‘How will we survive?’

This is only because the Supreme Court has authorized the government to run roughshod over and simply ignore Article 1 and the 10th amendment. Otherwise the federal government could pass no legislation re Roe v. Wade or abortion. One surprising exception was when the Supreme Court said the feds could not pass a law restricting firearms within a certain distance of a school because, it said, they had no jurisdiction or legislative authority. But such exceptions are few and far between -- as scarce as hen's teeth damn near it seems.

 

Democrats have won more elections than they lost on the abortion issue.

 

There are Republican laws like the Hyde Amendment. Abortions will be legal in California, New York ... federal money would flow for NY and CA abortions.

 

Pass a law if an amendment is not possible.

 

She's the dumbest justice.

Final report from Demented Biden’s court-packing commission is another dud.

Our Dumbest President.​

 

Go ahead, make our day.

 

Fake News. They are under no such requirement.

More fake news. There is no such requirement.

More fake news, they are not compelled to confirm his nominees.

More Fake News. The Recess Appointments Clause only applies to Vacancies.

 

Well, not to pack the Court for partisan purposes, that would be an unconstitutional attempt to exercise illegitimate power that would never survive court challenge.

Article I describes Congressional power and grants Congress the authority to make law that is necessary and proper to equip the Judiciary so it can exercise the authorities granted in Article III.

Congress already determined the size of the Court and it has been at 9 justices for a very long time. And change to that must be for legitimate ends. Congress has no legitimate authority to change the composition in order to affect how the Court rules and the plaintiffs seeking to have the law struck down by the Courts will have no problem at all demonstrating that illicit purpose with nothing more than the recordings of idiot Senators shouting threats at the Court that they will pack the Court if they don't get their way on particular business before the Court. Such an exercise would be improper, and would be struck down by the Court on that basis.

 

It has been a good issue for them, the propaganda opportunities are endless.

 

And back to the courts we go.

 

And yet have never once tried to codify abortion rights into legislation.

 

I did not think the Hyde amendment was federal law. In any event the fact that the federal government has no constitutional say in abortion (or a zillion other areas) has not stopped them from exercising such say and being backed up by the Supreme Court. As I said, Article I, Section 8 and the 10th amendment have been amended out of the Constitution without firing a shot.

 

It's all part of women's rights. There is no way the religious types pushing "pro-life" can ever win.

 

Does that surprise you?

Women will never let you win this one.

 

A law is better than conceding the point.

 

People move around the country and want their "rights" wherever they live. I don't think many people much care about states going their own way.

Maybe we need to update the division of powers.

 

If that's the case why has there never been an amendment attempted? The answer to that is that it would never get ratified. So on we go, back and forth in the Federl courts.

It still has to stand up to the Constitutional question. What you need is an amendment.

 

Absolutely the court is a political institution .. but the question is whether or not it operates like one .. on the basis of the political bandwagon rather than the founding principle - one of the main problems being that few know what this means.

The Constitution was never meant to be an exhaustive list of every 'Essential Liberty" = items that are "Above" / Beyond the legitimate authority of Gov't. The job of SCOTUS is to interpret law and the constitution on the basis of the principles in the DOI and Constitutional Republic.

On this basis .. every sitting member of SCOTUS should be dismissed for dereliction of duty .. R v W being just one symptom of the problem.

 

That says many people do not care what the Constitution says, which might be true but IMO a bad thing. You might like that for one specific area like abortion (while I don't) but in the big picture state authority and power provides the hardest road to tyranny which a strong central government much more easily and directly leads to.

It would help if there were some checks and balances on the Supreme Court as there are on the other two branches.

 

I think it's been the view of most pro-choicers since Roe v, Wade that a constitutional amendment would be an impossible reach.

An amendment would likely settle the matter. It would be better for American society to settle the abortion issue.

 

It actually does surprise me. Roe v Wade is built on a house of cards. If you support abortion, why wouldn't you rather have it codified into statutory law?

 

Forget the law. I would organize the delivery of abortion services for any woman wanting an abortion in any state, including fully subsidized travel to a state with abortion rights for those who live in backwaters like Texas. Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos or Warren Buffett could finance legal abortions indefinitely for any woman who wants one. The same is true for Alice Walton, MacKenzie Scott, Julia Koch, Miriam Adelson, Abigail Johnson and Laurene Powell Jobs.

Religious types should get their noses bopped for being too bossy.

 

Oh? How about Kavanaugh?

 

Yes it is (and was), although three branches of government was a new revolutionary idea and the framers struggled mightily on how to institute appropriate checks and balances among the three in such a way that did not inhibit a branch from doing its job. In one of the few instances were the framers faltered was in not putting checks and balances on the Supreme Court, because they envisioned incorrectly that the court would be significantly weaker than the other two branches and was nothing to worry about.