HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Assuming the worst and Ba...

Mon Oct 12, 2020, 02:35 PM

Assuming the worst and Barrett gets on the Court and destroys

a woman's right to an abortion and kills the ACA, can we, If we take the WH and Senate legislate that abortions are legal and reinstate the ACA? Your thoughts please

16 replies, 1009 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 16 replies Author Time Post
Reply Assuming the worst and Barrett gets on the Court and destroys (Original post)
vlyons Oct 2020 OP
Stinky The Clown Oct 2020 #1
brush Oct 2020 #2
beachbumbob Oct 2020 #3
MuseRider Oct 2020 #4
NameAlreadyTaken Oct 2020 #11
lastlib Oct 2020 #16
Cicada Oct 2020 #5
vsrazdem Oct 2020 #6
Cicada Oct 2020 #7
Ligyron Oct 2020 #8
The Velveteen Ocelot Oct 2020 #9
gratuitous Oct 2020 #10
Bayard Oct 2020 #12
Demsrule86 Oct 2020 #13
Awsi Dooger Oct 2020 #14
I_UndergroundPanther Oct 2020 #15

Response to vlyons (Original post)

Mon Oct 12, 2020, 02:37 PM

1. If the above, and if the filibuster is killed, then yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vlyons (Original post)

Mon Oct 12, 2020, 02:37 PM

2. Oh, sure. And we'll be able to include the public option...

on a new bill if we have the Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vlyons (Original post)

Mon Oct 12, 2020, 02:38 PM

3. The cycle will continue, legislation passed, made into law, conservative

 

SC rules it unconstitutional. Rinse, repeat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vlyons (Original post)

Mon Oct 12, 2020, 02:41 PM

4. In my state

Kansas, our Supreme Court says that even if the Federal Government drops Roe v Wade our state still holds it as a right. Now I think I read at one time (I have not read much about it for a while because there is so damned much and it makes me almost non-functional to think about this) that what they would do is over ride the states that have that.

If they don't make that impossible (State rights? Will they care about that now?) then there will be some time and need to help women get to places where they can have them done safely.

I do not know what they can do otherwise that will not be easy to be taken down with this mix of the SCOTUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MuseRider (Reply #4)

Mon Oct 12, 2020, 03:13 PM

11. They didn't care for State's Rights when Bush dragged the

2000 election from Florida into a federal court. So I doubt they care about state's rights now - unless it becomes convenient and useful for them to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NameAlreadyTaken (Reply #11)

Mon Oct 12, 2020, 04:32 PM

16. "States' Rights" isn't a principle--it's a weapon.....

to be used as a bludgeon whenever it serves their purpose. For them, the principle at issue here is unadulterated power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vlyons (Original post)

Mon Oct 12, 2020, 02:46 PM

5. A law can be passed forbidding Supreme ct review of abortion

The subject jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be limited. Iím not sure that would be a good idea. A law could be passed providing free transportation to a medical facility performing abortions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vlyons (Original post)

Mon Oct 12, 2020, 02:49 PM

6. As far as I am concerned, if it is proven that she purposefuly ommitted the information

Feinstein is requesting, the she should be impeached and we can place a new justice on the court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vlyons (Original post)

Mon Oct 12, 2020, 02:54 PM

7. Many health service laws can be adopted.

Medicare is constitutional so it can be expanded. Premiums are already based on income. So premiums can be based on income. Conservatives may regret that they killed off ACA because its replacement may eliminate private insurance companies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vlyons (Original post)

Mon Oct 12, 2020, 02:55 PM

8. Would children of forced gestation be likely to become GrOPers?

I think not.

Of course, nothing involving religion is ever very logical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vlyons (Original post)

Mon Oct 12, 2020, 02:55 PM

9. Roe v. Wade held that the right to privacy includes the right to an abortion

(with some limitations), and that states can't pass laws prohibiting them or restricting them to a greater extent than the court's holding allows. If Roe is overturned, the result will be that some states will prohibit abortions and others will not. Some states could even amend their constitutions to provide for the right to an abortion consistent with what Roe had held. I doubt very much that federal legislation could resolve the issue for other constitutional reasons. As to the ACA, if the court strikes it down, what might be done about it will depend on the reasons for the decision. Congress would have to craft a bill that would avoid whatever constitutional problems the court identified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vlyons (Original post)

Mon Oct 12, 2020, 03:06 PM

10. If liberals can stomach using conservatives' own weapons against them

Then the legal concept of stare decisis can be disposed of entirely, and the law will say whatever a majority on the Supreme Court at any given time says it is. It's not a recipe for stable governance, that's for sure. If the Supreme Court says people in police custody must be informed of their rights before the cops can start questioning them, then that's fine for as long as the Court majority says it is. But if a subsequent Supreme Court says that potential criminal defendants aren't entitled to representation by an attorney, and the police aren't bound to tell them that they're entitled to representation, then the cops can again launch vendettas on people they don't like without constraint of any kind. It will be up to a future Supreme Court to rule again that the Fifth Amendment really means what it says.

Your life expectancy may hinge on who's on the Supreme Court at any particular time in your life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vlyons (Original post)

Mon Oct 12, 2020, 03:35 PM

12. Just impeach her in January.

She's obviously biased and incompetent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vlyons (Original post)

Mon Oct 12, 2020, 04:20 PM

13. Yes.

We can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vlyons (Original post)

Mon Oct 12, 2020, 04:22 PM

14. I wouldn't count on it

 

It's the same as ounce of prevention and pound of cure. It's going to be markedly more difficult to reinstate some version of the Affordable Care Act, than it was to keep it intact.

Republicans are increasingly proficient and ruthless. They may have tactics were haven't contemplated at all, to make sure it doesn't happen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Awsi Dooger (Reply #14)

Mon Oct 12, 2020, 04:30 PM

15. We need to change things

Until it becomes impossible for republicans to get elected. They need utter ruin because I don't think the founders had any tolerance for traitors and the stuff republicans believe is traitorus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread