Would a federal abortion law be struck down by the Supreme Court?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Pretty sure this court would find in favor of anything the republicans want to do even if it contradicts their earlier opinions.

True.

Just as the Court would likely strike down a Federal law codifying the right to privacy although Congress clearly has the authority to enact such a measure.

This would be yet another example of conservative hypocrisy, where conservatives claim that such matters should be decided by the people through their elected representatives, not the courts.

 

[task0778]

As far as I know states can write any laws they desire as long as it's not violating a constitutional right. If they pass a federal law allowing abortions in all states I don't see how the Supremes can interfere.

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.

 

[task0778]

The SC can over turn any law. There is nothing to stop them

1. The Constitution can be amended.

2. Justices can be impeached.

 

[task0778]

Answer: because conservatives are not advocates of small government and states’ rights – they are big government authoritarians who seek to compel conformity and silence dissent at the expense of individual liberty.

This is unadulterated horseshit. Your description actually fits the democratic party to a "T". Did you not just witness a conservative Supreme Court return the abortion issue back to the states where it always was prior to 1973? And the GOP is not the party that always want to spend more money and create more federal agencies, that would be the democrats.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Pretty sure this court would find in favor of anything the republicans want to do even if it contradicts their earlier opinions.

Welcome to the 60s and 70s......you lefties did so much damage back then, now we have to clean it up.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

I don't think that would stop them. Look at out federal laws now. How is Affirmative Action or Hate Crimes laws not violate equal protection? You will never see the phrase church and state or the word marriage in the document. If you drive a truck for a living, cops pull you over just to search your tractor and trailer. If you ask them what you did wrong, they say you didn't do anything wrong, I just pulled you over for a safety check. Let them try doing that to a passenger car sometime. The courts ruled truck drivers don't have 4th amendment rights.

I guess it all depends on what side of the bed each judge woke up on that morning.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Answer: because conservatives are not advocates of small government and states’ rights – they are big government authoritarians who seek to compel conformity and silence dissent at the expense of individual liberty.

Darn tooting, and they get all their friends in the media and social media to do that for them. Those rotten Republicans.

 

[Lesh]

1. The Constitution can be amended.

2. Justices can be impeached.

Both are exceedingly rare and difficult

 

[Lesh]

Both are exceedingly rare and difficult

Expanding the court is far more doable

 

[task0778]

I don't think that would stop them. Look at out federal laws now. How is Affirmative Action or Hate Crimes laws not violate equal protection? You will never see the phrase church and state or the word marriage in the document. If you drive a truck for a living, cops pull you over just to search your tractor and trailer. If you ask them what you did wrong, they say you didn't do anything wrong, I just pulled you over for a safety check. Let them try doing that to a passenger car sometime. The courts ruled truck drivers don't have 4th amendment rights.

I guess it all depends on what side of the bed each judge woke up on that morning.

Okay, first the truck drivers and safety checks. That is a state thing, right? Is there a federal law that authorizes safety checks on truck drivers? If there is, maybe it has to do with interstate commerce, which Congress can regulate.

Next, affirmative action and hate crimes. Let's not forget that up to recently the makeup of the Supreme Court has been favorable to the Left. So, whatever has been done by executive orders or legislation has not been scrutinized for it's real constitutionality. This fall the Supreme court will hear a case or 2 concerning affirmative action, so we'll see how that works. There's a new sheriff in town. It looks like what used to be considered as legal and constitutional isn't going to be when the Court gets involved.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, first the truck drivers and safety checks. That is a state thing, right? Is there a federal law that authorizes safety checks on truck drivers? If there is, maybe it has to do with interstate commerce, which Congress can regulate.

Next, affirmative action and hate crimes. Let's not forget that up to recently the makeup of the Supreme Court has been favorable to the Left. So, whatever has been done by executive orders or legislation has not been scrutinized for it's real constitutionality. This fall the Supreme court will hear a case or 2 concerning affirmative action, so we'll see how that works. There's a new sheriff in town. It looks like what used to be considered as legal and constitutional isn't going to be when the Court gets involved.

Maybe and maybe not. We can't make predictions on any situation because the SC is unpredictable. You can say the Constitution says this or that, but it doesn't mean they will vote that way, especially when your chief justice is Benedict Roberts.

Truck drivers all drive under federal law. Many years ago I looked up a case where a driver took it to court and they ruled that drivers have no right not to be searched for no reason. In our state driving without a seat belt is a secondary offense. They nabbed me two times for not wearing a seat belt in my own state because we are governed under federal laws.

 

[task0778]

Maybe and maybe not. We can't make predictions on any situation because the SC is unpredictable. You can say the Constitution says this or that, but it doesn't mean they will vote that way, especially when your chief justice is Benedict Roberts.

Truck drivers all drive under federal law. Many years ago I looked up a case where a driver took it to court and they ruled that drivers have no right not to be searched for no reason. In our state driving without a seat belt is a secondary offense. They nabbed me two times for not wearing a seat belt in my own state because we are governed under federal laws.

I'll just say this: from abortion to same sex/interracial marriage to contraceptives to affirmative action and God knows what else, what used to be covered under federal law may not be that way in the future. IMHO, too much federal legislation has been allowed by previous Courts that were not constitutional and should have been decided at the state level.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'll just say this: from abortion to same sex/interracial marriage to contraceptives to affirmative action and God knows what else, what used to be covered under federal law may not be that way in the future. IMHO, too much federal legislation has been allowed by previous Courts that were not constitutional and should have been decided at the state level.

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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Expanding the court is far more doable

When Democrats lose, simply cheat. Polls show that the public is overwhelmingly against court expansion. It would be political suicide. But Democrats have the minds of children. When they don't get their way, they throw a tantrum.

 

[task0778]

In most cases decisions are made 5-4.

Yup.

The real problem is our courts have become politicized.

Definitely.

Roe should have never been the law of the land in the first place

Agreed.

The court should have ruled government needs to get out of marriage or that all Americans have the same benefits as married couples.

It seems to me that marriage as an institution has enough customs and tradition behind it to warrant a constitutional right even if not specifically mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. As such, no one should be denied that right, no matter who they are. Assuming they are old enough and competent enough to make such a decision. In the eyes of the law, it oughta be little different from a business partnership; if you can go into business with anybody then marriage shouldn't be any different.

Interested to see what the current Supreme Court thinks about that whenever such a case comes up. Abortion didn't measure up as an institution, but IMHO marriage does. But then I go back to the issue of what the federal gov't should be allowed to regulate and what it shouldn't. The Court could very well say that it's none of the federal gov'ts business and they wouldn't be far wrong.

 

[Lesh]

When Democrats lose, simply cheat. Polls show that the public is overwhelmingly against court expansion. It would be political suicide. But Democrats have the minds of children. When they don't get their way, they throw a tantrum.

View attachment 674219

View attachment 674220

Post a link

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Post a link

Expanding Supreme Court Opposed by Americans, Even After Roe Decision: Poll

A majority of Americans polled don't want to add more seats to the Supreme Court, despite opposing the justices' decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

www.newsweek.com

Proposed Supreme Court Expansion Remains Unpopular

In the April 16-19 survey, voters were 20 percentage points more likely, at 46%, to say Congress should only allow nine justices to serve on the high court than they were to be in favor of passing a law to add more Supreme Court jurists.

morningconsult.com

Majority oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, but also oppose expanding number of Supreme Court justices: poll

A new poll indicates most Americans disagree with the move by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority to overturn the nearly half century old landmark Roe v. Wade ruling

www.foxnews.com

 

[laferia52]

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.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/op-ed-it-may-be-impossible-to-codify-roe-here-s-what-congress-should-do-instead

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.

exactly. the Supreme Court has already ruled that the states regulated these types of issues not the federal government.

 

[Lesh]

Expanding Supreme Court Opposed by Americans, Even After Roe Decision: Poll

A majority of Americans polled don't want to add more seats to the Supreme Court, despite opposing the justices' decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

www.newsweek.com

Proposed Supreme Court Expansion Remains Unpopular

In the April 16-19 survey, voters were 20 percentage points more likely, at 46%, to say Congress should only allow nine justices to serve on the high court than they were to be in favor of passing a law to add more Supreme Court jurists.

morningconsult.com

Majority oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, but also oppose expanding number of Supreme Court justices: poll

A new poll indicates most Americans disagree with the move by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority to overturn the nearly half century old landmark Roe v. Wade ruling

www.foxnews.com

Thank you for ONCE backing up you claims

we'll see how that goes

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Thank you for ONCE backing up you claims

we'll see how that goes

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.