As you note… the majority of America is against the over turning of Roe.I know how it's going to go. They will put on a dog and pony show for a while and not make any real attempt to expand the court. They just want to make their voters happy.
They know that if they start this war, it's never going to end. If they could pull this off and knowing they will lose the Congress next election, the Republicans will expand the court even more with a stronger conservative Supreme Court. Do you think they want that? Do you want that?
It would only create a mess that Americans are not prepared to tolerate. We won--you lost, and in enough time, it will reverse again. In the meantime, we don't want any radical changes in this country. As my Fox report stated, a majority of people are against the reversal of Roe.
As you note… the majority of America is against the over turning of Roe.
When they realize that the COURT is the only reason it happened and that the Court is the deciding fact… the opinion of expanding the court will change
So...you believe the polls you like and not the ones you don't likeMaybe, but my opinion is that polls are flawed and you really can't use them as Gospel. Regardless what they say, it's still a huge risk for the Democrats so I don't think they'll be able to do it.
This radical activist Court can and will void any laws they don't like politically.
There are certain functions that have to be dealt with at the federal level, and they are listed in the Constitution. National defense, interstate commerce, etc., stuff that cannot or should not be done at the state level if we are to have a functioning national gov't at all. And if a specific function is not listed in the Constitution, then it falls to the states to address whatever the issue is, OR the Constitution can be amended (there's a process for that).
The point is that our federal Congress is limited in the legislation they are authorized to create, they cannot write any old law they want to. Every law they pass has to be linked somewhere in the Constitution and it cannot be based on an inference of an inference. And if that basis is not found then the law should be deemed as unconstitutional, and that is precisely what the current Supreme Court did regarding the earlier 1973 Roe v Wade ruling. Every ruling the current Court makes is reversible by a future court. But I do not believe Congress can and has done that in the House, they can write whatever Abortion Rights law they want to for political purposes, but that law will be challenged and struck down if it ever becomes a law in the 1st place. As it stands now, the Senate won't pass it anyway, so the question is moot for now.
"If they pass a federal law allowing abortions in all states I don't see how the Supremes can interfere." The fact of the matter is that there is nothing in our Constitution that permits Congress to create a right to an abortion, which is essentially what this law would be. There are some things that the federal gov't has no business interfering with, and abortion (healthcare) is one of them. It's not within their purview. And that is why the Supremes overturned the original Roe v Wade decision and also why they should strike down whatever abortion law Congress passes and the president signs.
So...you believe the polls you like and not the ones you don't like
Ohh
I know how it's going to go. They will put on a dog and pony show for a while and not make any real attempt to expand the court. They just want to make their voters happy.
They know that if they start this war, it's never going to end. If they could pull this off and knowing they will lose the Congress next election, the Republicans will expand the court even more with a stronger conservative Supreme Court. Do you think they want that? Do you want that?
It would only create a mess that Americans are not prepared to tolerate. We won--you lost, and in enough time, it will reverse again. In the meantime, we don't want any radical changes in this country. As my Fox report stated, a majority of people are against the reversal of Roe.
Is murder or mass genocide of babies a violation of federal law?In order to adopt a law codifying Roe, Congress must act either under the authority of Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which authorizes Congress to pass laws enforcing the amendment’s guarantees of liberty, equality and due process, or the commerce clause, which grants Congress broad power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce.
Neither approach is likely to withstand scrutiny by the current Supreme Court.
In 1997, the court held that Congress can’t enact laws under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment for the purpose of protecting a right that the court itself has not recognized. Since this court denies that a woman has a right to control her own reproduction, it’s futile to try to protect that right under Section 5.
Alternatively, Congress relied on the commerce clause to protect women’s rights in the Violence Against Women Act, a landmark federal law enacted in 1994 to govern investigations and prosecutions of violent crimes against women. But in the Morrison decision in 2000, the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of it. In the court’s narrow view, there was nothing commercial or economic about spousal abuse, and therefore Congress could not regulate it.
Not that such a law (already passed in the House) can get passed in the Senate anyway, but what about same sex marriage or interracial marriage or contraceptives? The House has already passed such legislation and there is some support for them in the Senate, but would those laws get struck down too? Should they? Mind you, I'm do support those laws if there is no BS attached for other purposes, but from a legal constitutional basis should we allow federal laws to stand if the Congress doesn't have the authority to pass such laws that have no anchor in the Constitution? Such matters are supposed to be left to the states to decide. IOW, Congress should not have the right to create rights for anything for which they do not have jurisdiction over.
Yeah, we know you are nazis who mutilate babies on a mass scale and cheer about it.
Do you mean like "lock her up!" or "Mexico is going to pay for the wall. And like it!" Do you mean like that?
MAGA
Is murder or mass genocide of babies a violation of federal law?
That's your standard campaign bullshit. That's not making radical changes to our government structure.
In most cases decisions are made 5-4. The real problem is our courts have become politicized. Roe should have never been the law of the land in the first place and the same with gay marriage. The court should have ruled government needs to get out of marriage or that all Americans have the same benefits as married couples.
I am saying it ought to be. Once we don't acknowledge the life inside a mother and that life is entitled to be protected by RIGHTS then we don't get it.You are referring to abortion, right? Abortion is not a violation of federal law.
Why do baby killers fear democracy so much? The voters state by state will be able to determine the extent of abortion laws.
