Sessions calls Roe v. Wade unconstitutional

Posted by | January 10, 2017 14:44 | Filed under: News Behaving Badly Politics

Under questioning by Dianne Feinstein, Sessions’ ‘antipathy to a woman’s right to choose was evident.

Dianne Feinstein (the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee), said, “You have referred to Roe v. Wade as, quote, one of the worst, colossally erroneous Supreme Court decisions of all time, end quote. Is that still your view?”

Sessions replied, “It is. It violated the Constitution, and really attempted to set policy and not follow law.”

The Supreme Court decide it does not violate the Constitution, so he is wrong.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.

90 responses to Sessions calls Roe v. Wade unconstitutional

  1. labman57 January 10th, 2017 at 14:46

    Uh, Sorry dude.
    The SCOTUS decides what is and is not constitutional, not a socially-regressive wannabe AG.

    • Willys41 January 10th, 2017 at 16:58

      Yeah that’s a problem with all right-wing extremists. They think they’re above the law and therefore they determine what’s “constitutional.”

      • Lyndia January 10th, 2017 at 23:20

        Yes, what is constitutional, according to their religion.

        • RightThinkingOne January 10th, 2017 at 23:38

          Donald J. Trump, president in a little over a week, pledged to nominate justices who adhere to Original Understanding. If they do, it means that they should be able to overturn Roe v. Wade.

          • Willys41 January 11th, 2017 at 11:01

            If they adhere to “original understanding,” then say goodbye to your “right to privacy,” because that ain’t in the constitution. It was inferred by supreme court decisions. Oh, and by the way, the Roberts pro-gun decision in DC v Heller goes away too because that ain’t “original” either.

            • RightThinkingOne January 11th, 2017 at 18:10

              Yes. They found it through “penumbras” and “emanations.” What a joke that was.

          • Lyndia January 11th, 2017 at 18:59

            I know you are hoping that will happen. However, I would like for you to explain something to me. You people go CRAZY about abortion, (which is none of your damn business,) but when a child is killed via beatings, starvation, hanging, being molested, throat cut, being thrown out of windows, strangling, stomped, dismembered, scalding, thrown up against walls, left outside in pig pens, stabbed, left in hot/cold vehicles, etc. and I NEVER HEAR A WORD about those living, breathing, walking, talking, babies/children. WHY? Why are you concerned about a women’s womb and not concerned about children, that die in horrific manners? Why aren’t you enacting laws, that would make a death of a child, an automatic life sentence? Many of the murders get out and kill again.

            • RightThinkingOne January 11th, 2017 at 19:58

              Yes. I hope it gets returned to the states because that is where – constitutionally and sensibly – it should be. Some states will allow unborn baby killing, and a few will not. Before this hideous Roe and Doe decisions, most states actually DID allow unborn baby killing, but there were stipulations.

              The problem with the Pro-Death radical position with the Supreme Court was that it was DOOMED to cause conflict and friction. When things are put into the hands of legislatures, then the people debate, discuss, try to convince. In the hands of the court, the people have no input and are TOLD what will happen.

      • RightThinkingOne January 10th, 2017 at 23:37

        Roe and Doe are actually unconstitutional.

        • Willys41 January 11th, 2017 at 11:01


          • RightThinkingOne January 11th, 2017 at 18:10

            I know the law, but the Roe decision was unconstitutional, of course.

        • SteveD January 11th, 2017 at 20:06

          Wrong. The Supreme Court found that there is a constitutional right to privacy that LIMITS the extent to which government can interfere with your liberty.

          • RightThinkingOne January 11th, 2017 at 20:45

            Wrong again! I know what the Court decided, so don’t bore me with that. You do not know much of anything about the decision, otherwise you would have been able to refer to the key words: “Penumbras” and “emanations.”

            You couldn’t. Possibly you will do a little google search now, and look it up. But I have conclusively demonstrated that you do not know much of anything about Roe. You parrot what you have been told to think and say.

            • SteveD January 11th, 2017 at 22:46

              Wrong. The Supreme Court found that there is a constitutional right to privacy that LIMITS the extent to which government can interfere with your liberty.

              • RightThinkingOne January 11th, 2017 at 22:59

                Continued from case ONE:
                And they added that the decision “in no way interferes with a State’s proper regulation of sexual promiscuity or misconduct.” And marriage was NEVER considered in American law or tradition to include a “right” to abortion, never mind not a “right” to adultery or infanticide. In fact, in this case, Justice Brennan stated that “I take it abortion involves killing a life in being.” AND, a person can be prosecuted for MURDER if he attacks a pregnant woman and it results in her unborn baby dying.

                Got it? Ready for #2? HUH?

              • RightThinkingOne January 11th, 2017 at 23:00

                CASE #2 (TWO!)

                Eisenstdt v. Baird, 1971, dealt with the limit of sales of contraceptives to married people in Massachusetts. The justices invalidated that law. It referred to the government not intruding on individuals. But it did not refer to “privacy.” It was based on the Equal Protection clause, not privacy.

                Ready for the next one? Are you? Eh?

              • RightThinkingOne January 11th, 2017 at 23:00

                3. United States v. Vuitch, 1971, dealt with the baby-killer Vuitch who was sued numerous times for killing unborn babies when the health of the mother obviously did not deem it necessary. The baby-killer lost the case, but it had the deleterious effect of broadening the idea of the “health of the mother.” (15 years later, this murderer was put out of business by a malpractice suit.)


              • RightThinkingOne January 11th, 2017 at 23:00

                Two of the most heinous parts of the Roe decision was that:

                1. The justices incorrectly interpreted “liberty” to include a “right to privacy” and that unborn baby-killing is part of this “right to privacy.”

                2. The Court held that the “unborn” are not included with other “persons” protected by the Constitution: “The word ‘persons,’ as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn.”

              • RightThinkingOne January 11th, 2017 at 23:01

                Interesting that, according to Left-wingers, we may not spank our own children in “the privacy” of our own homes, but as long as they are unborn or recently born with deformities, we are free to kill them.

    • RightThinkingOne January 10th, 2017 at 23:37

      A decision can be overturned.

  2. Larry Schmitt January 10th, 2017 at 15:09

    This is the kind of sh!t we’ll have do deal with when he is AG.

    • whatthe46 January 10th, 2017 at 15:23

      another GOP asshole who doesn’t give a damn about the constitution, let alone our rights. and this just happened, get this:

      Comey: “We never confirm or deny the existence of an investigation.”

      King: “The irony of you making that statement here…”

      • granpa.usthai January 10th, 2017 at 23:01

        private citizen Clinton should sue the “F” out of the US Government, to wit:

        gross and deliberate INVASION OF PRIVACY.

        gross and deliberate SLANDER.

        gross and deliberate SEXUAL HARASSMENT.

        etcetera – etcetera – etcetera.

  3. halfwayin January 10th, 2017 at 15:38

    News flash…

    Under Oath, Beuregard Sessions will prosecute billionaires that grab women by the Pussy.

  4. Zero Dark Thirsty ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ January 10th, 2017 at 15:56

    Pls enjoy this convo from FB about healthcare, that proves what MORONS .@realDonaldTrump voters are

  5. amersham1046 January 10th, 2017 at 16:04

    For over 40 years Roe vs Wade it has been the law of the land, get with the program or get out

  6. Willys41 January 10th, 2017 at 16:57

    Anything that doesn’t support the Old South of the slave states confederacy is “unconstitutional” when you ask right-wing racist scum.

  7. Angelo_Frank January 10th, 2017 at 18:13

    Sessions is thus announcing he will not enforce the law when these red states come up with unconstitutional draconian anti-abortion laws.

  8. StoneyCurtisll January 10th, 2017 at 18:16

    Oh hell….
    here we go back to the “good ole days” when women got an abortion in a back ally…
    And Negros knew their place…
    If this old racist mother f-er is appointed, brace yourself for a giant leap backwards in time…

  9. RightThinkingOne January 10th, 2017 at 23:41

    For Liberals those who want to protect life are “imposing their views” on everyone. It is the pro-death, the pro-abortion people who do the imposing. When the Supreme Court contradicts the Western moral tradition and the laws of the 50 states, according to Liberals, anything other than complete unanimity of assent indicates “divisiveness.”

    • arc99 January 11th, 2017 at 15:43

      It is the job of the SCOTUS to contradict Western moral tradition and the laws of the 50 states when that tradition and laws violate the US Constitution.

      Brown v Board of Education as a primary example.

      No one is pro abortion. Supporting a woman’s right to decide for herself is not “pro abortion”. Anyone who thinks so is an idiot. If someone recognizes that a neo Nazi or Klansman has the exact same first amendment rights as they do, it does not make them pro Klan, it makes them pro first amendment. Interesting that pro forced birth zealots are unable to understand that fundamental principle.

      Your post is uninformed nonsense.

      • RightThinkingOne January 11th, 2017 at 19:06

        But it does not violate the Constitution, of course. But it does violate decency, and it breaks the child-parent bond, the one for children actually alive.

      • RightThinkingOne January 11th, 2017 at 19:07

        “Right?” If one colludes in a murder, one has a “right” not only to do that, but to carry it out?

  10. RightThinkingOne January 10th, 2017 at 23:43

    These Roe and Doe decisions put the US as 1 of only 4 (FOUR) nations that allows the killing of the unborn for ANY reason after viability. With those 3 (besides ourselves), we are in the company of North Korea and China.

    • Lyndia January 11th, 2017 at 15:28

      What don’t you mind your own business? What ever decision a woman makes, is between her and her doctor. YOU have no role in that. You are talking about after viability, but most women have abortions, prior to then. Additionally, has it ever occurred to you that babies, as young as 9, get pregnant, too? Teenagers get pregnant. Should babies and CHILDREN be FORCED TO HAVE A BABY? I say, hell to the no. Many of these pregnancies, are the result of incest or rape, especially between the ages of 9-12. Once again, mind your business and stay out of females wombs. You will be a much happier person if you do.

      • RightThinkingOne January 11th, 2017 at 19:03

        No, it is among her, the ABORTIONIST, and the unborn baby. And what most Pro-Death advocates do not know is that the “woman’s doctor” rarely kills the unborn baby: She is sent to an ABORTIONIST whom she meets for the first time in the room where the developing human being is killed.

        • fahvel January 12th, 2017 at 03:00

          you sick minded fool, you babble within your limited vocabulary and no caring person here is even grinning – go away!

          • RightThinkingOne January 12th, 2017 at 18:05

            True: Pro-Death advocates will use your type of tactics.

    • arc99 January 11th, 2017 at 15:36

      As is usually the case with right wingers, you have no idea what you are talking about.

      Israel provides abortion on demand 100% funded by the government. That would be the same Israel which receives more American foreign aid than any other country. Israel funds abortion on demand thanks in part to your tax dollars. You are ignorant on the topic and your tax dollars at least indirectly fund free abortion on demand in a foreign country. Deal with it right winger….

      Israel’s abortion law now among world’s most liberalDespite its conservative leanings, government approves free pregnancy termination for nearly all women, and it barely causes a ripple
      With the newly amended health care package, however, funding will now be available for more than 6,000 additional women seeking to terminate their pregnancies, at the cost at some NIS 16 million ($4.6 million). No medical reason for the abortion is required.

      • RightThinkingOne January 11th, 2017 at 19:04

        It does not matter if another country’s government takes money from working people to pay for the irresponsible people who want the results of their pleasure to be destroyed so it – a human life – will not become an “inconvenience.”

    • arc99 January 11th, 2017 at 15:38

      Educate yourself

      Abortion in Canada is legal at all stages of pregnancy[1] and is governed by the Canada Health Act.[2] While some non-legal obstacles exist, Canada is one of only a few nations with no legal restrictions on abortion.[3][4] Regulations and accessibility vary between provinces.[5]

      • RightThinkingOne January 11th, 2017 at 19:05

        Yes. That was the 4th nation. The other two that kill after viability with impunity are North Korea and China. Some company we keep, eh? Just what the Pro-Death advocates want!

    • Obewon January 11th, 2017 at 22:44

      SCOTUS Roe V Wade, etc gives women a mere 10 weeks privacy to decide, or up to 26 weeks viability with her Dr’s consent. Post viability Physicians choices are rare.

      The ACA mandates prenatal coverage, shrinking U.S. infant mortality to new lows. Meanwhile 4+ natural miscarriages precede each live human birth.

      The U.S. rate of 6.1 infant deaths per 1,000 live births masks considerable state-level variation. If Alabama were a country, its rate of 8.7 infant deaths per 1,000 would place it slightly behind Lebanon in the world rankings.Sep 29, 2014. The ACA began coverage in 2014.

      • RightThinkingOne January 11th, 2017 at 22:50

        You left out Doe which ran basically concurrently. It allows a woman to destroy the human life, the innocent baby, growing and developing insider of her, AT ANY TIME. THAT INCLUDES “VIABILITY” AND AFTER!! That is what the Doe decision added but few people of the United States know this hideous truth. It is under the guise of the “health” of the mother, and that can include the “mental health” that means basically anything.

        In short, we are one of only four nations – including the Leftist North Korea and China – that allow such a hideous and malevolent evil.

        • Obewon January 11th, 2017 at 23:08

          You’re Constitutionally illiterate and out of your mind, Focus on USA’s 5.8/1000 live birth infant mortality deaths, brought down by the ACA from Sept. 2014’s 6.1 IM deaths, per 1000 live births.

          • RightThinkingOne January 11th, 2017 at 23:15

            What does that have to do with killing the innocent unborn with impunity?

            • Obewon January 11th, 2017 at 23:24

              Your delusional disorder is treatable as well as your ignorance e.g.

              “You’re Constitutionally illiterate and out of your mind, Focus on USA’s 5.8/1000 live birth infant mortality deaths, brought down by the ACA”.

              • RightThinkingOne January 12th, 2017 at 00:34

                It is about the killing of the innocent unborn.

                • Bunya January 12th, 2017 at 10:08

                  Spare me your feign indignation. You had nothing to say when we were slaughtering Iraqi citizens without impunity, but give a woman the right to choose, and you misogynists go all ballistic.
                  Instead of coming here, bitchin’ and moanin’, maybe you should do something about it. And I don’t mean KILLING DOCTORS AND BLOWING UP CLINICS. I know death and destruction is the only option you think you have, but don’t worry. Pence will be the VP and he’ll jackboot those women real quick, and you can rest comfortably that women, once again, have been given the death sentence by the GOP god.

                  • RightThinkingOne January 12th, 2017 at 18:09

                    False comparison. If you decide to go that route, let’s have a more direct comparison with eugenics and your comrades.

                    • Bunya January 13th, 2017 at 10:03

                      Okay. Start. List your FACTS. For example, if you want to believe that PP is selling baby parts, list your FACTS. If you think they’re killing babies, list your FACTS.

                    • RightThinkingOne January 16th, 2017 at 02:15

                      I did not reference the heinous idea about selling baby parts, of course. I am just referring to the fact that PP is an abortion factory.

                    • whatthe46 January 16th, 2017 at 03:22

                      the dumb troll continues to speak. will you ever just STFU already!? PP isn’t an abortion factory. but, you already knew that, you just adore your ignorance and stupidity.

                      so how many unwanted children have you adopted or fostered? hell, actually i hope none. because you are one racist twisted, disgusting inbred idiot.

                    • RightThinkingOne January 16th, 2017 at 18:17

                      Americans are outraged about the selling of baby body parts with abortion factories (Planned Parenthood). So, the Pro-Death Left contradicts itself: This is supposedly something heinous, but to acknowledge that, one must acknowledge the value of the life that was destroyed. Or conversely, if they say that the body parts are useful, they must then claim that they are willing to decide that a human being is worth killing.

                    • RightThinkingOne January 16th, 2017 at 18:17

                      Abortion is the devaluation of human life: It denies life to certain categories of humans. In 1992, Governor Casey of Pennsylvania, pro-life Democrat, was denied the right to speak at the national convention. He was the defendant in the Supreme Court case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey in which he was sued for signing a law which required a 24-hour waiting period and parent consent for minors for an abortion. This lawsuit was a direct threat to the Roe v. Wade decision.

                    • RightThinkingOne January 16th, 2017 at 18:19

                      The Pro-Death faction has a love affair with Planned Parenthood. They claim that it provides all sorts of services for women, and that abortion is only a minor one. However, in 2012, the year that this organization broke its own record of administering abortions with one-third of a million of them (333,964) by this agency, it provided only 2,300 adoption referrals and fewer than 30,000 prenatal services.

                    • Bunya January 16th, 2017 at 09:57

                      So what? Abortion is legal. Killing doctors and bombing clinics, isn’t.

                • oldfart January 12th, 2017 at 11:19

                  Look on the bright side, in two billion years the sun take out the earth and will solve all your problems for you.
                  until then, I suggest that you open your mind to the fact that your opinions combined with a lack of a uterus, provides only your ability to display both your self-centered arrogance and cold blissful ignorance at the same time. Well done, you must be proud.

                  • RightThinkingOne January 12th, 2017 at 18:10

                    No, you are simply using an excuse to destroy the lives of the innocent unborn with impunity. And for what? Convenience.

                    • oldfart January 13th, 2017 at 00:18

                      No, it’s called a WOMANS right to choose.
                      Grow a uterus, get pregnant, then we’ll talk.

                    • RightThinkingOne January 13th, 2017 at 00:52

                      Not sensible or logical: That means – if one applies YOUR reasoning, YOUR assertion – if one does not belong to a group in question, that person’s opinion can be summarily discarded, ignored.

                      That would mean, for example, that no heterosexuals can voice any opinion, in any direction, about homosexual marriage, hate crimes, etc. Only homosexuals should decide everything. It would mean that only teachers – not parents, not legislators, not construction workers – can make any decisions about education.

                      See? Do you understand now?

                      On top of that, by excluding people in such a way, you have denied a common humanity. Thus your intolerance and narrowness has been demonstrated.

                    • oldfart January 13th, 2017 at 01:05

                      WHAT THE FU*K ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ?!?
                      What part of grow a uterus, get pregnant then we’ll talk don’t you understand ? good nite.

                    • RightThinkingOne January 16th, 2017 at 02:12

                      You dehumanize. It is a tactic. Can’t you read what I wrote? It is simple and clear. Your way is against reason and logic. Your way is only a tactic to shut down anyone whose opinion you do not like. And its fundamental premises are irrational.

        • fahvel January 12th, 2017 at 02:57

          stop dipwad! stop now before someone realizes that there a foetus, even after birth, that should have been sent to the bin – you do know, in your wisdom, that I am referring to you very specifically.

          • RightThinkingOne January 12th, 2017 at 18:05

            Yes, the Pro-Death people like to try to insult and bully. It is part of their ideology – the tactics in their dogma.

    • fahvel January 12th, 2017 at 02:55

      ignorance is bliss for those who know nothing but can act like a hooked beak parrot.

      • RightThinkingOne January 12th, 2017 at 18:04

        Yes. Most of the Pro-Death group do not know about the Court decisions at all.

  11. Bunya January 11th, 2017 at 13:41

    And number one on the republican agenda (as it has been since 1973) is to overturn Roe v. Wade. But nothing ever happens. I guess it just give the GOP something to whine about, until they start another war, or tank the economy, or do away with SCHIP, or bad mouth Obama, etc., etc.

    • RightThinkingOne January 11th, 2017 at 22:55

      It is not “demonizing” women. It is saving the lives of the innocent unborn, of course. And the prosecutions in the history of this evil in the United States has focuses on two culprits:
      1. The abortionist.
      2. Those who seek an abortion.

      Not on the woman having her innocent unborn child destroyed.

      • Bunya January 12th, 2017 at 10:01

        Interesting how you folks DEMAND that women give birth, but when she needs help from the government supporting the child, you think she becomes nothing more than welfare queen. Funny how you think the right to life of the “innocent unborn” loses value once the fetus becomes a baby.

        • RightThinkingOne January 12th, 2017 at 18:08

          No, it is the opposite, as I have cogently pointed out and explained. No need to break it down and simplify it even more.

          • Bunya January 13th, 2017 at 09:58

            You’re in the wrong place. You won’t change anybody’s mind here. Perhaps you can visit Glenn Beck’s or Bill O’Reilly’s site. I’m sure they’d be more to your liking. Oh and congratulations on your nominee. I hope you or your children are of draft age. Dasvidaniya.

            • RightThinkingOne January 16th, 2017 at 02:14

              Interesting that you presume to make the assumption that I am here to try to change anyone. Please provide your rationale as to how you came to that declaration.

      • amersham1046 January 16th, 2017 at 18:24

        RightThinkingOne they are waiting for you over at FoxRants

        • RightThinkingOne January 16th, 2017 at 19:01

          Typical from a Left-winger.

  12. Trumpty Dumpty January 11th, 2017 at 19:42

    I am a believer that an unborn child is living, able to sense its surroundings, and can communicate. All of this can be proven scientifically. It is a living being with rights after a certain amount of time. When does that moment take place? I don’t know, but, with the technology we have today, my belief is that an abortion should not take place beyond 1 month after conception.

    • Sydney January 11th, 2017 at 20:21

      So, essentially a ban since most women may not even be aware of the pregnancy.

    • RightThinkingOne January 11th, 2017 at 22:53

      It is an evil that should never take place, except under extreme circumstances. Anyway, it should be left up to the states, not to activist justices who force their ideology on the people through the idea that there are “penumbras” and “emanations” that they have discovered in the Constitution that means a woman can CONSPIRE with her abortionist to snuff out human life.

    • fahvel January 12th, 2017 at 02:53

      belief in a zygote is as good as a belief in an invisible controlling bearded indifferent godhead – and belief is valueless though it does comfort the ignorant.

  13. oldfart January 12th, 2017 at 00:44

    It’s called a woman’s right to choose for a reason.
    They have their reasons, If you don’t have a uterus you don’t have reasons.

  14. RightThinkingOne January 16th, 2017 at 18:20

    You are really good at Google Searches for pictures!

    • whatthe46 January 16th, 2017 at 20:50

      you’re really good at being fucking stupid.

      • RightThinkingOne January 16th, 2017 at 22:01

        You are good not only at finding nice, cute photos, but also at middle-school level playground quips.

  15. Hirightnow January 16th, 2017 at 19:46

    Regardless of any fantasies you might harbor, I must ask you why you care about what happens when another person becomes pregnant?
    What difference does it make to you if some cells are removed from a woman’s body, any more than if a larger collection of cells are removed from society for perceived “crimes”?
    How “Pro-Life” will you be, when confronted either by your God or your own conscience?

    • RightThinkingOne January 16th, 2017 at 20:22

      I will apply YOUR “reasoning” here. Your first sentence implies (but deny it) that “if it does not directly affect me, I have no case, I should not care or give an opinion.”

      Well, if a man down the street is beating his wife, it does not affect me as long as I do not hear the screams. If a pervert in the next town is molesting children, it will not bother me personally, so I should not get upset or care, either.

      • Hirightnow January 17th, 2017 at 07:29

        Difference being that your examples involve actual thinking, feeling persons.
        You attribute these qualities to a zygote that science has proven time and time again does not have them.

        • RightThinkingOne January 17th, 2017 at 19:30

          Interesting that whacked-out animal rights activists can have laws passed to arrest someone who destroys an eagle’s egg.

          Do you realize what that means? Of course you don’t….. It means that the full-grown eagle is so highly valued that to destroy its very inception, its beginnings would be considered criminal.

          But to the Pro-Death advocates, human life is… well… “different.”

          • Hirightnow January 17th, 2017 at 19:49

            One more try….

            • RightThinkingOne January 17th, 2017 at 20:30

              No need. I already answered, perfectly clearly. Pro-Death people dehumanize, so they have severe difficulty with the concept.

Leave a Reply