SCOTUS, Now with KBJ

[The Sicatoka]

Hey, cool that you're white and rich. And what happens when you go out of state and texas decides it's still a felony to do that?

Texas trying to control what goes on legally in State X would be challenged.

More billable hours.

[The Sicatoka]

This is nonsensical even by your standards. Some cabal of lawyers schemed to get more caseloads by depriving women of their god-given rights of self determination and agency? Get the **** out of here with that.

Did your hypothetical "cabal" cause this? No.
Is it the outcome? Yes.

[ScoobyDoo]

You gotta love these State's Rights clowns. I wish I hadn't missed my train.

[WeAreNDHockey]

Texas trying to control what goes on legally in State X would be challenged.

More billable hours.

Just like the settled rights of women to choose what happens to their bodies was challenged. And likely overturned. My guess is if Texas makes it illegal for a resident to get an abortion regardless of where that abortion takes place, the same supreme court that is overturning a decision authored by a republican appointee and upheld years later by another republican appointee, it will gleefully uphold any state law that makes abortion illegal for its residents, regardless of where that abortion takes place.

Your gleeful look at all of this like it is oh so amusing is shameful. You Sic, are part of the real problem. I only hope at some point in your life you are faced with an issue as private and serious (and most often gut-wrenching) like a woman who is considering having an abortion, and after some serious soul-searching the only solution that makes any sense for you is deemed illegal and you are unable to do it, no matter where you are in your life. Maybe then you will see how shameful and wrong your attitutes are.

[unofan]

You are correct; Congress would need to act. However, they have not.

Which is 100% different than your initial claim that "the federal government had no power to decide the issue." You now admit the federal government (Congress) has the power.

And if they did, SCOTUS would have to press the law against A10.

Wrong again. It would have to decide if Congress has the power to do so under Article 1.

In light of Congress' inaction, a prior SCOTUS made a decision.

No, SCOTUS made a decision based on the Constitution.

This SCOTUS is questioning that decision/action.

Which sounds an awful lot like actual judicial activism, which I know conservatives hate. /sarcasm

Again, this will all fall back to the several States under A10.

Only as a midpoint battle, and not really under the 10th Amendment. Because we all know the next round is going to be a push by conservatives for a nationwide ban on abortions. But bless your heart, you're trying your best.

Roe isn't going away; it's becoming State law.

Roe's central holding is that there is a Federal right to privacy. If it's moving to state law, then by definition Roe is going away...

[Handyman]

Why are you guys arguing with the troll?

[ScoobyDoo]

I have no idea who leaked it and don’t care, but it’s an effective way to lock in the 5 justices on the opinion. The minority has nothing to gain by it leaking.

https://twitter.com/clairecmc/status...55207351672842

[rufus]

I'm not. I'm calling the troll a frickin' moron.

Politics as a spectator sport. Sic's loving it, Rootin' hard for his team. The drama. The spectacle. The range of human emotion.

Ain't it grand? What's not to love?

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Silver lining - NYT Pitchbot has been on fire today.

[unofan]

Why are you guys arguing with the troll?

Because sometimes the only response to



is

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

Sinema released a statement. Makes sense, bad to clear it with her donors so took a few hours

[Handyman]

Because sometimes the only response to



is

Fair. Proceed!

[The Sicatoka]

Which is 100% different than your initial claim that "the federal government had no power to decide the issue." You now admit the federal government (Congress) has the power.

I misspoke and I own it. The SCOTUS did not have the power to effectively "make law" is what I should have said.

Legislate it, Federally, or at the several States. No problem.

Congress, as I also earlier agreed, could draft and pass Legislation, but it too would have to stand under an A10 challenge back at SCOTUS. Why hasn't Congress done that simple thing, pass legislation that is in alignment with Roe? Because instead of pontificating in front of cameras your Reps and Sens would have to legislate and be on the record with a real, recorded vote. And then face the voters. And that's why Congress (and the several State legislatures) have not acted.

[rufus]

No it wouldn't.

Article 10 says any powers not enumerated by the Constitution are reserved to the states or the people.

Doesn't say the peoples' representatives in Congress can't pass laws. Can the courts say those laws are Unconstitutional? Sure. But that's something else entirely. Has nothing to do with powers reserved to the states.

God, you're stupid.

[The Sicatoka]

Thanks for agreeing with me.

You said:

Doesn't say the peoples' representatives in Congress can't pass laws.

Given your double-negative that's the same as:

Congress, as I also earlier agreed, could draft and pass Legislation, ...

You go on to say:

Can the courts say those laws are Unconstitutional? Sure.

Which is the same as:

... but it too would have to stand under an A10 challenge back at SCOTUS.

Yes, it could be something other than A10, but without legislation to look at you don't know what the challenge may be. Then again, it may be as a "this power is not enumerated and is the States'" A10-type challenge.

So, again, thanks for agreeing with me. (Does that make you stupid?)


Maybe we also agree that Congress is full of cowards for not actually definitively legislating (Article I) on subject and running this through the Constitutional process (including potential Constitutionality challenges).