Am saying that while a majority of the country (or close to it) agree that Roe is crap, even active pro-lifers disagree as to what should be done after Roe is overturned.

Anything leading up to a reversal of Roe is something that engenders unity.

Arguing about what we should do AFTER Roe is overturned is both premature and likely to cause dissention.

I don’t see how anything you wrote refutes anything I said above.

To me arguing about a post-Roe world now is like arguing about 2012 presidential primaries when the 2010 elections and HRC need to be dealt with here, in 2010.

I think we are in a critical period of time and unecessary arguments are in fact unecessary.

At the current moment, unity is very important.

Pro-lifers do 50% of the on the ground activities before an election. I would prefer not to piss them off with lots of “how about abortion stays legal after Roe is overturned” talk.

Just like I am not inclined to get into a debate the presupposes the reformation of SS, Medicare, and Medicaid into a voucher-based system and argue about whether those programs will ultimately be abolished.

Lets get to first base before arguing about home plate..

Lets focus on Roe v. Wade. Lets get that bad law overturned.

What happens after that can be addresed AFTER that.

I agree with the diary when it says “First, overturn Roe v. Wade”

Do you disagree? Do you see a better first step?

If you disagree with overturning Roe, tell me what your recommended action is?

If you agree, focus on that objective.

You probably want to argue about the 2020 Presidential race as well? Maybe who the Speaker of the House should be in 2022?

I don’t know why you insist on trying to split up the Pro-Life movement (which is exactly the opposite outcome desired by the diarist).

Why not instead on overturning Roe?

This is equivalent to some of the Ronulans who insist that any argument short of the immediate defunding of Social Security is a sell out.

One step at a time. One step at a time.

A state supreme court cannot overrrule the US Supreme Court on a matter of the US Constitution.

Your arguments puzzle me, you say you don’t want to focus on overturning Roe, but you cite an article that says the majority of the country is pro-life and argue against me when I say that a post-Roe debate is premature.

I personally agree with the position of the diary, but as a state political compromise it is not a good idea because our side does not really agree on the issue. Once Roe is overturned, we will have some big time arguments on our side.

Your argument is 100% fantasy since none of it is happening. I am a dedicated pro-lifer, but you can’t move the ball forward if you persist in simply denying where you are.

Taken further, a Ronulan would say paying social security and payroll taxes isn’t really law either.

I don’t think being in denial about what the law in the land is leads to any improvement or solutions.

We have a choice. On the one hand we can simply re-defined the word “laws” so that 99% of what comes out of DC is no longer a law OR we can focus on changing the laws so that they are in fact good and just.

Bad laws can be repealed, but what does one do with respect to a bad opinion?

In contrast to the French Napoleonic codes, English courts and US courts do in a real sense make law. Contract law and tort law are both primarily comprised of judge-made law derived from certain principles and theories on economics.

I agree that Roe v. Wade was a flawed and incorrect decision, but I am not aware of either of us taking action that does anything but acknowledge the existence of Roe. You can say that its not “law” but at that point we are merely playing semantics.

In that sense, much of what goes on is not the law, it is merely the authorities doing stuff to people based on a process that is merely dressed up with indicia of legality. As a shorthand, most people would call it law, but that is just me.

Or whether or not we play language games and define bad laws or flawed laws as non-law?

Why not say Roe that is the illiegitimate law of the land–it is a blot on the landscape that needs to be removed, a wound on the nation that requires healing.

to Alexander Hamilton in the federalist papers, as well as to the courts in the colonies that preceded the 1789 US Constitution.

Wiki is actually pretty good on topics that are more than 200 years old, so I hope you read the link above.

Fine—totally legitimate opinion., but totally contrary to the Constitutional order set by our founders. Nobody says you have to agree with the American system, but its a different issue to simply deny that your views are contrary to the how the system is set up.

Unfortunately, your opinion renders the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution moot because if the Supreme Court has to enforce laws that are contrary to the Bill of Rights, then the Bill of Rights aint that useful.

What good is the Bill of Rights if Congress can simply pass laws that are contrary to the Bill of Rights?

The power of judicial review is purely a negative restraint—-its view of what is Constitutionally prohibitedby the other two branches trumps both Congress and the President. It cannot however issue rulings outside the context of actual cases,

Judicial review is part of our system, and easily predates all the modern left-wing-isms.

George Washington understood that man needed to be moral because no system of government will work if people are not at least trying to be good. No constitional framework can alleviate the fact that man is flawed and sinful.

and as you hint at, Jefferson ultimately changed his mind.

President – 1 flawed man
Congress – 535 flawed men
Supreme Court – 9 flawed men
Country -300M flawed men
Police officer at traffic stop – 1 flawed man

If law enforcement personnel are free to ignore judges, and if anyone is free to implement their own Constitutional interpretation and judgment, what you have is anarchy, not “ordered liberty”

In any case, we the people always have the last word. Congress and the Executive do have ways to take back power from the Judiciary, it just takes time.

You are in favor of the legislature having no checks and balances, which is pretty much what the English have.

and sas previously pointed out, judicial review goes back to the Federalist papers.

If Congress can both pass laws and be the primary arbitrators of their validity, what you have is one branch of government being supreme and the judiciary not really being a branch at all

Just be honest about your position. If Congress has the primary say in both legislation and Constitutional intrepretation, then the judiciary has basically the same level of power as say an administrative agency in the executive branch.

Not saying your view isn’t valid, but it is contrary to the way the system has worked since our founding (long before progressivism became a blot on the landscape). What you describe is really England, which is not a bad place to live.