It’s too bad that Obama guy that promised to codify Roe into law never got elected, women should have voted harder for him I guess.
6 Likes
Then you just keep voting harder until all 50 states have DEM legislatures and governors.
There is no obstacle that voting even harder can’t overcome!
1 Like
Counterpoint - the ACA aka Obamacare lives on even if crippled only because it was codified as opposed to merely being “settled precedent”
1 Like
Yep. There are a couple of paths after you codify abortion rights. One is packing the court, another is passing a law saying the court doesn’t have jurisdiction over abortion rights because Congress does in fact have that power. Then there’s the path the Ds have chosen: reading poems and singing God Bless America while asking their donors for money and telling people to vote harder.
4 Likes
Do they though? I’m sure Supreme Court will just say that they don’t.
1 Like
Saw a clip where he said “vote” three times in a row so it’s serious. It looks like a lot of the “analysts” have now gotten talking points that the Dems shouldn’t even try to improve Biden’s numbers/polling and just run on how bad it’ll be if the GOP wins.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
I wasn’t suggesting that you were wrong.
I’m saying that the SC will just Calvinball the whole issue and just say it doesn’t apply.
Not sure that analysis is wrong tbh.
Oh, well then you just go full Andrew Jackson and tell them “John Roberts has made his ruling, now let him enforce it”.
1 Like
Well Grandpa Joe sure as shit ain’t doing that.
Well yeah, that’s why they’re reading poems and asking for fiddies to rub on their titties.
1 Like
How do you reconcile this limitation while saying that Congress has a broad authority to preclude challenges to federal laws on a Constitutional basis in federal courts? Seems that this just covers a small range of areas where federal court jurisdiction for the most part makes sense.
Anyway, I’m not sure most would want Congress to be able to just be able to preclude judicial review of a whole host of other subject matters based on the argument you seem to be making.
I simply play the game the current court plays and take a broad reading when i want one result and a narrow one when i want a different result. Seems like you could parse that line to mean what I want it to mean pretty easily, or not if you wanted it to mean something else.
ETA: It all comes back to eventually Congress and the executive are just going to have to start ignoring court rulings if they continue to make such laughable decisions. That probably leads us down a dangerous road but we’re already on that road now because of the choices the people in charge have made up to this point.
Don’t really think it’s a close question at all, but I get that you’re frustrated.
I mean I’m no lawbro, but seems like you can parse out a difference between a state itself (like in treaties between states or whatnot) and a state official enforcing a law. They certainly don’t instantly hear every challenge to every state law; they let it wind through the appellate courts first.
Certainly seems that way in Illinois, where its massive legislative super majorities have allowed its governor to codify abortion protections amongst dozens of other excellent policies.
And make all their money off groceries and food, not gas.
Who is watching this and not voting? I wanna see that Venn diagram.