Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill14564
Two Supreme Court cases said the right was already recognized in the Constitution. There was no need for a separate law to codify what the Constitution already provided. I would have argued against a separate law as redundant and as an attempt to improve on what was already there.
Remember, several Justice candidates stated their belief that this was settled law as well.
And then it wasn't settled at all.
Trying to wrap my head around how it could be used for a weapon. Not doubting that it's a possibility these days, just can't see how that would work.
|
No, they stated it was "settled precedent", which is not the same as "settled law"... There never was a codified law...
Even RBG said it was a bad decision. Not because she disagreed w/a woman's right to choose, but because the SCOTUS screwed the pooch in their decision...