Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The article quotes Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) as saying (my italics): “Such a decision, if it comes to pass, would be an utter abomination. Women across America would suffer irreparable harm to their rights, their health, and their dignity. It will go down as one of the worst and most damaging opinions that the court has handed down in modern history, and the court would suffer a mortal blow to its reputation that I fear will last forever,” the New York Democrat said on the floor on Wednesday. “Yesterday I pledged that Senate Democrats will act on legislation to codify Roe into law. It is vital that we act quickly because this is no longer an abstract exercise.” [end quote]
So what would happen if it IS codified into law? Couldn't the SCOTUS still outlaw such a law?
(I have no legal training, so this I am being serious when I asked the above questions.)
Go ahead-
The Supreme Court is ruling that their "law" is Unconstitutional, so it will have no relevance whatsoever.
This is why we must separate from liberals- they cannot abide by the rule of law nor the The Constitution. Fascists do not agree with democratic republics and thus cannot co-exist with free people.
As I understand, though, this is all for activity within Texas. It wouldn't extend to action where someone drove a woman from Texas to, say, Oklahoma to get an abortion. To be clear, my point about freedom of movement touches on interstate freedom of movement--which Congress can regulate--as opposed to intrastate freedom of movement, which Congress could not regulate.
Yes, understood. However, if you read the bill there is nothing inherently limiting the right to action to movement within the state. One could argue the "tort" commenced the moment the woman entered the vehicle and began the transportation. At the very least they should tighten that up, because as written it could extend to interstate transportation.
A few quotes from the Roe era...............These are from The US Conference of Catholic Bishops....the quotes are 100% real and are in the clear.
In 1973, John Hart Ely, a professor of law at Yale Law School, writing in the Yale Law Journal said, Roe v. Wade is "a very bad decision...It is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."
Harvard law professor, Laurence Tribe wrote, "One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found."
Edward Lazarus, a former law clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun, Roe's author. Lazarus, who describes himself as someone who loved Blackmun "like a grandfather" called Roe "one of the most intellectually suspect constitutional decisions of the modern era" and "a jurisprudential nightmare."
More women want an end to abortion on demand. The silent majority will decide this one.
I'm not sure how that would play out. I'm having a discussion of one of my female friends on FB. She's a religious person that posts some new religious quote every day or two. Today she posted "my body my choice".
Personally, I think Congress should pass a law legalizing abortion-AND that the GOP should get on board with it. That takes away the Dem's political capital. Then let the states apply "reasonable restrictions", as they have in the past.
Yes, such a law would almost certainly be invalidated by the Supreme Court as currently constituted.
Congress is able to legislate based on certain enumerated powers.
In this case, Congress would try to use its powers to regulate interstate commerce to create a national standard protecting abortion rights. Problem with that, however, is that there is nothing inherently interstate about abortion and, moreover, this is an issue that has historically been reserved to state government. At best Congress could legitimately pass legislation making it clear that women are free to travel between states for abortions and that states could not prohibit abortion providers traveling to states where abortion is legal to perform them. But such a law would be silly as no state is trying to restrict freedom of movement on the issue in that case.
Note, even if Dems had the votes to get rid of the filibuster on this account, the legal realities of the law are likely why you have even Biden stating that he's not on board with the push to eliminate the filibuster to pass such legislation.
The only reason why Democrats are bringing this up for a vote in the Senate is to get people on record as either supporting abortion policy or rejecting such policy. Schumer knows that his legislation doesn't have a chance in hell of passing and, even if it did pass, that it would be struck down by the courts.
I would imagine a good lawyer could connect it to interstate commerce. There is billing, supplies, existence of large medical groups, insurance coverage, etc. It may be a stretch, but insurance coverage could be the way to enshrine legality from the federal level, albeit likely not for a closely held corporation such as a Hobby Lobby situation.
I also don't know how Gung ho states may be to actually enact legislation once the matter is fully in their hands... actually acting with full accountability for the result is much different than talking about it for 50 years when it's all basically unachievable rhetoric.
I would imagine a good lawyer could connect it to interstate commerce. There is billing, supplies, existence of large medical groups, insurance coverage, etc. It may be a stretch, but insurance coverage could be the way to enshrine legality from the federal level, albeit likely not for a closely held corporation such as a Hobby Lobby situation.
I also don't know how Gung ho states may be to actually enact legislation once the matter is fully in their hands... actually acting with full accountability for the result is much different than talking about it for 50 years when it's all basically unachievable rhetoric.
But that's the beauty of returning controversial questions like this to the states. An unelected court should not be setting public policy on something like abortion. Legislators who are accountable to the people are the ones who should be making the laws. NOT the courts.
But that's the beauty of returning controversial questions like this to the states. An unelected court should not be setting public policy on something like abortion. Legislators who are accountable to the people are the ones who should be making the laws. NOT the courts.
Exactly. Make the lawmakers accountable for making laws that represent the people who hired them
The article quotes Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) as saying (my italics): “Such a decision, if it comes to pass, would be an utter abomination. Women across America would suffer irreparable harm to their rights, their health, and their dignity. It will go down as one of the worst and most damaging opinions that the court has handed down in modern history, and the court would suffer a mortal blow to its reputation that I fear will last forever,” the New York Democrat said on the floor on Wednesday. “Yesterday I pledged that Senate Democrats will act on legislation to codify Roe into law. It is vital that we act quickly because this is no longer an abstract exercise.” [end quote]
So what would happen if it IS codified into law? Couldn't the SCOTUS still outlaw such a law?
(I have no legal training, so this I am being serious when I asked the above questions.)
1. any bill like that will need 60 votes.....they don't have it
2. any bill like that will be ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, even if SCOTUS was majority liberal, as their one and only job is to determine the constitutionality of bills/laws that congress tries to pass
3. the ONLY way that congress could get such a thing going, is to call a convention of the states, to make an amendment to the U.S. Constitution
iow, all this is (to include the ""leak"") is posturing to improve chances at the November elections, where it is currently projected to be a major shift from D to R
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
