House Democrats Vote To Undermine USSC, Violate Separation of Powers

[jwoodie]

Actually, the legislature has that power.

IF they can get it past the Senate.

Actually, Congress has no more power to change State laws than does SCOTUS (hence the Roe v. Wade reversal). At most, it could try to deny federal funding on the basis of noncompliance with other federal laws. But CJ Roberts has already put a lid on the commerce clause in his otherwise ridiculous "a tax is not a tax" decision on Obamacare. But then, this is all political theater.

I think the Democrats have badly miscalculated this issue in that by November people will realize that nothing has changed in "pro-choice" states and that the "traveling out of state" canard will be overshadowed by the grisly late-term abortions still allowed in those states.

 

[OKTexas]

The counter-argument would be that a federal law banning abortion violates the Commerce Clause by getting the federal government too involved in state actions. Is that accurate?

Yes. That’s an argument under the Commerce Clause, but the Court’s cases right now allow Congress to regulate more traditional areas of state concern if they include what’s called a jurisdictional hook. That is, limit the statute to regulating procedures that involve some element of interstate commerce.

How the Supreme Court Could Approach Federal Laws Upholding—or Banning—Abortion

My only point is it is hardly as clear cut as you make it out to be as there are many ways to address this.

Yeah, make that argument, I'm sure this court is itching to restrict previous courts overreach on the Commerce Clause. But the second law mentioned in the OP, "might" have a valid commerce clause argument.

.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

The Supreme Court nomination of these Trump court picks lied under oath.

That is a crime.

 

[pknopp]

The Supreme Court nomination of these Trump court picks lied under oath.

That is a crime.

Bottom line. Win elections and then you get to pick the nominee's.

 

[task0778]

It wouldn't have a chance in hell of withstanding a constitutional challenge either. See post 15.

.

I am not entirely sure of this. I was sorta wrong when I earlier said "Congress has every right to pass whatever legislation they want to", but that doesn't mean whatever they pass will be ruled by the Courts to be constitutional. The legislative power of Congress does have it's limits, and policing power is one of them, and to say this is legal but this isn't sounds a lot like a policing issue. If a specific function is not enumerated in the constitution, then under Amendment 10 the issue should fall to the states. I would imagine the issue would revolve around the question of personhood, when does a person acquire the rights our Constitution provides. Under what section in the Constitution does Congress have the authority to legislate abortion one way or another? I've read about it and from what I can see it ain't in there.

 

[1srelluc]

The commies won't buy that. The want unrestricted killing of the unborn or the partially born.

.

Then I say put it (the 15-week MS Compromise) to a vote and let the dems kill it.

It will damn sure take the wind out of their sails as far as using it as a issue because all it will do is appeal to their limited far-left base.

5% (or less) of nut-jobs on either end of the issue won't matter a fig come November and beyond that they will have short memories if the issue is removed from the table.

The far-right extremists in TX and OK can go fuck themselves the same as the far left extremists in CA and NY can as far as I am concerned.

 

[OKTexas]

Then I say put it (the 15-week MS Compromise) to a vote and let the dems kill it.

It will damn sure take the wind out of their sails as far as using it as a issue because all it will do is appeal to their limited far-left base.

5% (or less) of nut-jobs on either end of the issue won't matter a fig come November and beyond that they will have short memories if the issue is removed from the table.

The far-right extremists in TX and OK can go fuck themselves the same as the far left extremists in CA and NY can as far as I am concerned.

According to the way congress works, the dems would have to bring it to a vote, and they won't do that.

.

 

[1srelluc]

According to the way congress works, the dems would have to bring it to a vote, and they won't do that.

.

Refusing to bring it to the floor for a vote is the same as killing it and further shows it's the 5% of far-left loons that the dems kowtow too rather than work out a reasonable compromise.

 

[kyzr]

The Supreme Court nomination of these Trump court picks lied under oath.
That is a crime.

Prove it. LIAR.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

Prove it. LIAR.

It all there for your inspection. They claimed that roe vs wade was settled law.

Even two Republicans admitted they were lied to by these picks from Trump.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It all there for your inspection. They claimed that roe vs wade was settled law.

Even two Republicans admitted they were lied to by these picks from Trump.

They said that it was precedent they never said they would not rule against that.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

They said that it was precedent they never said they would not rule against that.

Thats literally what precedent means silly.

 

[pknopp]

They said that it was precedent they never said they would not rule against that.

I believe their words were meant to imply that they would not overturn RvW all the while knowing they would if they got the chance.

You want to argue this is not a lie? Go ahead but it really hurts the standing of the Supreme Court and I say this as being pro-life.

The correct answer would always be............

"I can not comment on a case I have not heard yet".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Thats literally what precedent means silly.

Wrong there is NO reason precedent cant be reversed it has happened 140 times before this,

 

[kyzr]

It all there for your inspection. They claimed that roe vs wade was settled law.
Even two Republicans admitted they were lied to by these picks from Trump.

It was settled law, now its not. Read what they ACTUALLY SAID in lawyer speak:

Did Supreme Court Justices Lie By Claiming They Wouldnât Overturn Roe V. Wade? Hereâs What They Actually Said.

Some prominent Democrats, including Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, have said they want conservative justices to be punished for allegedly going against their testimony.

www.forbes.com

Justice Samuel Alito, who penned the majority’s opinion overturning Roe, declined to say in his 2006 hearing that Roe was “settled law,” calling it an “important precedent” that is “protected,” but refusing to classify it as something that “can’t be re-examined.”

Justice Clarence Thomas declined to take a position on Roe in his 1991 hearing, saying he has “no reason or agenda to prejudge the issue or to predispose to rule one way or the other on the issue of abortion.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch said in 2017 that “a good judge will consider [Roe] as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other,” and said precedent means the court “move forward” after it decides a case, but did not say he wouldn’t overturn Roe.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh said in 2018 he “do[es] not get to pick and choose which Supreme Court precedents I get to follow” and that he “follow them all,” and that Roe is an “important precedent” that has been “reaffirmed many times.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett said in 2020 she didn’t believe Roe is a “super precedent” that “no one questions anymore,” but “that does not mean that Roe should be overruled.”
Barrett said she would “follow the law of stare decisis” and respect for court precedents if abortion-related cases came before her, but neither she nor Kavanaugh expressly said they would not vote to overturn Roe.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

Wrong there is NO reason precedent cant be reversed it has happened 140 times before this,

No in law precedent is settled law. Do you know what you are talking about. Because you are not making any sense.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

The Supreme Court doesn't set precedent. The Supreme Court follows legal precedent.

And two republican senators say I'm correct and they were lied to.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No in law precedent is settled law. Do you know what you are talking about. Because you are not making any sense.

so every time it was wrong ehh? shall we fo back to plessy?

 

[HandleTheTruth]

so every time it was wrong ehh? shall we fo back to plessy?

Now argue with the legal definition of precedent.

Precedent refers to a court decision that is considered as authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar legal issues. Precedent is incorporated into the doctrine of stare decisis and requires courts to apply the law in the same manner to cases with the same facts.

 

[pknopp]

No in law precedent is settled law. Do you know what you are talking about. Because you are not making any sense.

Brown v BoE overturned precedent. Precedent most certainly can be overturned and has been many times but to me that's really not the issue. IMO the justices in question framed their answers to imply they would not overturn RvW even though they knew they would if they got the chance.