What are the chances that if a national abortion law passes, it would get struck down?

[Polybius]

On what grounds? 10 Amendment? Something else? Or would it hold up in court?

[Wednesdays]

1. They would merely trot out the same argument as in the Dobbs case.

[qazplm135]

5. no, that argument wouldn't work

Because Dobbs literally says this is for legislatures to decide, not courts.

To invalidate a Congressional law protecting abortion rights, they would have to effectively overturn Dobbs, and say this is for the courts to decide, and we decide an unborn fetus has rights.

[Wednesdays]

10. With this court, they could apply ANY reasoning.

They could say "because bananas have no bones" as their reasoning to strike it down.

[qazplm135]

15. no they can't

they aren't doing that.

[exboyfil]

11. Fetus personhood

I suspect that would be the next thing. They might even get away with it if the laws are too porous for their constituents liking (ie too many women are fleeing across the border to get abortions).

You need to convince small states of the need for reproductive freedom. I just don't know how you do that. They are also the states with the most zealous "Christians". You also need the right two openings come up on the Supreme Court - I don't know if Roberts and one is enough. Right now if Thomas was unable to continue, I am not even sure you could get past Manchin and Sinema to get a liberal justice seated.

[Lovie777]

2. What if it does not . . . .

how do we keep it safe.

[Cartoonist]

3. The only way to safeguard it is to make it an Amendment.

Two thirds of the states to pass it, two thirds to repeal. The Supreme Court has nothing to say.

[NowISeetheLight]

4. Gerrymandering makes this unlikely

They really need a gerrymandering amendment first. States where Democrats are 60% of the registered voters yet have a minority of seats.

[Polybius]

6. Gerrymandering won't matter much on this

We couldn't even get 50 Democrats to vote for it in the Senate, let alone 67.

[Cartoonist]

8. Gerrymandering has no effect statewide.

It's only local and only affects Representative races, not Senators.

[SoonerPride]

7. SCOTUS can invalidate any law they want

And apply any reasoning they want.

They literally can make it up as they wish.

It doesn’t have to make sense

They could say it violates the second amendment.

They do not care and they are not bound by logic or reason.

They start with a preconceived agenda and then work backwards to find whatever justification they need to justify their position.

[Polybius]

9. Sure, but would it be the right decision to strike it down?

What I'm saying is is there anything wrong legally with a national abortion law if Roe is struct down? Purely legally speaking, are there any good, real arguments to axe it?

[Ms. Toad]

12. Legally speaking, there are no good reasons to axe it.

It would be a valid exercise of Federal power under tthe commerce clause. (Since abortions involve a commercial transaction, and especially if states start banning them and women have to travel between states to obtain one, it is a pretty easy case to make).

That doesn't mean that this court won't find a way. But they would have to ignore a whole bunch of law to do it.

[OAITW r.2.0]

13. Put the Senate vote out there, ASAP.

Write the law to codify R v.W and make everyone vote on it. Alioto's fantasy gets shut down by law.

Now.

[AlexSFCA]

14. with current SC? Chances are 100%

But Thomas is next to be replaced so if we still have senate and president…

[in2herbs]

16. If Biden expands the court -- or even establishes a new Supreme Court to replace the current USSC

I don't see a national abortion law being overturned.

The Constitution requires a Supreme Court but places the structure of the Supreme Court squarely under the control of Congress. “The Constitution barely mentions the judiciary’s structure beyond providing for a supreme court and any lower courts that Congress might wish to establish. It is silent on the Supreme Court’s size and frequency of sessions as well as judges’ qualifications and compensation.” https://www.senate.gov/legislative/landmark-legislation/judiciary-act-1789.htm

So abolish this USSC and form a new one, with term limits, ethics rules, and justices who shall be removed if they lied, in any form, during their confirmation hearing. And omission of information shall be considered a lie.

There are specialties in every profession. For instance, when building a new USSC create specialty departments. Why not have 3 justices that only hear environmental cases because that is their specialty. Another 3 justices would only hear corporate/business issues because that is their specialty. There could be specialty divisions for other issues, too, such as women & children, voting, civil rights, qualified and quasi immunity claims by law enforcement/government officials, etc. We could end up with 15 justices.

Alito and the others can retire and live under a rock.

More has to be done than just GOTV. A drastic change at the USSC has to be part of the equation to get people to vote.

I know it's a pipe dream cuz we don't have the votes to make changes right now, but that doesn't mean we can't start planting the seeds of change in voter's minds right now for when we do have the votes.

[Polybius]

17. "justices who shall be removed if they lied, in any form"

Legally, it's hard to prove a lie. None said "I won't vote to overturn Roe." What some said was that it was precedent. Technically speaking, they can think something is precedent but still want to overturn it. They are all lawyers. They know how to legally bend the truth without lying.

[herding cats]

20. Sadly true.

We can point it out and make the public aware in hopes they'll haul their butts to the polls and not be complacent again, but beyond that I don't see a lot of legal ways out of this disaster.

We're at the mercy of voters being smart enough to see what's transpired and actually doing something about it.

[herding cats]

19. That's A job of Congress not Biden.

It says so right there in the meat of you post. I'm not being ugly, but a lot of people will just read your header (just like misleading headlines) and blame the wrong branch of government. Civics are lost on way too many people anymore.

Yeah, you're correct, it's not going to happen because we don't have that kind of a majority. Simple fact is we can't expand the court and they know we can't. Thus, what's taking place now and the push by many to blame it on the Democratic people in office.

[Tickle]

18. what's the

national abortion law ?

[Polybius]

21. A federal law stating a woman has the right to choose

There is some disagreement about the number of weeks. Most supporters want it capped at 24 weeks (which is what Roe does currently, and would allow states to ban it after that), while some want it to be more and others less.