*Pass legislation making Roe the law of the land,'

[elleng]

in face of 'likely' overturn by Court with Coney Barrett sitting.

[Bev54]

1. Of course

[Demsrule86]

2. And what is to stopt he court from ruling that life begins at fertilization?

And then they declare the law unconstitutional.

[elleng]

4. That would take another 4+ years,

so it would at least get us time.

[Demsrule86]

8. Why would it take four years?

We have to pack the court and save the ACA...

[elleng]

10. These things take TIME because the system was created to work SLOWLY.

[Demsrule86]

17. It won't because if we have the Senate...it can be done right away.

One of the reason things take so long is because of the filibuster.

[Demsrule86]

18. I don't think it would take that long.

But time will tell.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. That's one way-- if he gets a Senate. I notice he delicately avoids expanding the SC...

Which no doubt is on a lot of minds.

[OnDoutside]

20. And he's right, but I really think if the Democratic Party want to make the fundamental

changes and fundamental improvements in American society, they are going to have to confront the SC. Do any of us have any doubt that the RWNJs on the SC will be intent on doing to Biden, what McConnell did to Obama ? I think it may have been Preet Bharara or someone of that stature who suggested that they could entirely reform the SC, by enlarging the number from 9 to 19, and choosing 3 judges at random per case, thereby being able to hear an awful lot more cases, to reduce the wait time to get there in the first place. Glenn Kirchner suggested an introduction of specialised lower courts as well. There's plenty they could package into sweeping changes, while setting the country (finally) on a socially developed path.

[Ninga]

5. Yes Yes Yes!!! Simple, direct answer! I implore and plead to our great to our great protector

in the sky, RBG, that Biden has mighty mighty coattails and pulls in as many Senators as possible.

[Laelth]

6. That was a weak answer from Joe.

Yes. Congress could pass a law making “Roe” the law of the land, and that would do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING if the SCOTUS ruled that “Roe” and the new law were both unconstitutional. That new law could be easily overturned, and Joe knows it.

The real question is, “Will you expand the Supreme Court in order to counter-balance the current, right-wing leaning of the Court—a bias that is obviously opposed to the will of the American people?”

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have, so far, refused to answer this question.

-Laelth

[Buckeyeblue]

7. It would be difficult to declare a federal law legalizing abortion unconstitutional

State laws limiting or banning as abortion violate a woman's constitutional right to choose as outlined in Roe. But laws can extend rights. It's difficult for the court to overturn such laws.

[Midwestern Democrat]

14. There are limits to federal power - if the Supreme Court rules there is no constitutional right to

abortion, I really don't see how the federal government could force the states to legalize abortion within their borders - they certainly couldn't use the Commerce Clause to justify such a law.

[Buckeyeblue]

15. The civil rights act of 1964 did that very thing. So did Title IX.

Conservative groups hate both laws but have not been able to declare them unconstitutional because they law doesn't deny anyone rights.

I think the only way to preempt such a law would be to argue that at conception the zygote becomes a person.

[dsc]

11. actually it would do quite a lot

Roe was a decision based on Constitutional rights. Conservatives say that there is no right to abortion, that isn't the same as saying one can't pass a law permitting it. It would be rather difficult to rule a law that permitted abortion is unconstitutional. Ruling a fetus had a right to live would cause chaos and policy that the conservatives wouldn't embrace.

[Demsrule86]

19. If Joe Biden said yes I will expand the courts, it would be a gift to Republicans. The answer

is not weak but evasive...and that is a good thing.

[llmart]

21. +1

One should keep some cards close to their chests.

[OnDoutside]

22. He's right. What's the point addressing this and providing oxygen to the Repugs ? It's a moot point

until he sees what power he has in January. Just like healthcare. People want to vote Trump out, don't give them a reason not to. I believe you will be pleasantly surprised what a 3 branch Dem majority can and will do. President Obama shone the light by saying that filibuster must go. I don't believe he would have said that without some idea of what Joe is thinking. Just concentrate on GOTV, and see what happens after that.

[Jersey Devil]

23. You do not understand why the right would overturn Roe

They believe there is no right to privacy under the Constitution that could give rise to a constitutional right to choice. They believe it is up to a state to decide that in the absence of federal statutes. It is not a matter of approving or disapproving abortion itself.

A federal statute codifying Roe would be very difficult to overturn.

[LAS14]

9. I was so glad to hear this simple, straightforward answer!! nt

[Polybius]

13. Unless the Court rules it violates the 10th Amendment

Who knows with them.

[steve2470]

16. I would love a constitutional amendment better

One can dream.

[Demsrule86]

24. Can we win first? Health care is the winning message in most of the states we need.