I don't think anybody has said that. If you can get a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention, and then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification, then that "court ruling" can become a part of our constitution.

The 2nd amendment and Roe vs Wade are two different things. Many states already have trigger laws that still allow for abortions in case of rape, incest or health of the mother. I believe most people would be in favor of this.

FYI, I'm pro choice. I'm also pro personal responsibility. That works in abortion and gun laws.

Steve Videtich said:

---

I don't think anybody has said that. If you can get a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention, and then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification, then that "court ruling" can become a part of our constitution.

The 2nd amendment and Roe vs Wade are two different things. Many states already have trigger laws that still allow for abortions in case of rape, incest or health of the mother. I believe most people would be in favor of this.

FYI, I'm pro choice. I'm also pro personal responsibility. That works in abortion and gun laws.

---

Personal responsibility is where it starts. But why is adopting so costly. Hell the foster care system pays you to foster a child

Glasswolf said:

---

So since we changed a 50 year old ruling it should be ok to make changes to a 200+ year old document right?

---

Separate but equal was the law for 59 years. Should that have not been changed because it was the law for +50 years? And yes, of course it is okay to make changes, that's why there is an amendment process. If you want it to be a federal issue, get 38 state legislatures to codify the right to an abortion.

Also to your earlier point, yes, the death penalty should be abolished.

Glasswolf said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

I don't think anybody has said that. If you can get a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention, and then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification, then that "court ruling" can become a part of our constitution.

The 2nd amendment and Roe vs Wade are two different things. Many states already have trigger laws that still allow for abortions in case of rape, incest or health of the mother. I believe most people would be in favor of this.

FYI, I'm pro choice. I'm also pro personal responsibility. That works in abortion and gun laws.

---

Personal responsibility is where it starts. But why is adopting so costly. Hell the foster care system pays you to foster a child

---

I 100% agree with you there! That's the next thing, as you said, that needs to change. Adoption needs to be something that is achievable for people willing to take on that responsibility. But, like anything else the system is bogged down by paperwork and under staffing.

Y'all get back to me on this and tell me if exodus 21:7, exodus 35:2 and lev 11:7 still apply

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Good, the way it should be. Now, States need to take time to get their legislation implemented. This is an issue that shouldn't be rammed through a legislative process.

---

Hokie, you can thank Donald J Trump for this…

Miss him yet?

---

. Well, you can also thank Mitch McConnell as well. But yes, Trump did pick excellent justices. I look forward to reading their opinions later today as well.

I miss Trump pre 2020 election, I do not miss this current iteration of Trump though.

Steve Videtich said:

---

I don't think anybody has said that. If you can get a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention, and then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification, then that "court ruling" can become a part of our constitution.

The 2nd amendment and Roe vs Wade are two different things. Many states already have trigger laws that still allow for abortions in case of rape, incest or health of the mother. I believe most people would be in favor of this.

FYI, I'm pro choice. I'm also pro personal responsibility. That works in abortion and gun laws.

---

First; I'm pro-State choice.

PackFansXL said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

So since we changed a 50 year old ruling it should be ok to make changes to a 200+ year old document right?

---

There is a standard process to make changes. What the Court did 49 years ago was ignore our processes and create a law where none existed. That was wrong and has finally been corrected.

---

This is correct. It was a wrong ruling in 1973. It was not in the Constitution and should have been sent back to the States then.

I wonder if same sex marriage will get a redo also. Same thing. It should be left to the States.

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

So since we changed a 50 year old ruling it should be ok to make changes to a 200+ year old document right?

---

There is a standard process to make changes. What the Court did 49 years ago was ignore our processes and create a law where none existed. That was wrong and has finally been corrected.

---

This is correct. It was a wrong ruling in 1973. It was not in the Constitution and should have been sent back to the States then.

I wonder if same sex marriage will get a redo also. Same thing. It should be left to the States.

---

Hell.... with the way the lefties are saying "men can have babies" and "chicks can have Richards" who the hell can even define what "same sex marriage" is on the left?

And, it's funny how a few months ago they couldn't tell you what a "woman" is. Now, it's all about "women's rights."

Nothing is more hypocritical than lefty. All they care about is power and maintaining control over the country. They are a pathetic, self loathing bunch that appear to be miserable.

Steve Videtich said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

I don't think anybody has said that. If you can get a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention, and then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification, then that "court ruling" can become a part of our constitution.

The 2nd amendment and Roe vs Wade are two different things. Many states already have trigger laws that still allow for abortions in case of rape, incest or health of the mother. I believe most people would be in favor of this.

FYI, I'm pro choice. I'm also pro personal responsibility. That works in abortion and gun laws.

---

First; I'm pro-State choice.

---

The thing is, all the screaming about our democracy being threatened is now irrelevant. Now, abortion goes to the states where each state can lobby and vote for what they want in their state. It doesn't get more democratic than that!

But, as usual, democrats flip and flop with the wind and talk out of both sides of their mouth.

Vaccine mandates vs pro choice.
Democracy being threatened vs Federal Rule.

It goes on and on! They counter their own arguments with the next crisis of the moment. It's quite hilarious!

---

Representative Republic provides opportunities for best govt, as can be closest to the people.

If New Jersey can stomach killing a baby haflway out the birth canal then they can deal with it.
If Mississippi can tolerate orphanages in every city then they can deal with it.

Steve Videtich said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

I don't think anybody has said that. If you can get a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention, and then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification, then that "court ruling" can become a part of our constitution.

The 2nd amendment and Roe vs Wade are two different things. Many states already have trigger laws that still allow for abortions in case of rape, incest or health of the mother. I believe most people would be in favor of this.

FYI, I'm pro choice. I'm also pro personal responsibility. That works in abortion and gun laws.

---

First; I'm pro-State choice.

---

The thing is, all the screaming about our democracy being threatened is now irrelevant. Now, abortion goes to the states where each state can lobby and vote for what they want in their state. It doesn't get more democratic than that!

But, as usual, democrats flip and flop with the wind and talk out of both sides of their mouth.

Vaccine mandates vs pro choice.
Democracy being threatened vs Federal Rule.

It goes on and on! They counter their own arguments with the next crisis of the moment. It's quite hilarious!

---

That is the line they always use. Our Democracy is threatened. Well no we don't live in a Democracy and never have. Any idiot who spouts that is Constitutionally illiterate. It's a Constitutional Republic. A democracy is majority/mob rule and our founders set it up so it would not be.

Such a JOKE when these Leftists get all sanctimonious and screeching about "our democracy".

First of all, our form of government is a constitutional republic. "And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one nation under God". Not a pure democracy.

But most of these scum don't even believe in freedom of speech. They support the agenda of the Leftist Establishment to silence anyone who doesn't go along with their agenda -- as Joe Biden has officially announced, when he urged Big Tech to silence anyone disagreeing with the official "covid" narrative, and how Leftist-run Big Tech censors all conservatives and "conspiracy theorists" who don't toe the line of Leftist/Establishment orthodoxy.

How can you have a democracy when you don't even allow people to freely speak their mind?

The entire premise of democracy is that people get together and share ideas, and then the majority with the most popular ideas wins out. But if people are censored and not allowed to speak freely, that undercuts the entire premise of democracy -- because then people can't share ideas and have the majority win out.

The communist Left are the ENEMIES of democracy. They don't want the will of the people to make the rules in society. They want tyranny of the elite. They want Marxists in their ivory towers of academia ("Science!!") and in government to dictate what the "lowly serf" masses are allowed to do.

Oldsouljer said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

Like I said. Y'all only care about a child when it's in the uterus. Once it's born it loses all its rights

---

I have to ask, you are making that assertion on the basis of what? I mean for example, once it's born, I also care about its first amendment rights, it's second amendment rights, as well as its third through the ninth amendment rights. As the Supreme Court just acted to reaffirm everyone's second amendment rights, I think most on this board are totally down with that as well.

---

Absolutely. That statement is totally absurd, and a complete inversion of reality. It is those of us on the side of God and liberty who actually care about people's rights....like the right to freedom of speech, to own and carry firearms, the right to LIFE.

The communist Left are actually the ENEMIES of all our rights. They hate our freedom of speech. They hate our right to bear arms. And they hate and oppose the right to life -- ie, the right of unborn children to live.

Everything the Marxist Left spouts is LIES. They live in a fantasy land of lies -- weaved for them by their Marxist overlords. Newsflash...your Marxist overlords are not your friends. They are the enemies of humanity. They are Satan's soldiers. Literally.

A question.
Pelosi and Biden have stated today they want to codify a national abortion right through Congress in response to SCOTUS holding it is a states right issue.
Would not that be an exercise in futility?

bigeric said:

---

A question.
Pelosi and Biden have stated today they want to codify a national abortion right through Congress in response to SCOTUS holding it is a states right issue.
Would not that be an exercise in futility?

---

Neither one understands what you just wrote so they will try I am sure.

Legitimate question, do you think that all cases that are precedent should never be overruled? If so, do you equally defend Plessy v. Ferguson, Wolf v. Colorado, or Pace v. Alabama? Or do you think that Brown v. Board, Mapp v. Ohio, and Loving v. Virginia got it right by reversing decisions that were incorrect, despite them being precedent? I mean I just want to know, are you a precedent supporter, or do you just like precedent in this circumstance because you want that outcome?

It was "the law". And it was precedent.

But precedent can be overturned.

Based on just those quotes, they didn't lie, if that's what you're trying to get at. But even IF (hypothetically), they did lie or use deception, on what grounds does a Leftist object to lying and use of deception? The use of lies and deception is the RELIGION of the communist Left. That's all you guys do. That's all you believe. If it's not a lie, then you don't want to have anything to do with it.

Wasn't there a similar resistance and outcry to Brown v. Board?
Trying to recall which party was so upset then.

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

So since we changed a 50 year old ruling it should be ok to make changes to a 200+ year old document right?

---

There is a standard process to make changes. What the Court did 49 years ago was ignore our processes and create a law where none existed. That was wrong and has finally been corrected.

---

This is correct. It was a wrong ruling in 1973. It was not in the Constitution and should have been sent back to the States then.

I wonder if same sex marriage will get a redo also. Same thing. It should be left to the States.

---

Should women's right to vote be a state issue?

GuerrillaPack said:

---

Such a JOKE when these Leftists get all sanctimonious and screeching about "our democracy".

First of all, our form of government is a constitutional republic. "And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one nation under God". Not a pure democracy.

But most of these scum don't even believe in freedom of speech. They support the agenda of the Leftist Establishment to silence anyone who doesn't go along with their agenda -- as Joe Biden has officially announced, when he urged Big Tech to silence anyone disagreeing with the official "covid" narrative, and how Leftist-run Big Tech censors all conservatives and "conspiracy theorists" who don't toe the line of Leftist/Establishment orthodoxy.

How can you have a democracy when you don't even allow people to freely speak their mind?

The communist Left are the ENEMIES of democracy. They don't want the will of the people to make the rules in society. They want tyranny of the elite. They want Marxists in their ivory towers of academia ("Science!!") and in government to dictate what the "lowly serf" masses are allowed to do.

---

the "dumbed down"" electorate........mostly young liberal wokists

Civilized said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

So since we changed a 50 year old ruling it should be ok to make changes to a 200+ year old document right?

---

There is a standard process to make changes. What the Court did 49 years ago was ignore our processes and create a law where none existed. That was wrong and has finally been corrected.

---

This is correct. It was a wrong ruling in 1973. It was not in the Constitution and should have been sent back to the States then.

I wonder if same sex marriage will get a redo also. Same thing. It should be left to the States.

---

Should women's right to vote be a state issue?

---

Analogy fail. That's completely different. There is an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution addressing women getting to vote.

There is no Amendment to the Constitution giving Sodomites the "right" to have their fake "marriages".

Civilized said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

So since we changed a 50 year old ruling it should be ok to make changes to a 200+ year old document right?

---

There is a standard process to make changes. What the Court did 49 years ago was ignore our processes and create a law where none existed. That was wrong and has finally been corrected.

---

This is correct. It was a wrong ruling in 1973. It was not in the Constitution and should have been sent back to the States then.

I wonder if same sex marriage will get a redo also. Same thing. It should be left to the States.

---

Should women's right to vote be a state issue?

---

Should a trans person be able to vote in place of a woman if they identify as that woman?

packgrad said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

Like I said. Y'all only care about a child when it's in the uterus. Once it's born it loses all its rights

---

I see "not a dem" drunk glass is back at it. Seriously, what kind of partisan moron says to people on a message board "Y'all only care about a child when it's in the uterus." Truly a partisan idiot. Moderator my ass.

---

I know, agreed. I'd prematurely bought into somewhat of a senior statesmen..........NOT.

GuerrillaPack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

So since we changed a 50 year old ruling it should be ok to make changes to a 200+ year old document right?

---

There is a standard process to make changes. What the Court did 49 years ago was ignore our processes and create a law where none existed. That was wrong and has finally been corrected.

---

This is correct. It was a wrong ruling in 1973. It was not in the Constitution and should have been sent back to the States then.

I wonder if same sex marriage will get a redo also. Same thing. It should be left to the States.

---

Should women's right to vote be a state issue?

---

Analogy fail. That's completely different. There is an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution addressing women getting to vote.

There is no Amendment to the Constitution giving Sodomites the "right" to have their fake "marriages".

---

Why is women's right to vote a federal issue? Why not leave it to the states?

^^GEEZ

GuerrillaPack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

So since we changed a 50 year old ruling it should be ok to make changes to a 200+ year old document right?

---

There is a standard process to make changes. What the Court did 49 years ago was ignore our processes and create a law where none existed. That was wrong and has finally been corrected.

---

This is correct. It was a wrong ruling in 1973. It was not in the Constitution and should have been sent back to the States then.

I wonder if same sex marriage will get a redo also. Same thing. It should be left to the States.

---

Should women's right to vote be a state issue?

---

Analogy fail. That's completely different. There is an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution addressing women getting to vote.

There is no Amendment to the Constitution giving Sodomites the "right" to have their fake "marriages".

---

No, but Obergefell vs. Hodges is chock full of the same fallacious reasoning that gave birth to Roe so I can understand why it's proponents would be nervous. Marriage has always been the 10th Amendment purview of the individual states for centuries prior to Obergefell. People need to understand that their pet causes need to be solidly grounded in law which includes historical precedent, if they are to survive as law. With Roe, it's not the moral principle of abortion that mattered, but the tortuous reasoning so typical of the Warren Court that has given us the legal chaos we have today on so many issues, though admittedly, it wasn't the Warren court that gave us Obergefell. Roe's reasoning was on a foundation of sand and could not withstand the scrutiny of justices committed to the strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Civilized said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

So since we changed a 50 year old ruling it should be ok to make changes to a 200+ year old document right?

---

There is a standard process to make changes. What the Court did 49 years ago was ignore our processes and create a law where none existed. That was wrong and has finally been corrected.

---

This is correct. It was a wrong ruling in 1973. It was not in the Constitution and should have been sent back to the States then.

I wonder if same sex marriage will get a redo also. Same thing. It should be left to the States.

---

Should women's right to vote be a state issue?

---

Analogy fail. That's completely different. There is an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution addressing women getting to vote.

There is no Amendment to the Constitution giving Sodomites the "right" to have their fake "marriages".

---

Why is women's right to vote a federal issue? Why not leave it to the states?

---

Because it is an enumerated right codified by the 19th amendment. Further, I'd actually push back on the sentiment above regarding gay marriage. The Dobbs decision goes to great lengths to differentiate abortion from the unenumerated rights which are protected under the 14th amendment's liberty interest (things like gay marriage, interracial marriage, and contraception).