The problem with codifying Abortion Rights.

[rogue emissary]

Is this court would still strike it down.

Even if Obama ditched the ACA and went for an Abortion Rights act for the few days he had a super majority.

We'd still be in the same horrendous situation.

Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett would strike down any law granting women the right to an Abortion.


The Voting Right act of '65 signed into law by LBJ. Established law for fortyeight years. Was gutted by Roberts' court in 2013 and we have been trying to fix that ever since.

Giving Biden and his Democratic successor a powerful Democratic majority in the Senate. So they can replace the two oldest and most conservative justices on the court.

Is the only plan that's going to give women back their rights.

[Ferrets are Cool]

1. Are you sure they have that power?

[rogue emissary]

5. Pointing out this court wanted to get rid of Abortions.

In the same session that they believe Abortion should be left to the states.

They ruled that NY and any states conceal and carry laws were unconstitutional.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

22. Enumerated right

v something that isn’t a Constitutional right.

Apples and oranges

[intrepidity]

2. Strike it down based on what grounds?

[msongs]

3. the court needs no "grounds" and can do it without any justification at all nt

[rogue emissary]

6. Exactly.

I don't agree with Thomas grounds for ending Roe v Wade.

Didn't stop him from doing it.

Obama a constitutional law professor didn't agree with the ruling.

Didn't stop him from doing it.

[onenote]

14. None of us agree with those grounds. But we know what they are

What grounds would a majority of the court rely on to strike down a federal abortion law.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

26. Potentially Tenth Amendment n/t

[dawg]

19. On the grounds that is has nothing to do with interstate commerce and therefore ...

it is a matter left for state governments to decide.

[PoliticAverse]

4. Nope. n/t

[Freddie]

7. Codify Griswald

I DARE any politician to vote against birth control. That would show the anti-choicers rank hypocrisy, being opposed to the one thing that actually reduces abortions. Of course we know they don’t GAF about that, but this would make them say it out loud.

[rogue emissary]

9. I agree, but the GOP is crazy enough to do it.

As long as they own the libs.

[moose65]

8. On what grounds would they strike it down?

They keep saying that these things should be returned to the people and their elected Representatives.

The Supreme Court doesn't just sit there and rule on laws as soon as they're passed. There has to be a suit brought against an entity, and then it works its way up to them, which could take years.

[rogue emissary]

10. I know that and that's why I said Biden's successor.

It's why Thomas, who is notorious for rarely talking while their in session.

Has been singling he wants to tackle, contraception and same sex marriage next.

When he suggested those cases weren't decided correctly. He wasn't talking to you and me.

He was signaling to the lower courts and those organizations that would like to see them overruled.

[Rstrstx]

33. Maybe a lower court should take a look at Loving v Virginia

I’d like to see the pretzels he’d have to tie himself into to rule that that should still be valid.

[FBaggins]

11. Then why didn't they?

Lots of states (covering an overwhelming percentage of women if you include those who can travel a short distance) codify abortion rights.

Why didn't they strike those down?

[rogue emissary]

12. Who says they won't?

They're target was Roe V Wade. Don't mean they're finished.

[FBaggins]

28. Let's try again

They could have said that the constitution requires protection of life and all abortions are now illegal. Why didn't they?

Why allow the vast majority of abortions if you think that's where they'll go as soon as Congress tries to protect the right?

[rogue emissary]

37. Simple, they're strategy was to take down Roe.

See what your saying and you make a great point.

Think of the ruling as abegging or a continuation than the GOP reaching an ending on this subject.

The reason they didn't go further is the case before them didn't let them rule on all Abortions.

A law that grants all women access to an Abortion. Once challenged in a lower court. Would give them the ability to rule that no Abortions should be allowed.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

23. Federal courts

Can’t strike down state laws unless those laws violate the US Constitution.

That’s why the Texas abortion law was struck down in 1973, and why the Mississippi law wasn’t struck down last week.

[FBaggins]

29. The OP speculates that a federal law will be struck down in exactly that way

If that's true... why would they leave state laws alone?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

30. Because they don't

have jurisdiction over those laws unless the laws violate the US Constitution

[FBaggins]

31. Um... that's the same rule for federal laws too

So that would answer the OP's belief - it means that they can't strike down what Congress hypothetically passes.

But the OP believes that they nevertheless will. Which would require them to not say that the constitution is silent on the subject... but rather that it requires a ban (or other restrictions) on abortion.

My point is that if that were true (that they're willing to rule that it does violate the US constitution)... then why didn't they do so? Why leave those state laws in place?

Unless you're speculating that a federal law might violate the constitution (in their eyes) in a way that a state law couldn't?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

32. A federal court can strike down a federal law

Don’t know where you’re getting that they can’t.

If a federal court, including SCOTUS decides that a federal law violates the Constitution by infringing on a state’s rights, they can strike down the law on Tenth Amendment grounds.

[FBaggins]

35. Whether federal or state law... they can only strike it down on constitutional grounds

It doesn't have to be 10A, but SCOTUS has to base their decisions on the constitution either way.

So again - if they're going to say that the hypothetical federal law is unconstitutional - why wouldn't they say that about existing state laws?

Don’t know where you’re getting that they can’t.

I'm not sure where you think I said that. Of course they *can*. It would be hypocritical given the Dobbs ruling... but they have the power.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

36. Dobbs didn't

strike down any laws at all.

My opinion, and it’s just an opinion, is that based on the Dobbs decision, SCOTUS will strike down any law Congress passes regarding abortion, either codifying Roe or banning abortion - they’ve left it up to the states as it is no longer a Constitutional issue.

[Sympthsical]

13. "Why bother, it's no use." is a dangerous place to be in

It defeats things before they are attempted. Any pressure for change evaporates.

That said, people are misinterpreting the ruling. They didn't rule that abortions are illegal. They ruled that there is nothing in the Constitution either for or against abortion. Whereas Roe ruled that abortion was a protected right.

Fine. The constitution doesn't expressly protect it? We can make a law which does.

If it was so useless, why are Republicans coming right out of the gate wanting a federal bill that would limit abortion to 15 weeks? They clearly think the power exists and are preparing to fight for it.

We need to not only fight just as hard on our side, we need to fight harder.

[MrsCoffee]

16. +1

[rogue emissary]

17. I fear if we only focus on a new law and not changing the court.

We still can be in this same situation.

Where did I say it was useless?

The problem with it is a court can still strike it down. In the case of the Voting Rights law weaken it.

I should have been clearer. Not against codifying, just want to highlight we need more than a law.

A court where Sotomayor was in the majority could have ruled different.

[Sympthsical]

18. A law is more immediately tangible than the Court

The Court only changes if someone dies or retires. There will not be any investigations or impeachments. It's a waste of energy to even really discuss them. It's wishin and hopin and prayin.

What is before us is control of Congress and an election in November. "Send more Democrats to Congress if you want to codify women's rights" is an immediate, concrete, can be done clarion call that could be achieved in the here and now.

We have four months to move that ball forward.

We have no idea when we can make moves on the Court. That's just not nearly as much in the cards. People talk about expansion, but even President Biden has said he doesn't want that. If he's not going for it, there will not be the appetite required in the corridors of power to bother. That's just where that is right now.

But the election is something we can do something about. Right now.

[rogue emissary]

20. Do you think that's enough for those complaining that the Democrats did nothing?

Cause I'm seeing a very small but vocal message coming from the left of the party.

"Tell me to vote isn't enough crowd"

Don't agree with it, but people are working overtime to spread it on social media.

[Sympthsical]

21. If the Democratic party made it a major plank it could work

"If we win, we will do it. Period. End of story. This has priority."

Not the only priority, because the economy needs addressing. But part of the problem is promising and promising and promising and endlessly asking for donations. Then they get in and . . . ok, but next election, seriously you guys, we'll do it. Just twenty more dollars. . .

We're at the precipice. It's put up or shut up time. Arguably, that time should've come before this all got out of the barn, but now that it is, there needs to be a soul-binding dedication of the party this November. "We will fight for this. No excuses."

Not, "Well, I dunno. Maybe. We'll see. I am very angry. Do you see the angry face I'm making? This angry is just as good as if we'd done something."

Republicans don't do maybe we'll see. And when they make an angry face, there's usually a fist coming right after.

[rogue emissary]

25. So the 61 bills and revolutions in the last two years Democrats introduced.

Including a vote to codify Abortion rights last months.

Doesn't make it a "Major Plank" to you?

[MrsCoffee]

15. We'll take our chances, thanks.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

24. Outcome all depends

On how the Court interprets the ruling they just made.

If Congress passes a law codifying Roe, or conversely, a law outlawing abortion, they will have to decide whether regulation is given to the Federal government or forbidden to the states. If either of these is true, then Congress can regulate abortion, for or against. If neither of those is true, then Congress can’t regulate abortion, for or against, and any federal law would be overturned.

Tenth Amendment stuff.

[rogue emissary]

27. Indeed, just want us to move to long game planning.

It's what the Republicans did to get us to this point.

[Vinca]

34. I was wondering about that, too, since the SCOTUS is interpreting the Constitution (supposedly).

If a law is enacted they deem unConstitutional, can't they just toss it with the first challenge? Scary. Theocracy here we come.