House Democrats Vote To Undermine USSC, Violate Separation of Powers

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Nowhere did the Supreme Court say that elected politicians could not pass a law at the federal level.

That's fine, but States can write laws banning it.

If it were simply a matter of federal law, you wouldn't see all this belly aching about the Dobbs decision.

 

[Lesh]

If you don’t like the Supreme Court, blame Harry Reid - Roll Call

Thanks for that OPINION. Fact remains that McConnell held the Scalia seat open for a year and THEN nuked the SCOTUS filibuster

 

[task0778]

Nowhere did the Supreme Court say that elected politicians could not pass a law at the federal level.

Didn't say they could either. Or more precisely, Congress can pass whatever laws they want to but those laws have to be anchored in the functions stipulated in the Constitution to the Congress. Congress cannot pass laws regarding policing at the state and local levels for example; it's not within their purview. So yeah, Congress can pass an abortion law if they can get the votes, but will it withstand constitutional scrutiny? Since the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no constitutional right to an abortion, does that also mean that Congress has no authority to legislate abortion rights? Or is it exclusively a state issue?

I've seen opinions on both sides of this: some say yeah while others say no, and that is from both pro- and anti-abortion people. Some people on the Right want to pass a law that says all abortions are illegal while others want a law that says all abortions are legal. Most people I think would be okay with allowing abortions up to a certain point, say 14 weeks with some exceptions like the health of the mother. But what does the court base that ruling on? Congress doesn't get to pass whatever they want to as law, they've gotta have some basis in the constitution that provides that authority.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sorry bubba, but you're wrong. SCOTUS said abortion is not a Constitutional right, is congress and the president not bound by the exact same Constitution as the courts? The fact is, congress has no more Constitutional authority to impose abortion on the nation than the court did. Well unless they can get an amendment through the States via Article 5. Good luck with that since they don't have a 2/3rds majority in either house.

.

??

Congress can pass a federal law making abortion legal. Sadly, we no longer abide by the 9th so they are not constrained.

 

[Lesh]

??

Congress can pass a federal law making abortion legal. Sadly, we no longer abide by the 9th so they are not constrained.

And which ten GOP Senators would vote for it?

And there’s every possibility that this activist Court would rule that as unconstitutional

 

[task0778]

??

Congress can pass a federal law making abortion legal. Sadly, we no longer abide by the 9th so they are not constrained.

Are you sure about that? From what I can tell, Congress is constrained to legislation that fits under one of the functions of the federal gov't in the Constitution, no? As stated in my post #123, upon what constitutional authority can they regulate abortion? They can pass an abortion rights law but would it be constitutional? The Supreme Court just overturned Roe v Wade, saying there's nothing in the Constitution that supports that ruling, so how then can Congress codify it?

 

[Lesh]

Are you sure about that? From what I can tell, Congress is constrained to legislation that fits under one of the functions of the federal gov't in the Constitution, no? As stated in my post #123, upon what constitutional authority can they regulate abortion? They can pass an abortion rights law but would it be constitutional? The Supreme Court just overturned Roe v Wade, saying there's nothing in the Constitution that supports that ruling, so how then can Congress codify it?

Like I said… this activist Court could well over turn any legislation

 

[pknopp]

That's fine, but States can write laws banning it.

If it were simply a matter of federal law, you wouldn't see all this belly aching about the Dobbs decision.

None of it is simple. It will be very hard for the Democrats to get what they had under RvW.

 

[pknopp]

Thanks for that OPINION. Fact remains that McConnell held the Scalia seat open for a year and THEN nuked the SCOTUS filibuster

Because Reid did it first with lower court judges. People warned them against doing that but..............

 

[pknopp]

Didn't say they could either. Or more precisely, Congress can pass whatever laws they want to but those laws have to be anchored in the functions stipulated in the Constitution to the Congress. Congress cannot pass laws regarding policing at the state and local levels for example; it's not within their purview. So yeah, Congress can pass an abortion law if they can get the votes, but will it withstand constitutional scrutiny? Since the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no constitutional right to an abortion, does that also mean that Congress has no authority to legislate abortion rights? Or is it exclusively a state issue?

How does the Federal government still have bans on things like marijuana?

The Constitution says nothing about the federal government enacting bans on a plant, but still, we have them.

I've seen opinions on both sides of this: some say yeah while others say no, and that is from both pro- and anti-abortion people. Some people on the Right want to pass a law that says all abortions are illegal while others want a law that says all abortions are legal. Most people I think would be okay with allowing abortions up to a certain point, say 14 weeks with some exceptions like the health of the mother. But what does the court base that ruling on? Congress doesn't get to pass whatever they want to as law, they've gotta have some basis in the constitution that provides that authority.

I doubt they can get much passed for a while anyway.

 

[22lcidw]

Like I said… this activist Court could well over turn any legislation

Most of the overturning of legislation and voter referendums have been done by Prog activist courts. A lot of mileage in the prog domination of the American society has occurred because of that.

 

[Lesh]

Because Reid did it first with lower court judges. People warned them against doing that but..............

McConnell was going to do that regardless.

 

[OKTexas]

Refusing to bring it to the floor for a vote is the same as killing it and further shows it's the 5% of far-left loons that the dems kowtow too rather than work out a reasonable compromise.

DUH!!!!!!!!

.

 

[pknopp]

McConnell was going to do that regardless.

LOL, always with the excuses.

 

[OKTexas]

No in law precedent is settled law. Do you know what you are talking about. Because you are not making any sense.

Yet:

How many cases has the Supreme Court overturned?

Historically, the US Supreme Court rarely overturns decisions. In fact, in its 232-year history, it has done so only 233 times. That might sound high, but

legalknowledgebase.com

.

 

[dudmuck]

The commies won't buy that. The want unrestricted killing of the unborn or the partially born.

.

 

[OKTexas]

The Supreme Court doesn't set precedent. The Supreme Court follows legal precedent.

And two republican senators say I'm correct and they were lied to.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong the Supreme Court can't just make laws from the bench. Precedent is set for fifty years and they both said it was settled precedents. They lied.

Wrong the Supreme Court can't just make laws from the bench.

That's exactly what the court did in Roe.

.

 

[OKTexas]

They said that Roe vs wade was precedent.

a court decision that is considered as authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar legal issues.

Yep, the lower courts have to follow precedent, the supremes, not so much.

.

 

[OKTexas]

They shod of been honest and said they planned to over turn Roe.

Poor little dumbass commie, they didn't know if they would get a case that would allow them to do that. Hard to plan that way.

.