Jean-Pierre: SCOTUS Overturn of Roe is Unconstitutional

[867-5309.]

"...But look, there has been an urgency from this President from day one when — when the Supreme Court made this extreme decision to take away a constitutional right. It was an unconstitu- — unconstitutional action by them — a right that was around for almost 50 years, a right that women had to make a decision on their bodies and how they want to start their families..."

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2022/08/03/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-august-3-2022/

The SCOTUS is taking away rights guaranteed by the constitution. We are through the looking glass.

[OAITW r.2.0]

1. I wish her opinion mattered.

The Problem is SCOTUS and it's beyond our control.


Elect Democrats - Support Democracy.

[BOSSHOG]

3. Extreme Red State Kansas

Which I live in, was a good start. I’m a 68 year old guy who served many years in the military and look upon overturning Roe as pissing on my service to our country. I consider the gop and the Catholic Church domestic enemies of the constitution. Neither group is pro life. I am optimistic about the future for all the women in our country (even the mistresses of republicans.). I’m urging all people who support Liberty and Justice for all to go to the polls and vote this coming ROEVEMBER. (I stole that from another poster, can’t remember who.)

[OAITW r.2.0]

4. Well said, I'm 69.

And I still fight for the truth.

[BOSSHOG]

5. Us old folk are gonna get us back on the correct course

Conservatives have poked a very large hornets nest

[OAITW r.2.0]

7. In-fucking-deed. nt

[OAITW r.2.0]

9. I'm in rural Central Maine and, guess what?

Lots of people still think tfg is God-Incarnate, here. Trying to fix stupid, but it's not easy.

[BOSSHOG]

12. Stupid is as stupid does

They proudly accept the Russian lies on Facebook, then call themselves patriots. They are here in Kansas just like noxious weeds.

Been to Maine on a military hop in Bangor a long long time ago. Quick refuel and off again Couldn’t get off the plane. However, I am a big fan of Stephen King. We spent many years living on the gulf coast. Loved being near the water.

Y’all get rid of Collins we’ll get rid of Marshall.

[OAITW r.2.0]

16. Back in 85/86, Me and my wife were Gary Hart delegates.

So was Steve and Tabitha, and they had a get-to at their place in Bangor. Earlier that day, I slice my mid-finger open (left hand) while trying to break a saw blade on a the table saw.

So, that night, I had to hold my middle finger up the whole time. Steve thought it was funny.

[BOSSHOG]

17. And he didn't write a book about that?

Politics, social gathering, bloodshed, a table saw. A middle finger?? And Gary Hart, so you had the sex angle. I think King missed an opportunity. Was Kathy Bates in attendance?

[OAITW r.2.0]

18. Nope, but my sister was in one of his movies, down in Freeport/Portald,

She was a court stenographer IRL, and happened to be at the Falmorth courthouse when they were filming. She was 7 months pregnant, but gladly volunteered to do the role in the movie. "Slimmer?"

[summer_in_TX]

19. In red-leaning areas of states like Maine, some of the Kansas

messaging may reach some of the conservatives and many independents.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217002192

[calimary]

21. I stole it, too, BOSSHOG, from DUer oregonjen.

Roevember! SO clever!

[BOSSHOG]

35. Let's Just Row, Row, Row our votes to victory for Freedom in Roevember.

The numbers are on our side. Oh the whining of the “pro lifers.” You would think by their reaction that someone had taken away their power to force women to have babies, to control women and to force all citizens to “believe” what they believe. I think I got that right. But Catholics can still attempt to codify while enjoying their tax exempt status. Praise the Lord.

[calimary]

37. Remember in Roevember!

Or my own personal favorite, "Remember in Roevember, DAMMIT!"

[stopdiggin]

2. Umm. Calling a supreme court decision unconstitutional

might be a little bit - counter-intuitive. But - go ahead - have at it.

[brush]

6. Why not? That's exactly what Alito and his 15th century...

reasoning did. He and the SCOTUS Taliban are no more common sense observers/arbiters than anyone else (see the Kansas election this week).

[stopdiggin]

25. so we go to a 'system'

(if one can call it that) whereby there is no true arbiter of constitutionality?

(You, or I - or the WH press secretary - decide on our own, what is legitimate law - and what not? I understand your disdain for the current court. And, like many, have a degree of sympathy. But, if that is truly what you are proposing - then that is indeed a brave new world!)

[brush]

32. I think it is a brave,new world with the present ...

SCOTUS six. Who but maga wingers have any respect anymore for their decisions. I know historically that's supposed to be their role but IMO they've relinquished it in the minds of the majority of citizens.

They're next decisions have the potential to traumatize the nation as they hinted at going after contraception, same sex marriage and LGBTQ sex itself.

[Ocelot II]

8. Jean-Pierre is a very bright woman but obviously she never attended law school.

If she had, she would have learned early in her first year, upon reading Marbury v. Madison, that, like it or not, SCOTUS decides what is and is not constitutional. In 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut, they concluded that a general right to privacy is found in the “penumbras,” or zones, created by the specific guarantees of several amendments in the Bill of Rights, including the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments. Later cases, including Roe and Obergefell, relied on that interpretation to hold that that penumbral constitutional right to privacy also protected abortion and same sex marriage, but in Dobbs they overruled Roe, rejecting the notion that there are unexpressed penumbral rights in the Constitution. This means that the right to an abortion is not protected by the Constitution, because SCOTUS says so.

The remedy is to protect abortion rights by federal statute, appoint new justices who will someday overrule Dobbs, or hope that they overrule Marbury.

[JCMach1]

10. Essentially turning the SC into the Legislative Branch

So, I am with Jean-Pierre on that point.

The SC is pretending their ruling means what it means. The ruling would have to be a binary decision on ALL cases related to those unenumerated privacy rights.

Profoundly unconstitutional to cherry pick one in a kind of beauty contest.

[Ocelot II]

13. Technically, no. SCOTUS was intended as a check on the legislative branch,

to prevent the enforcement of statutes enacted by Congress that were unconstitutional. Somebody had to decide that issue and obviously it couldn't be Congress itself - that's basically what Marbury said. The problem isn't with the original function of SCOTUS, but that a majority of extremist judges relied on a perverse and completely ahistorical interpretation of the Constitution. The comment in Dobbs that only abortion was being considered was clearly bullshit because if Roe falls, so do Griswold and Obergefell. It's just that those cases weren't before the court, so they couldn't be specifically overruled, but Scalia and Thomas were clearly teeing them up.

[Cheezoholic]

23. To be clear, because this has always confused me

SCOTUS has no power to make law, got that. SCOTUS can rule on the Constitutionality of law , got that. But how can SCOTUS rule on the Constitutionality of federal law when at the same time congress and the executive technically have oversight of SCOTUS? I understand SCOTUS has final word on the Constitutionality of laws passed by states. So, how would codifying Roe at the federal level prevent SCOTUS from ruling at some point that is unconstitutional? Pardon my ignorance

[Ocelot II]

24. This is the House bill:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text Basically, it reinstates the conditions of Roe, and intends to supersede any conflicting state law. What SCOTUS did in Dobbs was simply hold that there is no constitutional right to abortion, but it didn't say that laws permitting abortion were unconstitutional, leaving that decision to the individual states. If this bill is enacted into law, it might be challenged on the ground that it unconstitutionally interferes with states' rights. However, there are many federal statutes that uphold certain rights, superseding some state laws, notably the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

[BOSSHOG]

15. Cherry picked on purpose

Like it was part of a master plan concocted by freedom hating criminals, because it was. Now part of Mitch McConnell’s legacy. Overtness would have been too obvious. Yes I said that and meant it.

Damn that red state speed bump in flyover country.

[stopdiggin]

26. "Profoundly unconstitutional to cherry pick one .. "

Umm. No. That also is not 'unconstitutional.' And/nor is it particularly unusual practice in jurisprudence. Law is often thrashed out in bits and pieces, measures and steps.

I join a whole host of Americans in opining that the Dobbs decision is very, very wrong. But for the press secretary to characterize is as 'unconstitutional' - is shooting from the hip (or the mouth, as the case may be) - and, also, just plain wrong.

Not a big fan of bombastic (and sloppy) rhetoric. Particularly not a fan when it is emanating from a seat of responsibility and authority (i.e., the White House).

[Hermit-The-Prog]

27. The Dobbs decision ignored logic, decades of precedent, and the U.S. Constitution.

[stopdiggin]

29. One and two, quite clearly.

Three, almost certainly a matter of interpretation. And in our system that falls to ...

[Hermit-The-Prog]

30. The 13th amendment alone is sufficient to dispute the Dobbs decision.

Add in Amendments I, IV, IX, and XIV and it is clear that the Extreme Court ruled solely on ideology and against the Constitution.

Congress has the power to curtail this court under Article III, Section 2. The only reason it cannot at this time is due to Senate rules and the balance of parties.

[stopdiggin]

31. there are all kinds of people out there that are willing to 'dispute'

the courts opinion/ruling. Unfortunately that doesn't change the fact that the court is ultimately the arbiter of what is constitutional.

As far as the other branches of government 'reining in' the court - even if I could be persuaded it represented a good idea - as a matter of feasibility, it's clearly a non-starter.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

34. No.

There's nothing magical or mystical about the Constitution, the Supreme Court, or Roe v. Wade. The primary function of government and law is protection of the governed.

Law is supposed to evolve over time based on reason as it encounters the complexity of real-life interactions between parties. Roe resulted from such painfully slow evolution of the law. The Dobbs decision was made by pre-determining an outcome based on a minor, extremist ideology and then warping law and reason to fit that outcome. It trampled on protections for religion, against illegal search and seizure, against indentured servitude, and for equal protection. The chaos and fallout from that unconstitutional decision will continue for decades.

The Supreme Court is the arbiter of what is constitutional, but it does not have the final say -- we, collectively, are the ultimate arbiter. All of the work to mitigate the damage done by this rogue court is for the short term. Long term, this court must be reined in through the framework provided to do so.

[stopdiggin]

36. I appreciate your point of view

and wish you well in your - aspirations? - toward the court.

----- -----

[Takket]

11. unfortunately the constitution says what SCOTUS says it says

and there is no real check on their power, since amending the Constitution and Impeachment is impossible in the current political landscape where the rethugs aid and abet their corruption.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

28. No it isn't and Congress has a check on the Extreme Court's power without amendment.

[Polybius]

14. It's not unConstitutional

Just something many disagree with.

[DFW]

20. The trouble is:

Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, K and ACB are the foxes, and we are the denizens of the henhouse.

[Initech]

22. We got to get these religious MAGA fuckheads out of the government!

[pecosbob]

33. There are two parts to this statement

The first is I believe subject to debate at least by those that espouse a literal interpretation of the Constitution. The right to abort a fetus is of course never specifically mentioned and from a literalist perspective it is not a constitutional right. In opposition to this view, many would argue, myself included, that the right is covered by the catch-all of the Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights..."The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The second part of the statement is correct in my view. A court commits an unconstitutional act when it denies citizens of any right protected by the Constitution. The simple act of rendering a Supreme Court decision does not make the decision constitutional by default.

[Kaleva]

38. Doesn't the Constitution give SCOTUPS the final say as to what's constitutional and what isn't?

"Article III
Primary tabs
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii