The Supreme Court as an Instrument of Oppression

@#2 ... It goes back to the legislature and or the states, ..

So easy to say.

Yet, such an ignorance of history.

The opinions of SCOTUS and the ramifications of those opinions have guided this Country.

Why do you try to trivialize those opinions in your comment?

Your comment seems to indicate that the opinions of SCOTUS are not relevant, that "It goes back to the legislature and or the states"

So, I have to ask of your current alias, why have a Supreme Court if you seem to think a Supreme Court is irrelevant?

@#10 ... Repealing Roe in no way manes abortion illegal. ...

Actually, in practice, it does.

That's the issue here that your comments seem to be so desperate to deflect away from.

Roe is settled law.

Let me say that again... Roe is settled law.

So what substantiation do you have to offer for negating settled law?

Collins: Kavanaugh sees Roe v. Wade as 'settled law'
www.politico.com

...Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh believes that the high court's landmark case Roe v. Wade is settled law, Sen. Susan Collins said Tuesday....

Is Roe v. Wade settled' law? Justices' earlier assurances now in doubt (December 2021)
www.pbs.org

...During his confirmation to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh convinced Sen. Susan Collins that he thought a woman's right to an abortion was "settled law," calling the court cases affirming it "precedent on precedent" that could not be casually overturned.

Amy Coney Barrett told senators during her Senate confirmation hearing that laws could not be undone simply by personal beliefs, including her own. "It's not the law of Amy," she quipped.

But during this week's landmark Supreme Court hearing over a Mississippi law that could curtail if not outright end a woman's right to abortion, the two newest justices struck a markedly different tone, drawing lines of questioning widely viewed as part of the court's willingness to dismantle decades old decisions on access to abortion services.

The disconnect is raising fresh questions about the substance, purpose and theater of the Senate's confirmation process that some say is badly broken. And it's creating hard politics for Collins and another Senate Republican who supports abortion rights, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, as the nation confronts the potential unraveling of the law....

So...

Do the GOP SCOTUS nominees intentionally prevaricate in order to be confirmed?

It is starting to look that way.

Is that just another step in the GOP's destruction of what has built the Country?

@#14

A question I have...

Are the Supreme Court nominees under oath during those Senate confirmation hearings?

@#16 ... Don't go into Snoofy territory with your arguments. It's a very dark, ugly and ridiculous place. ...

In reality, whenever I've posed a question to the Snoofy alias, I received an answer.

Not so much with your current alias.

So, before your alias casts aspersions upon others, maybe you might want to get your own house in order, and answer questions posed.

Of course, if your current alias is here more to disrupt than to discuss as my current opinion suggests, it all makes sense.

Jus' sayin'

@#19 ... Tough question? It was an absurd question. ...

Do go on. But your comment is merely a deflection. (yet another deflection)

I note that you still have not answered that question, and another (posed in #12)...

Your comment has done little but confirm my opinion of your current alias.

@#27 ... I've yet to see any kind of push to have that procedure made illegal. ...

Good thing your comment says, "yet."

But given the current trajectory, how soon before we reach that point?

I mean, the current opinion seems to indicate that women are little more than a baby factory because, as the SCOTUS opinion states, we apparently need more babies.

But all this points to the role of women. And the decisions those women have.

So, do you think that women should be viewed merely as baby factories, with no rights beyond that?