Reply to “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]So Congress codifies Roe and red states sue and win at SCOTUS. Trust me please.  This is stupid.[/quote]

What is stupid is your comment. If Congress codifies Roe red states can whine and whine but Roe remains the law; SCOTUS doesn't even get a say.[/quote]

Not true at all. States will argue that the federal law is invalid.  And they’ll win. Because the SCOTUS is corrupt.[/quote]

Sorry, what's corrupt is your understanding of how this all works. States coud argue whatever but it'd go nowhere with a federal law in place.[/quote]

[b]Federal laws are not sacred. [/b]Plenty of federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Limiting federal authority is what originalism and the Federalist Society are all about. [/quote]

Very true. Also very true that having a law in place would make it much much much harder to attack abortion, and that even many moderate Republicans would support it -- again, it was REPUBLICANS in MISSISSIPPI who passed a law allowing abortion within the first 15 weeks.

[/quote]

You are gaslighting. Mississippi legislated to reduce access from the Roe/Casey viability standard to 15 weeks because they couldn’t ban it with Roe/Casey as the caselaw. 15 weeks is not their position. That law was just to get the question to SCOTUS.

It actually would be easier for the 5 SC Justices to overturn a federal law than it was to overturn Roe. With Roe they had to overturn a 50-year precedent. With a new law they don’t have that burden. [b]They just say Congress doesn’t have the authority in the Constitution[/b]. [/quote]

WTH are you talking about?[/quote]

She is talking about how easy it is for the courts to invalidate federal laws republicans don’t like. She’s right.  Particularly when the courts are packed with federalists. The states will sue, they will win, federal law won’t hold.  [b]We need the court to give women their rights back.[/b][/quote]

LOL, what law was invalidated by the Dobbs decision? As a gentle reminder, the court does not write laws - they cannot give rights to women that didn't exist in the first place either naturally or statutorily. [/quote]

Facepalm. You bolded “we need the court to give women their rights back.”  Thr PP you were reaponsnibg to was not saying that the court writes laws- she was saying that if Congress writes a law protecting abortion access it would likely be declared unconstitutional by the court. The court could not do this if it recognized that bodily autonomy is a right because Congress and state legislatures can’t pass laws that violate rights

Rights are not laws.  No laws were specifically invalidated- but the right that women had to bodily autonomy was.  [/quote]

PP I was replying to specifically said laws. Learn to read. [/quote][/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics