If Roe v Wade is overturned, we should worry about the rule of law | Shira A Scheindlin | Opinion | The Guardian
Are they for prescident or not? In this article Ms. Scheindlin talks like roe is set in stone and can’t be touched. But what about her stance on gay “marriage”….that was settled in many states but that changed when Obama’s government wouldn’t defend the defense of marriage act. What about legal weed? That too is set at the federal level.
What about the prescident of slavery before that was settled in the past? What about women’s suffrage? Does Ms. Scheindlin see those prescidents as sacrosanct and shouldn’t have been overturned?
For some reason I doubt she really cares about prescident and is on using that argument here because it suits her position. One needs to be consistent in their opinions.