General Discussion

TexasDem69

(1,994 posts)

12. Of course Dobbs didn't "make law"

Wed May 1, 2024, 08:21 PM

May 1

Nor did Roe. Roe said the Constitution provided the right to an abortion, Dobbs said that’s not correct. Those are both interpretations of the Constitution not legislation.

I absolutely oppose Supreme Cpurt expansion. It’s a silly idea and I can’t think of a single political or legal scholar who supports it. Just because we don't like some ruling doesn’t mean we get to change the rules that got us there. That’s why we have elections and politicians.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

45 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Supreme Court is not interpreting existing law [View all] EndlessWire May 1 OP

The SC has installed itself as a white christian monarchy. Irish_Dem May 1 #1

I haven't seen a single serious politician advocate TexasDem69 May 1 #2

Sorry i really feel that you are definitely in the bluestarone May 1 #4

Unfortunately its not in his powers to do so. drray23 May 1 #5

We,ll I'm only saying if possible. bluestarone May 1 #6

Republicans already set a precedent though Diraven May 1 #16

which has nothing to do with expanding the court.nt. drray23 May 1 #22

You don't need to apologize for being wrong TexasDem69 May 1 #8

You're joking, right? dpibel May 1 #11

Of course Dobbs didn't "make law" TexasDem69 May 1 #12

You really don't understand common law? dpibel May 1 #13

What common law has the Supreme Court created? TexasDem69 May 1 #15

How to say, "I don't know what 'common law' means"... dpibel May 1 #20

The Supreme Court does not make law TexasDem69 May 1 #27

Wait, WHAT?? dpibel May 1 #44

About that Roe dpibel May 1 #21

No, what they said in Dobbs is that Roe was wrong TexasDem69 May 1 #23

You're just being silly dpibel May 1 #26

I haven't read Roe in 30 years TexasDem69 May 1 #28

Ah. So you agree Roe was wrongly decided! dpibel May 1 #29

I don't think I said anywhere that Roe was wrongly decided TexasDem69 May 1 #33

Nice try, but this one argues against women's rights AllyCat May 1 #18

Was someone arguing against women's rights somewhere? TexasDem69 May 1 #24

"But penumbras and emanations sound familiar." dpibel May 1 #30

You have an odd way of interpreting things TexasDem69 May 1 #34

Ad Hominem!! dpibel May 1 #37

Was it a terrible idea when the court changed over the years? AllyCat May 1 #14

The court has had nine members since 1869 TexasDem69 May 1 #17

Not quite historical, actually. dpibel May 1 #31

Close enough for government work TexasDem69 May 1 #35

LOL! dpibel May 1 #38

Maybe you should read history. former9thward May 1 #41

Fascinating dpibel May 1 #43

We should DEFINITELY stick to tradition then. AllyCat May 1 #32

We should NOT tamper with the makeup of the Supreme Court TexasDem69 May 1 #36

Objection. Nonresponsive. dpibel May 1 #39

Exactly why my rights as a human being will be taken away AllyCat May 1 #40

Existing law just doesn't have the same payoff BoRaGard May 1 #3

I agree. Especially on B.See May 1 #7

They have taken multiple sharpies to the Constitution. usonian May 1 #9

I like Elie Mystal's idea. erodriguez May 1 #10

This i like bluestarone May 1 #19

The SCOTUS ruling in the 14th Amendment disqualification issue was also largely dicta LetMyPeopleVote May 1 #25

Yup.. NowsTheTime May 1 #42

If TSF returns to the WH, expect to see "Brown v Board of Education" overturned. no_hypocrisy May 2 #45