Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Nebraska's new law limiting abortion and trans healthcare is argued before the state Supreme Court
Nebraska's new law limiting abortion and trans healthcare is argued before the state Supreme CourtMembers of the Nebraska Supreme Court appeared to meet with skepticism a state lawyer's defense of a new law that combines a 12-week abortion ban with another measure to limit gender-affirming health care for minors.
Assistant Attorney General Eric Hamilton argued Tuesday that the hybrid law does not violate a state constitutional requirement that legislative bills stick to a single subject. But he went further, stating that the case is not one the high court should rule on because it is politically charged and lawmaking is within the sole purview of the Legislature.
“Didn't that ship sail about 150 years ago?” Chief Justice Mike Heavican retorted.
Hamilton stood firm, insisting the lawsuit presented a “nonjusticiable political question” and that the Legislature “self-polices” whether legislation holds to the state constitution's single-subject rule.
“This court is allowed to review whether another branch has followed the constitutionally established process, isn't it?" Justice John Freudenberg countered.
Assistant Attorney General Eric Hamilton argued Tuesday that the hybrid law does not violate a state constitutional requirement that legislative bills stick to a single subject. But he went further, stating that the case is not one the high court should rule on because it is politically charged and lawmaking is within the sole purview of the Legislature.
“Didn't that ship sail about 150 years ago?” Chief Justice Mike Heavican retorted.
Hamilton stood firm, insisting the lawsuit presented a “nonjusticiable political question” and that the Legislature “self-polices” whether legislation holds to the state constitution's single-subject rule.
“This court is allowed to review whether another branch has followed the constitutionally established process, isn't it?" Justice John Freudenberg countered.
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.