Roe v Wade is on deck

[ZiprHead]

Pass a law? Why would that have made any difference?

If it is a federal law, then it's harder to challenge and harder to overturn. That's the entire point.

To get a law overturned by the SC, you have to be able to effectively argue that the law itself is unconstitutional.

It's not that difficult to follow. Obergefell was an SC interpretation that said the federal government does not have a constitutional basis for denying same sex marriage. If that's all they did, it would remain at risk of challenge. But that's NOT all they did - congress passed an actual for realsies LAW that clearly states that same sex marriages are legal across the US. That makes it much, much harder for the Respect for Marriage Act to be overturned.

The same is true for ACA - there is no constitutional basis for health insurance, but there is an actual real law. BEcause it's a law, it has withstood tons of legal challenges, and I'm pretty sure it will withstand many more. Because to overturn it in part or in whole, the challenger has to be able to convince judges that it is unconstitutional. That's how they got the mandate overturned - they deemed that it was unconstitutional to enact a tax in that way. But the remainder of it stays in place because it is not unconstitutional.

There's nothing in the constitution that forbids or otherwise prevents congress from making a law with respect to abortion.

The reason of Dobbs was that abortion was a state's right issue. The same argument would apply to a federal law.

 

[Emily Lake]

Pass a law? Why would that have made any difference?

If it is a federal law, then it's harder to challenge and harder to overturn. That's the entire point.

To get a law overturned by the SC, you have to be able to effectively argue that the law itself is unconstitutional.

It's not that difficult to follow. Obergefell was an SC interpretation that said the federal government does not have a constitutional basis for denying same sex marriage. If that's all they did, it would remain at risk of challenge. But that's NOT all they did - congress passed an actual for realsies LAW that clearly states that same sex marriages are legal across the US. That makes it much, much harder for the Respect for Marriage Act to be overturned.

The same is true for ACA - there is no constitutional basis for health insurance, but there is an actual real law. BEcause it's a law, it has withstood tons of legal challenges, and I'm pretty sure it will withstand many more. Because to overturn it in part or in whole, the challenger has to be able to convince judges that it is unconstitutional. That's how they got the mandate overturned - they deemed that it was unconstitutional to enact a tax in that way. But the remainder of it stays in place because it is not unconstitutional.

There's nothing in the constitution that forbids or otherwise prevents congress from making a law with respect to abortion.

The reason of Dobbs was that abortion was a state's right issue. The same argument would apply to a federal law.

The reason of Dobbs was the the constitution doesn't support federal interference on the issue, that the due process clause isn't relevant to the topic of abortion. Once the prior interpretation that banning abortion was unconstitutional was rescinded, it automatically defaulted back to states rights.

That does NOT apply when it's a federal law. Federal law supersedes state law.

 

[ZiprHead]

Pass a law? Why would that have made any difference?

If it is a federal law, then it's harder to challenge and harder to overturn. That's the entire point.

To get a law overturned by the SC, you have to be able to effectively argue that the law itself is unconstitutional.

It's not that difficult to follow. Obergefell was an SC interpretation that said the federal government does not have a constitutional basis for denying same sex marriage. If that's all they did, it would remain at risk of challenge. But that's NOT all they did - congress passed an actual for realsies LAW that clearly states that same sex marriages are legal across the US. That makes it much, much harder for the Respect for Marriage Act to be overturned.

The same is true for ACA - there is no constitutional basis for health insurance, but there is an actual real law. BEcause it's a law, it has withstood tons of legal challenges, and I'm pretty sure it will withstand many more. Because to overturn it in part or in whole, the challenger has to be able to convince judges that it is unconstitutional. That's how they got the mandate overturned - they deemed that it was unconstitutional to enact a tax in that way. But the remainder of it stays in place because it is not unconstitutional.

There's nothing in the constitution that forbids or otherwise prevents congress from making a law with respect to abortion.

The reason of Dobbs was that abortion was a state's right issue. The same argument would apply to a federal law.

The reason of Dobbs was the the constitution doesn't support federal interference on the issue, that the due process clause isn't relevant to the topic of abortion. Once the prior interpretation that banning abortion was unconstitutional was rescinded, it automatically defaulted back to states rights.

That does NOT apply when it's a federal law. Federal law supersedes state law.

Not if the SC says it doesn't.

 

[Elixir]

That does NOT apply when it's a federal law. Federal law supersedes state law.

SCROTUS can just as easily deem a Federal law unconstitutional as a State Law.
The Court isn't concerned with laws beyond their conformance to the requirements of the Constitution. Those requirements are exactly what they say they are. The other consideration is supposed to be precedent, but this Court is prone to ignoring that in order to favor Trumpism.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Pass a law? Why would that have made any difference?

If it is a federal law, then it's harder to challenge and harder to overturn. That's the entire point.

No it isn't. State passes a more stringent law that is in conflict with the Federal Law, lower courts rule Federal law is supreme. SCOTUS gets it and skull fucks precedence, saying the exact same thing they did in Dobbs. That the Constitution does not provide this protection, so the Federal Government can't enforce it on states.

The same is true for ACA - there is no constitutional basis for health insurance, but there is an actual real law.
...That's how they got the mandate overturned - they deemed that it was unconstitutional to enact a tax in that way. But the remainder of it stays in place because it is not unconstitutional.

By a hair's width as Roberts changed his mind late in the review.

There are countless rights provided by SCOTUS that aren't codified, including things like Miranda (self-incrimination). SCOTUS rulings matter more than laws. Back in the day, precedence mattered, which is why SCOTUS rulings often aren't codified because they are considered bedrock. The Roberts Court has changed all of that.

 

[Elixir]

The Roberts Court has changed all of that.

All three of Trump’s lying nominees declared their faith in stare decisis before revealing that they were crossing their fingers behind their backs.
When you put dishonest ideologues into positions of power, their abuse of that power is 100% predictable.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Getting back to the 'why didn't Congress pass a law...'

There is a case being argued with SCOTUS on the Voting Rights Act.

The Voting Rights Act requires that states draw district lines in ways that ensure Black voters and other racial minorities have an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. At issue Wednesday is Section 2 of the law, which was amended after lengthy debate in 1982 to say racial minorities could win cases if they showed that voting districts had the effect of preventing them from fully participating in the political process even if they could not prove intentional discrimination.

The right-wing is attacking that. And SCOTUS appears likely to go along with allowing it to be axed. Because as long as the gerrymandering is partisan, that means it isn't racist. Therefore *balloons*!

This is the new 21st century Plessy v Ferguson mentality. As long as you can come up with a somewhat viable excuse, we can ignore its outcome.

So no, passing a law wouldn't have saved abortion rights federally in America. We are seeing voting rights that have laws get torched by this SCOTUS Bench.

 

[Elixir]

So no, passing a law wouldn't have saved abortion rights federally in America. We are seeing voting rights that have laws get torched by this SCOTUS Bench.

Once MAGAts allowed Orange Jesus to poison the well - all three wells - no other outcome was likely. So sad.