Guess who is right again?

HAHA! Right-winged? Get it?

Anyway in an earlier post I allude to the fact you can't do an abortion ban in one big sweep. Well the U.S. Supreme Court has knocked down a law that has just attempted that.

History repeats and repeats and repeats......

One interesting tidbit...

One possibility is that they were doing a favor to Chief Justice Roberts
by
permitting him to avoid having to take a stand on Roe so early in his
tenure.
Suppose Justice Scalia or Thomas had written either a dissent or a
concurring
opinion explaining that he disagreed with Roe but was going along
with the
majority in this case. In that event, Chief Justice Roberts would
have faced a
difficult choice: On the one hand, if he joined the separate
Scalia/Thomas
opinion, he would be signaling a willingness to overturn Roe.
On the other hand,
if he did not join such a separate statement, he would be
signaling a
willingness to join the majority in preserving Roe. By remaining
silent,
Justices Scalia and Thomas spared Chief Justice Roberts the
obligation to "out"
himself, one way or the other, on abortion--thereby
allowing him to send no
signal at all.

A newly appointed S.C. judge really shouldn't have to worry about coming out on
any issue. Once one is in it pretty much takes an act of God to remove
you. O'Connor had a large movement to remove her when she went more
moderate but it did not go anywhere. Roberts could
be waiting a good while to make a ruling to show that he is not
lying or acting in bad faith to the Senate, or he could be more of a
moderate than all realise. It doesn't matter because like I said before,
if they would put life or death exemptions in they'd get a legal bill
passed in a heartbeat and worry about all abortion later.