Louisiana Republican Aims To Overturn Roe v. Wade

[kiki5711]

Let's try and stick a doll as big as newborn up his ass to get some of that luvin feeling. BASTARD!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/0 ... 72149.html

[Cunt]

Make it a football, since he is such a big fan.

Sideways.

[kiki5711]

for a "MAN" of all things on Earth to propose this law is beyond unbelievable! Why don't we propose a law that married men can't fuck anyone but their wives. Ya think it will take fire? Become reaaaaly popular?

[Cunt]

Go ahead, kiki5711. I am not married, so won't mind a bit.

I hope you don't have loved ones in Louisiana...

[kiki5711]

these cunt licking republicans need to leave this shit alone.......................why isn't there a law for rapist to have their genitals cut off?

sounds reasonable to me............spare future sexual offenses.?

[laklak]

Fucking idiots. You CANNOT legislate this, it's already been ruled on by SCOTUS. This is just political grandstanding. There are only two routes open for the prolife crowd, a constitutional amendment or a ruling by SCOTUS reversing Roe v Wade. Neither is likely to happen. All they do is cost the taxpayers money as the laws are inevitably knocked down.

[Cunt]

these cunt licking republicans need to leave this shit alone.......................why isn't there a law for rapist to have their genitals cut off?

sounds reasonable to me............spare future sexual offenses.?

If you think removing someone's genitals will prevent them from future sexual offenses then I hope you never get in charge of anything more dangerous than a boiled egg. Without it's shell.

If you were just joking then haha, silly me.

[Svartalf]

for a "MAN" of all things on Earth to propose this law is beyond unbelievable! Why don't we propose a law that married men can't fuck anyone but their wives. Ya think it will take fire? Become reaaaaly popular?

well, do it, have your congressman propose a law making adultery a felony punishable by lengthy prison sentences AND forfeiture of assets (to the state, so as not give greedy spouses motive for bogus accusations)

[Svartalf]

Fucking idiots. You CANNOT legislate this, it's already been ruled on by SCOTUS. This is just political grandstanding. There are only two routes open for the prolife crowd, a constitutional amendment or a ruling by SCOTUS reversing Roe v Wade. Neither is likely to happen. All they do is cost the taxpayers money as the laws are inevitably knocked down.

DING DING, we have a winner...

I hadn't noticed this was state level while, of course, legislating against SCOTUS must be done federally, if it can be done in the fist place.

Because I know for a fact that this piece of crap won't even get certiorari, even less get the nine to reverse RvW
shrub did not have time to insert enough buffoons... and I'm not even sure roberts and alito are actually neocon mouthpieces.

[Coito ergo sum]

There is nothing stopping the LA legislature from passing this kind of law. It's subject to challenge, of course, and the likelihood is that the ACLU will run into court and move for an injunction preventing its enforcement and getting a ruling from a federal court that the statute is unconstitutional. That would be appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which would like affirm the decision, and then the SCOTUS would likely deny certiorari and not hear the case, letting Roe v. Wade stand. If the SCOTUS accepted cert, then that's the time to be afraid...be very afraid... the only reason they would have to accept certiorari is to consider upholding the statute.

This is just grandstanding by a bunch of hicks.

[Svartalf]

Dammit, Louisiana used to be the peak of civilisation in the Americas, how did it manage to sink lower than the average Appalachian redneck?

[Coito ergo sum]

Apparently, the majority of Americans identify as pro-life.

[Geoff]

Apparently, the majority of Americans identify as pro-life.

That's a helluva changeover in '08...did something happen then to prompt it?

[apophenia]

Fucking idiots. You CANNOT legislate this, it's already been ruled on by SCOTUS. This is just political grandstanding. There are only two routes open for the prolife crowd, a constitutional amendment or a ruling by SCOTUS reversing Roe v Wade. Neither is likely to happen. All they do is cost the taxpayers money as the laws are inevitably knocked down.

That being said, although they are largely split, SCOTUS currently tips in favor of conservatism, and is more conservative than any other supreme court in recent memory. And it was only a year ago that they tossed stare decisis to the wind in CU v. FEC.

[Coito ergo sum]

What do you mean that CU v FEC tossed stare decisis to the wind?

In that case, Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization, filed a complaint before the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that ads for Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, which was critical of the Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, constituted political advertising and thus could not be aired 60 days before an election or 30 days before a party convention. That complaint was struck down, and then Citizens United sought to run ads promoting a movie called "Hillary: The Movie" about Hillary Clinton. The FEC found that the Hillary movie was "electioneering," but F911 was not.

The SCOTUS found: "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." He also noted that since there was no way to distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television and blogs." The Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which had previously held that a Michigan campaign finance act that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled the part of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission that upheld BCRA's extension of the Federal Election Campaign Act's restrictions on independent corporate expenditures to include "electioneering communications".

There have been many instances where the SCOTUS overruled prior decisions of the SCOTUS. "There is a difference between judicial restraint and judicial abdication". The Chief Justice argued that there are times during which overruling prior decisions is necessary. Had the courts never gone against stare decisis, "segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional, and the Government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants". In other words, should the Dred Scott case have tied the hands of the SCOTUS in Brown v. Board of Education?