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]

Ummmmmmm.........[b]I had a constitutional right[/b] my entire reproductive life that is now stripped away from my and your daughters.  So there is that.[/quote]

Based on what? A court case that even Ginsburg agrees was poorly decided? You did not have a constitutional right to abortion. The court fabricated a right out of irrational logic - which was just as easily vacated by a subsequent decision. [/quote]

Who cares what RGB thought about it? It was standing precedent for 50 years. And reaffirmed multiple times. In all cases, Republicans participated in those decisions finding abortion a protected right. This wasn't some decision issued in 2010 that hadn't been revisited.

All of the incoming SCOTUS justices said it was settled law. Stare Decisis requires more than just your personal objections to the decision to overturn. They changed it because they could. THe law changed b/c the composition of the court changed. Which is why many people think it was activist, biased, and the court's stature greatly diminished. It was a BS political decision, pure and simple. [/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