States would decide on their own abortion laws. Really?

[alang1216]

I have no need to. I see it demonstrated by the left on this forum nearly daily.

“Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Winston Churchill

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You're probably right, most abortions are by poor women and women of color. Maybe the GOP will motivate them to vote?

That remains to be seen. I'm a little worried about how it will affect state elections, especially among the Independents. I would hate to see red states turning blue over one issue.

 

[alang1216]

That remains to be seen. I'm a little worried about how it will affect state elections, especially among the Independents. I would hate to see red states turning blue over one issue.

You don't think Hunter's laptop will stem the tide?

 

[Darkwind]

If you look at what's contained in their so-called Voters Rights act, it's loaded with unconstitutional provisions and they know it. However if it's passed before the election, it's law until a court reverses it which wouldn't be until after the election.

You know as well as I you can't trust a Democrat as far as you can throw them. They'll do anything for power.

It takes just one challenge on Constitutional grounds and a Judge that knows the Constitution to put a stay on the law until it can be assessed. That exact thing has been happening with frightening regularity over the past six years.

Hell, Trump and GOP legislation isn't a week old before the left has it in court and a stay issued.

 

[daveman]

I sure hope not. I can think of at least 81 million post facto abortions I'd still like to see.

Bold of you to assume a lot of those people haven't been dead already for years.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It takes just one challenge on Constitutional grounds and a Judge that knows the Constitution to put a stay on the law until it can be assessed. That exact thing has been happening with frightening regularity over the past six years.

Hell, Trump and GOP legislation isn't a week old before the left has it in court and a stay issued.

Well these people are pretty slick. Look at how many should be in jail that are not.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You don't think Hunter's laptop will stem the tide?

The MSM won't even report on it.

FLASHBACK: 16% of Biden voters would have voted differently if Hunter Biden laptop story was not suppressed by media, big tech

A poll previously put out by the Media Research Center showed that fully 16 percent of voters who were unaware of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal would have switched their minds and not voted for Joe Biden for president, had they known about it at the time.

thepostmillennial.com

 

[daveman]

“Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Winston Churchill

 

[task0778]

I don't see what would stop them. It's just something I do worry about.

Right now, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation. Except for reconciliation which is limited to budgetary fixes for revenue and/or spending. So, while I wouldn't mind seeing a super GOP majority in the Senate, I won't be holding my breath waiting for that to come about. And I don't see them passing a total abortion ban even if they win the WH in 2024 and keep the Senate majority.

BUT - what about what happens if the filibuster gets abolished? The democrats are talking about that right now, eliminating the filibuster so they can pass their Women's Productive Rights Act, which among other things prevents abortion bans in the US. Doesn't look like that will happen (abolishing the filibuster) for the foreseeable future, but I can see the possibility eventually occurring if we see elections swinging back and forth between the Left and the Right. Sooner or later the democrats will get their 50 votes and then it's Katy bar the door.

I do not see the GOP eliminating the filibuster if and when they take back the Senate, but I can see the democrats doing it if they ever get the 50 votes plus the VP. And of course once the filibuster is gone, it's gone for good and we could see vast wholesale changes one way or the other, a little bit like we do now when one party loses and the other assumes office, but probably more severe and widespread.

So - would it be constitutional for the Right to ban all abortions? Don't know, but it would take a GOP prez, a 60-vote GOP Senate, and a GOP House. IOW, not any time soon, getting a 60-vote Senate just doesn't strike me as likely. I think it would be a bad idea politically, IMHO too many people would not like that.

The Left will certainly pass a law to prevent abortion bans as soon as they can, but they ain't going to get a 60-vote Senate anytime soon either IMHO. But if they did, would that be constitutional? Depends on the SCOTUS composition, no? Imagine at some point the liberal progressives hold a 5-4 advantage or better on the Court. I think we all know that such a Court wouldn't be ruling on the meaning of the constitution but instead on the politics of the issue.

 

[skews13]

So something crossed my mind today: Let's assume the leak is genuine and next month Roe vs Wade is gone. Now (as everybody says) abortion will be left up to the states. Liberal states of course will keep abortion, conservative states make it illegal, and swing states may have abortion up to X amount of weeks. Fine.

My question is what happens if the country swings hard right on the federal level as in what is being setup now? Could our federal legislatures make it illegal for the entire country to have any kind of abortions? And if so, would the GOP risk losing leadership for decades down the road?

I can't see the court ruling that abortion be exclusively a states right. What part of the Constitution would allow them to rule that way? So the question is, could this decision actually lead to outlawing abortions on a national level?

No. In states where abortion is, and will remain legal. No law would ever be enforced in those states, no matter what happened at the federal level.

70% of Americans support a womans right to choose. And that's conservatives, as well as people of all religious faiths included in that 70%. Congress could never get a nationwide ban signed into federal law.

 

[Ringtone]

I don't disagree with that. My question is what would stop the GOP from making it illegal for any kind of abortions. Point being that this argument it would be left up to the states could be temporary. It may very well lead to a total outlaw of abortions.

That's just it, Ray. Uncensored2008 is saying that for political reasons, such a thing would never happen.

 

[initforme]

As you will agree Ray with big wealth comes big corruption. Always and in every case. My view of america.

 

[whitehall]

Lefties seem to think that most Americans favor abortion so why are they so afraid of leaving it up to the voters? I think it was Hillary's husband who said "abortion should be rare" but the concept morphed into abandoning unwanted newborn babies on a cold stainless table without food or medicine until they die. That's what happens when liberal democrats are in charge.

 

[initforme]

We do need a drop in birth rate but abortion is not the route.

 

[skews13]

Right now, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation. Except for reconciliation which is limited to budgetary fixes for revenue and/or spending. So, while I wouldn't mind seeing a super GOP majority in the Senate, I won't be holding my breath waiting for that to come about. And I don't see them passing a total abortion ban even if they win the WH in 2024 and keep the Senate majority.

BUT - what about what happens if the filibuster gets abolished? The democrats are talking about that right now, eliminating the filibuster so they can pass their Women's Productive Rights Act, which among other things prevents abortion bans in the US. Doesn't look like that will happen (abolishing the filibuster) for the foreseeable future, but I can see the possibility eventually occurring if we see elections swinging back and forth between the Left and the Right. Sooner or later the democrats will get their 50 votes and then it's Katy bar the door.

I do not see the GOP eliminating the filibuster if and when they take back the Senate, but I can see the democrats doing it if they ever get the 50 votes plus the VP. And of course once the filibuster is gone, it's gone for good and we could see vast wholesale changes one way or the other, a little bit like we do now when one party loses and the other assumes office, but probably more severe and widespread.

So - would it be constitutional for the Right to ban all abortions? Don't know, but it would take a GOP prez, a 60-vote GOP Senate, and a GOP House. IOW, not any time soon, getting a 60-vote Senate just doesn't strike me as likely. I think it would be a bad idea politically, IMHO too many people would not like that.

The Left will certainly pass a law to prevent abortion bans as soon as they can, but they ain't going to get a 60-vote Senate anytime soon either IMHO. But if they did, would that be constitutional? Depends on the SCOTUS composition, no? Imagine at some point the liberal progressives hold a 5-4 advantage or better on the Court. I think we all know that such a Court wouldn't be ruling on the meaning of the constitution but instead on the politics of the issue.

The filibuster exists nowhere in the Constitution. It is an archaic Senate rule. A short primer...

The loophole that permits a senator’s right to speak endlessly on the senate floor dates to Vice President Aaron Burr, who declared in 1805 that the Senate need not be burdened by too many procedural rules. Back then a process to end debate on legislation, known as the “previous question” motion, was rarely used, so upon Burr’s recommendation, the senate dropped it in 1806.

What the Constitution says...

“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member. … The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”

Federalist Paper 22; What Hamilton said...

“If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated.”

Federalist Paper 58; What Madison said...

“In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences.”

The Manual Of Parliamentary Practice; What Jefferson said...

“No one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously. … The voice of the majority decides. For the lex majoris partis is the law of all councils, elections, &c. where not otherwise expressly provided.”

Burr was wrong. The very nature of parliamentary practice is a debate that is tempered, and time limited, and then voted upon, with a majority deciding.

How that works in the following elections, where the people decide by majority, is another thread.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's just it, Ray. Uncensored2008 is saying that for political reasons, such a thing would never happen.

That's always iffy. The point is that it could happen. If Republicans gain so much momentum they might figure they have the wiggle room to try something like that. Likely happen? Perhaps not. Could it happen? Without a doubt.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No. In states where abortion is, and will remain legal. No law would ever be enforced in those states, no matter what happened at the federal level.

70% of Americans support a womans right to choose. And that's conservatives, as well as people of all religious faiths included in that 70%. Congress could never get a nationwide ban signed into federal law.

Why is that? What would be stopping them? States do have rights, but not to go against federal law passed by Congress and signed into law by the President unless it presents the possibility of being unconstitutional which in this case, I don't see it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Right now, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation. Except for reconciliation which is limited to budgetary fixes for revenue and/or spending. So, while I wouldn't mind seeing a super GOP majority in the Senate, I won't be holding my breath waiting for that to come about. And I don't see them passing a total abortion ban even if they win the WH in 2024 and keep the Senate majority.

BUT - what about what happens if the filibuster gets abolished? The democrats are talking about that right now, eliminating the filibuster so they can pass their Women's Productive Rights Act, which among other things prevents abortion bans in the US. Doesn't look like that will happen (abolishing the filibuster) for the foreseeable future, but I can see the possibility eventually occurring if we see elections swinging back and forth between the Left and the Right. Sooner or later the democrats will get their 50 votes and then it's Katy bar the door.

I do not see the GOP eliminating the filibuster if and when they take back the Senate, but I can see the democrats doing it if they ever get the 50 votes plus the VP. And of course once the filibuster is gone, it's gone for good and we could see vast wholesale changes one way or the other, a little bit like we do now when one party loses and the other assumes office, but probably more severe and widespread.

So - would it be constitutional for the Right to ban all abortions? Don't know, but it would take a GOP prez, a 60-vote GOP Senate, and a GOP House. IOW, not any time soon, getting a 60-vote Senate just doesn't strike me as likely. I think it would be a bad idea politically, IMHO too many people would not like that.

The Left will certainly pass a law to prevent abortion bans as soon as they can, but they ain't going to get a 60-vote Senate anytime soon either IMHO. But if they did, would that be constitutional? Depends on the SCOTUS composition, no? Imagine at some point the liberal progressives hold a 5-4 advantage or better on the Court. I think we all know that such a Court wouldn't be ruling on the meaning of the constitution but instead on the politics of the issue.

If it does happen it won't happen anytime soon. I think if the courts rule that Roe is not constitutionally protected, we're going to see protests and possibly riots all over the country. The Democrats (like they did in other riots) will allow them to continue right up to, or as close as they can get to election time. So the environment for a national ban wouldn't be right. I also think that any attempt to ban states from making laws against abortion would be a violation of states rights. Unless it's a constitutional issue like gay marriages, the federal government can't tell a state what laws they cannot enact.

 

[justoffal]

So something crossed my mind today: Let's assume the leak is genuine and next month Roe vs Wade is gone. Now (as everybody says) abortion will be left up to the states. Liberal states of course will keep abortion, conservative states make it illegal, and swing states may have abortion up to X amount of weeks. Fine.

My question is what happens if the country swings hard right on the federal level as in what is being setup now? Could our federal legislatures make it illegal for the entire country to have any kind of abortions? And if so, would the GOP risk losing leadership for decades down the road?

I can't see the court ruling that abortion be exclusively a states right. What part of the Constitution would allow them to rule that way? So the question is, could this decision actually lead to outlawing abortions on a national level?

I doubt it since the states have started doing their own thing already.

 

[easyt65]

I can't see the court ruling that abortion be exclusively a states right. What part of the Constitution would allow them to rule that way?

Authority NOT specifically given to the federal government by the US Constitution is 'states' rights'.

This has always been the case.