# Romney again says Roe is "settled" law **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 27, 2012, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-again-says-roe-is-settled-law/632870 "2012-08-27T22:50:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-again-says-roe-is-settled-law/632870/61 "2012-08-28T23:40:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I suppose there could be. I choose to believe there was no hidden meaning in either statement. > > Finding a hidden meaning in one, but not the other, is what I object to. And you don’t see why a thread on the meaning of a Mitt Romney statement was legitimately focused on that statement? ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-again-says-roe-is-settled-law/632870/62 "2012-08-28T23:49:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Did Obama feel that Chicago’s laws were constitutional? I can’t speak to what Mr. Obama may have felt but the presumed constitutionality of law along with the dissent of 4 justices in Heller would certainly appear to show that it was not unreasonable to feel Chicago’s laws were constitutional. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-again-says-roe-is-settled-law/632870/63 "2012-08-29T00:16:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I suppose there could be. I choose to believe there was no hidden meaning in either statement. > > Finding a hidden meaning in one, but not the other, is what I object to. What is Romney’s hidden meaning when he “believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade”? It’s right from his website. I think he wants the Supreme Court to overturn it. What’s your read? > [@Bricker](#): > > Did Obama feel that Chicago’s laws were constitutional? Obama’s opinion, pre-Heller, regarding the constitutionality of Chicago’s gun laws is relevant how? Anyway, to the OP, having read Romney’s actual statement (“settled for some time in the courts”) rather than the thread title, and reading his statement on his campaign website has convinced me that he wants the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and leave it up to the states. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-again-says-roe-is-settled-law/632870/64 "2012-08-29T00:22:22Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > And you don’t see why a thread on the meaning of a Mitt Romney statement was legitimately focused on that statement? Sure. But turn your attention to the specific post I responded to: > [@BobLibDem](#): > > Politicians pay lip service to the “settled law” so that a pro-choice voter might give them a chance. But rest assured, should Romney win, any Supreme Court appointees would have to promise to overturn Roe, given a chance to do so, or they won’t get nominated. Then when it’s overturned, it will again be “settled law”. I responded: > [@Bricker](#): > > If I were to say, “Obama pays lip service to the Second Amendment, but rest assured, if he gets a second term and no longer has to worry about being re-elected, he’s going to do everything in his power to ban guns!” then I assume I would rightly be asked for some poof of this assertion. And then, lo and behold, I was asked for proof. But the post I replied to? No such challenge, except by me. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-again-says-roe-is-settled-law/632870/65 "2012-08-29T00:30:59Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > What is Romney’s hidden meaning when he “believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade”? It’s right from his website. I think he wants the Supreme Court to overturn it. What’s your read? I agree. But I don’t agree that he intends to extract promises from potential nominees on the issue. > [@](#): > > Obama’s opinion, pre-Heller, regarding the constitutionality of Chicago’s gun laws is relevant how? As relevant for divining Obama’s actual intent as Romney’s statements are to concluding that Romney will require promises from nominees on how they’ll rule. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-again-says-roe-is-settled-law/632870/66 "2012-08-29T00:34:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. > > But turn your attention to the specific post I responded to: > > I responded: > And then, lo and behold, I was asked for proof. > > But the post I replied to? No such challenge, except by me. That’s because Democrats generally, including Obama, aren’t radically anti-gun, so your statement didn’t make any sense. And, his statement regarding “what works for Wyoming” made pre-Heller backs up that sense that we all have. Romney, however, seems to have meant exactly what **BobLibDem** assumed he meant, so his analysis was right on in this case. Romney really does want the Court to overturn Roe, exactly has **BobLibDem** stated. Anyhoo, I’m sorry for continuing this ridiculous hijack, so I’ll stop there. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-again-says-roe-is-settled-law/632870/67 "2012-08-29T00:37:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I agree. > > But I don’t agree that he intends to extract promises from potential nominees on the issue. > As relevant for divining Obama’s actual intent as Romney’s statements are to concluding that Romney will require promises from nominees on how they’ll rule. This is me not following this tangent about whether a hypothetical Romney presidency will extract promises from hypothetical Supreme Court nominees. This is quite the meandering road we’re on at this point. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-again-says-roe-is-settled-law/632870/68 "2012-08-29T01:16:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. > > But turn your attention to the specific post I responded to: > > I responded: > > And then, lo and behold, I was asked for proof. > > But the post I replied to? No such challenge, except by me. Sorry, but I’m calling bullshit on this one. The topic was _“Romney again says Roe is “settled” law”_. BobLibDem’s post was about Romney’s statement. Your post was not. Just because somebody is making accusations against Romney doesn’t make counter-accusations against Obama relevant. You’ve taken a thread about Romney’s statements on abortion and derailed it into a thread about Obama’s views on gun control. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-again-says-roe-is-settled-law/632870/69 "2012-08-29T01:25:53Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s the key, you don’t regulate the abortions, you regulate the business. The Gosnell case showed how for political reasons, abortion clinics aren’t regulated much. > > [Kermit Gosnell Abortion Clinic Was Not Inspected For 17 Years | HuffPost Latest News](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/23/kermit-gosnell-abortion-c_n_812702.html) Note that the change to no inspections took place when a pro-life Democrat (Casey) was replaced by a pro-choice Republican (Ridge). Later governors apparently weren’t sufficiently attentive to fix it, which is on them, but this policy apparently traces to–dun dun\* dun\*–GOP pennywise policies. But hey, \*they had their fun, let them risk death, \*right? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-again-says-roe-is-settled-law/632870/70 "2012-08-29T01:37:08Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Sorry, but I’m calling bullshit on this one. > > The topic was _“Romney again says Roe is “settled” law”_. BobLibDem’s post was about Romney’s statement. Your post was not. > > Just because somebody is making accusations against Romney doesn’t make counter-accusations against Obama relevant. > > You’ve taken a thread about Romney’s statements on abortion and derailed it into a thread about Obama’s views on gun control. No. I offered an analogous line of reasoning, intended to show that the inference drawn from Romney’s actual statement was fallacious. I clearly said, “If I were…” to show that I wasn’t making the actual argument, but merely illustrating the fallacy of the BobLibDem conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-again-says-roe-is-settled-law/632870/71 "2012-08-29T01:54:43Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Are you saying that Casey was muddy enough that it made pro-choice advocates realize that pushing any further would risk clarity going against them or that Casey effectively overturned Roe? Casey modified Roe by letting states regulate abortions pre-viability. But Roe was “effectively overturned” when W Bush was re-elected in 2004. Arguably Casey was as well. Roe and Casey set limits on how far states can regulate abortions. But with all the Bush appointments to the federal bench, including Alito and Roberts on the high court, it’s risky to sue when a state crosses those limits. At this point, pro-choice organizations are declining to sue lest they lose. If you sue to get your state to comply with the standard in Casey as interpreted pre-Dubya, and the court says, no, the state is within its rights, you fail. What if that’s the best you can hope for? Better not to sue until enough liberal judges have been appointed to swing it back the other way. And during this time, states can pretty much regulate abortion as they please. Neither the pro-life nor pro-choice activists want to admit it, but we are in a post-_Roe_ era. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-again-says-roe-is-settled-law/632870/72 "2012-08-29T05:34:11Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > He seems to be playing a little dance by saying that abortion isn’t a topic for the political realm since the Court is “the decider” on that issue. Of course, he would appoint justices whose intent it was to overturn _Roe_, but you’d have to ask him that directly to get him to admit it. > > It was a pretty lame attempt to quash discussion of that topic. I can’t imagine it working, either. Every person in real life who has talked to me about why they vote Republican has always said it’s because of the pro-life foundation–that, if you are “murdering babies,” your platform is on a bedrock of death, and thus nothing else matters. I was always the one saying that it shouldn’t be an issue, seeing as no Republican has any real intent to try and change anything. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-again-says-roe-is-settled-law/632870/73 "2012-08-29T09:16:05Z")
I want to see Romney tell his base that what works for abortion in Utah won’t fly in New York. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-again-says-roe-is-settled-law/632870.md?page=3)