Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TerryP" data-source="post: 1432148" data-attributes="member: 12209">That's an interesting response, &quot;it's simply people protesting a ruling and/or opinion that didn’t need to be made.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; That's the whole issue.&nbsp; It was a ruling made by SCOTUS that never should have been made.&nbsp; That's the point being made; &quot;it's not our decision to make; never was.&quot;&nbsp; (A greater point is found here.&nbsp; It was unconstitutional from day one.&nbsp; They made a mistake, they're trying to correct the mistake.)&nbsp;&nbsp; It's quite ironic jurists have criticized R v W because of how it was presented to the Supreme Court originally—it is privacy rights—and that's the very thing some have no problems doing: allowing the judiciary privacy to make a decision.&nbsp; My opinion, a male or female's opinion, and your opinion, mean nothing here because this is written law. People may disagree with the law, and people may choose to ignore the law.&nbsp; If they act on the latter they should face the consequences.&nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;It's against the law.&nbsp; I don't like the law.&nbsp; I'm going to break the law.&quot;&nbsp; Does that not boil this whole thing down to a few words?&nbsp;&nbsp; (Ironically, including the original SCOTUS decision?) <hr />Another can of worms here ... if we jump into why jurists feel the R v W decision was wrong in the first place.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TerryP, post: 1432148, member: 12209"] That's an interesting response, "it's simply people protesting a ruling and/or opinion that didn’t need to be made." That's the whole issue. It was a ruling made by SCOTUS that never should have been made. That's the point being made; "it's not our decision to make; never was." (A greater point is found here. It was unconstitutional from day one. They made a mistake, they're trying to correct the mistake.) It's quite ironic jurists have criticized R v W because of how it was presented to the Supreme Court originally—it is privacy rights—and that's the very thing some have no problems doing: allowing the judiciary privacy to make a decision. My opinion, a male or female's opinion, and your opinion, mean nothing here because this is written law. People may disagree with the law, and people may choose to ignore the law. If they act on the latter they should face the consequences. "It's against the law. I don't like the law. I'm going to break the law." Does that not boil this whole thing down to a few words? (Ironically, including the original SCOTUS decision?) [HR][/HR] Another can of worms here ... if we jump into why jurists feel the R v W decision was wrong in the first place. [/QUOTE]

Verification