Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
FBI Raids Mar-a-lago
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="floridays" data-source="post: 5360622" data-attributes="member: 68849"><p>Right, it didn't mean it couldn't be revisited, but they will give it consideration as precedent if another case came before them. They did exactly, precisely that thing, and the opinion of the Court in Dobbs explains exactly why Roe was wrongly decided.</p><p>The same thing happened in Scott v Sandford. If you don't agree with overturning precedent you tell the negroes they no longer have citizenship.</p><p></p><p>Anyone that would ask a nominee about "settled" precedent is ignorant and has asked an equally ignorant question pertaining to an opinion of the Court.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="floridays, post: 5360622, member: 68849"] Right, it didn't mean it couldn't be revisited, but they will give it consideration as precedent if another case came before them. They did exactly, precisely that thing, and the opinion of the Court in Dobbs explains exactly why Roe was wrongly decided. The same thing happened in Scott v Sandford. If you don't agree with overturning precedent you tell the negroes they no longer have citizenship. Anyone that would ask a nominee about "settled" precedent is ignorant and has asked an equally ignorant question pertaining to an opinion of the Court. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
FBI Raids Mar-a-lago
Top
