supreme court, that s something to remember, when kavanaugh was talking about, he was saying, but, we may change the law in the future. and what would that mean, in terms of everything that had been done while we were waiting in this period, before we changd the law, what would that expose people to? now on one level you could say it s an expost facto argument. obviously anything before something is change ed fine. and it seemed like a gratuitous point from someone who is obviously a legal scholar. so, what was that about? you know, i think he was honing in on one of the worst provisions of this law which is that it is retroactive. right. even if a abortion provider is providing and relies on an injunction and later it gets overruled or the law changes that they could face retroactive
[임병식의 창과 방패] 국가의 품격, 정치의 품격 edaily.co.kr - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from edaily.co.kr Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.