Kamala Harris says SCOTUS decision to
leave in place a ban on most abortions
in Texas is 'an attempt to undo 50 years
of precedent'
Daily Mail (UK) & Associated Press,
by
Morgan Phillips
&
Staff
Original Article
Posted By: Imright,
12/10/2021 5:31:36 PM
Vice President Kamala Harris told reporters that Friday's Supreme Court ruling leaving in place a Texas abortion law was 'an attempt to undo 50 years of precedent.' The court ruled Friday that a lawsuit by abortion providers in Texas can move forward but left the ban on abortions after about six weeks in place as challenges are being litigated. The high court punted the law's legality. Its action today sends the case by abortion providers back to a district court, which could lead to it being suspended.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Socaworld 12/10/2021 5:35:32 PM (No. 1003008)
Democrats had no trouble accepting the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade; now they claim the Court is overreaching? Their hypocrisy and ignorance as to the Court's role is utterly breathtaking.
26 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
downnout 12/10/2021 5:38:40 PM (No. 1003010)
Kamala is not one to be quoted regarding court decisions.
23 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
formerNYer 12/10/2021 5:45:34 PM (No. 1003014)
Kamala couldn't make it to Final Jeopardy - her opinion on law is worse than ignorance it's malfeasance. Please brilliant woman, tell me where in the Constitution a woman has the right to kill an unborn child?
28 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Urgent Fury 12/10/2021 5:45:41 PM (No. 1003015)
Too bad her mom didn't take advantage of Roe v Wade.
18 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
skacmar 12/10/2021 5:47:46 PM (No. 1003020)
Kamala honey, maybe, just maybe, they felt that the 50 years of precedent of Roe v Wade was incorrect. Just because they said it was ok in the 1970's by finding some imaginary "right" to an abortion does not mean that they were correct. After all, the Supreme Court also overturned years of precedent regarding slavery and school segregation. Lots of people thought they were wrong for doing that too. Is Kamala saying that overturning years of incorrect precedent is never called for?
18 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Quigley 12/10/2021 5:49:56 PM (No. 1003023)
Well maybe she can find something within her capabilities to do: harangue about things she doesn’t like.
8 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
bpl40 12/10/2021 5:51:11 PM (No. 1003026)
How long was slavery a precedent before it was outlawed?
20 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
curious1 12/10/2021 5:56:57 PM (No. 1003029)
Gee, KooKooKam, did you ever think the 1970s decision disregarded almost 2 centuries of precedent? Of course you didn't, that would require intelligence.
15 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
columba 12/10/2021 6:10:44 PM (No. 1003038)
Harris like to likk babies, AND arranged for a young man who exposed Baby part Selling (for profit) by Planned Parenthood to be charged with nine (9) Felonies, because he filmed them.
Harris like you just the same.
5 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
TLCary 12/10/2021 6:12:12 PM (No. 1003039)
89 Years of precedence... But we ended slavery anyways, even thought Democrats did their best to fight it.
14 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
volksford 12/10/2021 6:32:45 PM (No. 1003047)
It does no good to bandy words with a fool .
6 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Trump'sCousin 12/10/2021 6:39:05 PM (No. 1003050)
50 years of murdering butchery., there's a very special place for baby butchers!
50 years there will be nothing for those murdering savages. It will be eternity I'm pretty sure.
9 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
earlybird 12/10/2021 6:41:44 PM (No. 1003053)
Leave it to the barren post-menopausal woman… One wonders how many abortions she’s had in her checkered past?
14 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
Namma 12/10/2021 7:13:33 PM (No. 1003068)
More like 50 years of murder
8 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
TJ54 12/10/2021 7:19:59 PM (No. 1003075)
Too bad Kamala wasn’t aborted
2 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
billsv 12/10/2021 7:40:39 PM (No. 1003093)
I thought she was a lawyer. SCOTUS wants the case to work it’s way up after lower courts make decisions. Pretty standard.
6 people like this.
Some say that the Dims want to get rid of Kamala, so they can replace her with someone electable. Then they can 25th Amendment Slow Joe. To get her out, they want Dim Justice Breyer to retire and move Kamala up to the Supreme Court to pay her off.
I think she made this statement to "burnish" her Supreme credentials.
Warming up in the bullpen as Kamala's replacement as VP: Hillary (hence, all her recent appearances).
If Hillary becomes the VP, Dr. Jill better hire a food taster for her and Slow Joe!
8 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
Daria 12/10/2021 8:12:52 PM (No. 1003109)
Can you imagine if Richard Nixon said this in response to Brown v. Board of Education?
9 people like this.
The terror they must feel right now, with the possibility of Roe going back to the States where it should have been all along, is becoming more palpable with each passing day. I am not confident that this court has the spine to do the right thing, but I can hope for the best.
8 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
paral04 12/10/2021 8:29:59 PM (No. 1003120)
Yeah and we had a precedent for slavery and prohibition also. So what?
5 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
snowoutlaw 12/10/2021 8:31:04 PM (No. 1003122)
50 years isn't much when compared to the 250 years of the SC following precedent as to what they do and what they don't. Before that legal precedents about procedures go back about a thousand years.
2 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
GoodDeal 12/10/2021 8:47:36 PM (No. 1003133)
Killing 100,000,000 babies is a real precedent that definitely needs undoing. The only other time Moe babies were killed was when the Pagan Temples Of Child Sacrifice Baal Moloch had their ovens burning around the clock for hundreds of years in the Old Testament. God was able to completely destroy them just like he’s going to do now.
4 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
ronniethek 12/10/2021 9:25:04 PM (No. 1003154)
How come Kameltoe doesn't complain when the Court overruled Plessy or Dred Scott?
3 people like this.
Reply 24 - Posted by:
Nimby 12/10/2021 9:27:23 PM (No. 1003158)
This idiot who couldn’t get through the CA bar exam on her first try should stop talking about law.
5 people like this.
Reply 25 - Posted by:
DVC 12/10/2021 10:08:23 PM (No. 1003180)
Ignore the California Whore.
5 people like this.
Reply 26 - Posted by:
PChristopher 12/10/2021 10:21:40 PM (No. 1003184)
Fifty years of precedent in favor of abortion? Let's talk about the thousands of years of precedent AGAINST it!
6 people like this.
Reply 27 - Posted by:
Heil Liberals 12/10/2021 10:36:05 PM (No. 1003187)
Kamala's barren womb has no comment.
5 people like this.
Reply 28 - Posted by:
Luckychosenfew 12/11/2021 12:51:33 AM (No. 1003223)
Or maybe it's 50 years of mistake!
2 people like this.
Reply 29 - Posted by:
mifla 12/11/2021 3:54:38 AM (No. 1003252)
Could say the same thing about slavery in 1865.
2 people like this.
Reply 30 - Posted by:
Trigger2 12/11/2021 4:00:17 AM (No. 1003256)
What a moronic failure as a VP.
2 people like this.
Reply 31 - Posted by:
Subsuburban 12/11/2021 5:44:44 AM (No. 1003281)
The opinion of the dusky-hued temptress of Willie Brown, a/k/a, "Vice-Precedent Harris" regarding the potential impact of the Supreme Court's decision on the Texas abortion case is as valid as her opinion regarding the "racist/homophobic attack" on Juicy Smolett. Consider the source; always consider the source.
3 people like this.
Reply 32 - Posted by:
F15 Gork 12/11/2021 7:03:57 AM (No. 1003316)
One man’s precedent is another man’s murder....
1 person likes this.
We are going to see some old feminazis screaming in the streets and crying on The View.
Fun times ahead.
2 people like this.
Reply 34 - Posted by:
Goose 12/11/2021 9:48:54 AM (No. 1003443)
"Separate but equal" was also a precedent.
1 person likes this.
Reply 35 - Posted by:
red1066 12/11/2021 9:57:38 AM (No. 1003454)
Repealing Roe v Wade doesn't eliminate any woman from having an abortion if she so choses. It puts the issue back in the hands of each state.
1 person likes this.
Reply 36 - Posted by:
Laotzu 12/11/2021 10:41:41 AM (No. 1003491)
And it took 58 years to reverse the Democrat's Plessy v. Ferguson.
0 people like this.
Reply 37 - Posted by:
MickTurn 12/11/2021 10:42:55 AM (No. 1003492)
I fail to see how 'Precedent' overrules the Constitution...maybe the SCOTUS needs to redefine their actual power...seems everyone in the Federal Govt. is simply greedy and stupid for power!
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Imright"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)