General Discussion

myccrider

(484 posts)

19. Uhm, correct me if I'm misremembering, but...

Sat May 7, 2022, 05:50 AM

May 2022

doesn’t the Supreme Court determine which laws passed by Congress are constitutional (if challenged, and either one of these will be ((or would be, if they could pass)) challenged, for sure) and then we’re supposed to think that the same majority of judges on the SC would vote differently on a new law like this?

This strategy confuses me a bit , although it could be primarily for the PR and to make the SC ‘say’ it again.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

19 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Here is a copy of the Collins-Murkowski bill [View all] exboyfil May 2022 OP

They need to define "fetal viability" lapfog_1 May 2022 #1

Reactionary bills always only make matters worse... Hugin May 2022 #2

Nope, Phoenix61 May 2022 #3

I believe that means states may codify protections for women whose pregnancies endanger them. n/t femmedem May 2022 #4

It will mean whatever the state wants it to mean. Phoenix61 May 2022 #7

Good point. n/t femmedem May 2022 #18

Good. At this point we need to pass whatever protections we can pass femmedem May 2022 #5

Here's the proposal for the bill containing the correct limits Jerry2144 May 2022 #6

Collins rso May 2022 #8

Yeah Johnny2X2X May 2022 #9

Didn't Collins already say she opposes a federal law getagrip_already May 2022 #10

If I read properly, she opposes the Democrat bill codifying Roe. Calista241 May 2022 #13

Collins and Murkowski inthewind21 May 2022 #16

Assuming it's even serious and has a chance of reaching floor, should be considered. Hoyt May 2022 #11

I agree. It could be better but it acknowledges that abortion is legal Buckeyeblue May 2022 #12

Agreed. Ms. Toad May 2022 #17

Collins rso May 2022 #14

Murkowski rso May 2022 #15

Uhm, correct me if I'm misremembering, but... myccrider May 2022 #19