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.