 there were laws against abortion in 36 states, including the very Texas law that the Court was now striking down. "There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.".....snip~

You know the States that are more capable of dealing with the local and personal level.

 

The applicable law of the land is based upon the 1973 Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision, currently supported by 67% of Americans.

We cannot allow extremists to inflict their peculiar notions upon everyone else via the coercive power of the State.

Once personhood has been achieved during the gestative process, that individual merits the protection of law. Prior to that, those advocating the personhood of a microscopic, mindless entity are free to exercise their the suasive powers, but not demand that government bureaucracy inflict their conceit upon everyone.

 

Human life:



a skin cell -

microscopic and mindless.

 

When you can show that Rehnquist and White are extremists. You might have something to fall back on other than leftist propaganda.

Of course there those who favor abortion and what they have to say, about LAW.


"What is frightening about Roe," noted the eminent constitutional scholar and Yale law professor John Hart Ely (who personally supported legalized abortion), "is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers' thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation's governmental structure. … It is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."

Indeed, "[a]s a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method," writes Edward Lazarus, a former Blackmun clerk who is "utterly committed" to legalized abortion, "Roe borders on the indefensible. ... Justice Blackmun's opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the … years since Roe's announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms."

Justice Byron White, a dissenter in Roe, explained the problem in his dissent in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists. "[T]he Constitution itself is ordained and established by the people of the United States," he wrote. "[D]ecisions that find in the Constitution principles or values that cannot fairly be read into that document usurp the people's authority, for such decisions represent choices that the people have never made, and that they cannot disavow through corrective legislation." Roe defied the Constitution and other laws that the American people agreed upon—and imposed the will of the unelected Court instead.

Many abortion defenders want and expect Roe to last forever. It will not. "[A] bad decision is a bad decision," concedes Richard Cohen, a supporter of abortion, in the Washington Post. "If the best we can say for it is that the end justifies the means, then we have not only lost the argument—but a bit of our soul as well."....snip~

https://www.mccl.org/single-post/2017/01/20/The-three-fundamental-problems-with-Roe-v-Wade

 

Microscopic and Mindless will be a great name when somebody makes a Broadway play about Trump and Stormy...

 

Minority views of yore abound. The current law, supported by 67% of Americans, also has the principle of stare decisis in its support.

Those who demand that the State seize control of every womb immediately if impregnation occurs and dictate to every personally-impacted American in such a private matter must not be allowed to impose their notions upon everyone.

 

hahhah ok...says the gun ban crowd. Maybe we will decide to remove your rights maybe not. Now about the gun control...do we still think we want more control or not? If so...maybe we will just remove the rights you like instead.

 

To make matters worse, most Pro-Life Republicans don't want the extra populations that would result when those saved fetuses become infants. Republicans have a long established history of protecting fetuses until they are born, then losing all interest in them or their life's challenges after birth. One could regard such behaviors as "hypocritical." For me personally, several decades of Near-Death Experience studies coupled with spiritual studies in general have convinced me that souls prevented from birth in an aborted fetus can simply return in the chosen mother's next pregnancy and still become their agreed upon child. From a spiritual perspective, nothing is lost.