Can Congress now act to codify the Roe standard in federal law?

[Jredbaron96]

You can cite anything. Whether your cite make any sense is another matter, and that claim makes no sense.

This statement doesn't make any sense.

Any and all he does not agree with.

Irony.

Again, if that’s what the court wants, why didn’t they impose stricter abortions bans than Roe did when they had the chance with Dobbs?

Getting all six conservative justices to agree to a nation-wide abortion ban would be a stretch, because none of them are ideological copies of one another. Alito and Kavanaugh likely would, and Barret as well, but Thomas, Gorsuch, and Roberts would be difficult.

 

[Jredbaron96]

It was 49 years in the making, my Generation X was never going to let this go, when we became of voting age and could get two of ours in the Supreme Court.

This statement reflects no actual response to my argument.

 

[Exquisitor]

Most of the conservatives I know and those whom I read are not absolutists. They’re not looking for a national ban on abortion. They see states making their own decision as a reasonable compromise.

Well, if you weigh the arguments, a woman should have open access to abortion, but there should be a penalty for waiting.

Aimed at the middle class high school student, what would be a reasonable penalty, knowing no reasonable penalty sufficient?

What would be a deterrent to waiting?

What would keep voyeur couples from such devices as planned abortions?

When one pays a penalty, they learn that they did something wrong.

 

[Exquisitor]

Most of the conservatives I know and those whom I read are not absolutists. They’re not looking for a national ban on abortion. They see states making their own decision as a reasonable compromise.

I'm a Federalist, I don't believe in States rights, the States don't have the right to determine the right to life, well, they do for the moment, since the Federal Government defaulted. You can't have righteous people and next door they're killing your neighbor's children. Just like Putin can't have free Countries living next to him.

 

[NatMorton]

I assume the same one(s) that gave them the Constitutional authority to have passed the federal murder laws in the first place. Is there any chance that 18 USC 1111 is Unconstitutional? Should the legality of murder be left up to the States, or does the Fed actually have that kind of Constitutional authority?

If the Fed has the Constitutional authority to make murder illegal at the Federal level, then it must have both the Constitutional authority and the ethical obligation to properly define what "murder" actually means in an unambiguous way. Otherwise it's an irresponsible law.

If you look at the section "b" of that law, you'll see this:

(b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,

And this authority comes directly from Article I Section 8 of the Constitution:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

I believe this is a law that applies to areas administered by the federal government, and not a law that applies to states. More importantly, it's not a national murder law in the sense that all states must conform to it, which I think is the point as we're discussing whether Congress can impose a national abortion law on all states.

 

[NatMorton]

That's absolutely all they've bothered with. They decide how they want it to go then look for even the flimsiest legal "reasoning" to justify it.

That makes absolutely no sense when you consider what the court actually did with Dobbs. All you need to do is think about it.

Unlike the Roe majority, they didn't say "this is how it's going to be, and all states must conform." They left the matter up to the states in full knowledge that some would continue to protect abortion rights and others would not. That is in no way, shape, or form a decision that looked for a specific outcome on abortion law. In fact, it's just the opposite.

 

[NatMorton]

This statement doesn't make any sense.

I can claim the sun rises in the west. That I do doesn't mean it makes sense.

Getting all six conservative justices to agree to a nation-wide abortion ban would be a stretch, because none of them are ideological copies of one another. Alito and Kavanaugh likely would, and Barret as well, but Thomas, Gorsuch, and Roberts would be difficult.

Given how they've ruled thus far, it would be impossible, and any claim that a national ban on abortion is what they're looking to do is, IMO, an act of hysteria.

 

[NatMorton]

Well, if you weigh the arguments, a woman should have open access to abortion, but there should be a penalty for waiting.

Aimed at the middle class high school student, what would be a reasonable penalty, knowing no reasonable penalty sufficient?

What would be a deterrent to waiting?

What would keep voyeur couples from such devices as planned abortions?

When one pays a penalty, they learn that they did something wrong.

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say.

 

[NatMorton]

I'm a Federalist, I don't believe in States rights, the States don't have the right to determine the right to life, well, they do for the moment, since the Federal Government defaulted. You can't have righteous people and next door they're killing your neighbor's children. Just like Putin can't have free Countries living next to him.

You sound less like a federalist and more like an authoritarian.

Regardless, what you believe in is of no real consequence to this discussion. States have rights in our system of government, and there's no getting around that fact.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I can claim the sun rises in the west. That I do doesn't mean it makes sense.

I'm sure somewhere along this exchange you had a point.

Given how they've ruled thus far,

Precedent is of no concern to this court.

it would be impossible, and any claim that a national ban on abortion is what they're looking to do is, IMO, an act of hysteria.

Like I said, I don't think they themselves would rule that abortion is outlawed, but there is little reason to doubt their willingness to uphold Congress's right to pass a federal law that outlaws abortion.

 

[NatMorton]

Precedent is of no concern to this court.

Not true. They are concerned with both valid and invalid precedent and have acted accordingly.

Like I said, I don't think they themselves would rule that abortion is outlawed, but there is little reason to doubt their willingness to uphold Congress's right to pass a federal law that outlaws abortion.

Yes, there is every reason to believe they would find unconstitutional any attempt by Congress to ban abortion just as they would any attempt by Congress to restore the operative elements of Roe. All you have to do is read Dobbs and assume they're not lying.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Not true. They are concerned with both valid and invalid precedent and have acted accordingly.

[Citation needed].

All you have to do is read Dobbs and assume they're not lying.

All they have to do is say"elected representatives of the people" includes Congressional Representatives.

 

[iguanaman]

Um, so you're saying as long as federal law doesn't mention the Constitution it need not be bound by the Constitution?

Ah, no.

The current court is more interested in the Papal edicts of the Vatican than anything in the Constitution on this matter. Like they said "the Constitution does not mention abortion". The Vatican edicts do though and they are going with them. I have no doubt they will support the Pope and rule that abortion must be totally banned in this nation. Their religion demands it.

 

[Bear5131]

This statement reflects no actual response to my argument.

It does if you have been fighting the abortion issue for like 27 years on the internet, like me

 

[Jredbaron96]

It does if you have been fighting the abortion issue for like 27 years on the internet, like me

That still isn't a response to what I said.

 

[NatMorton]

The current court is more interested in the Papal edicts of the Vatican than anything in the Constitution on this matter. Like they said "the Constitution does not mention abortion". The Vatican edicts do though and they are going with them. I have no doubt they will support the Pope and rule that abortion must be totally banned in this nation. Their religion demands it.

Roe was an edict. Dobbs is not.

 

[NatMorton]

It does if you have been fighting the abortion issue for like 27 years on the internet, like me

BTW, isn't this just awesome?

 

[Bear5131]

BTW, isn't this just awesome?

Exactly, I am having a field day on Twitter ( first time I have been on there since 2007) its been one heck of a 24 hours flaming the heck out of the left.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I know, but whether that stops these efforts remains to be seen. Again, I suspect Pence made the comments he did with that in mind. A national ban in the form of every state passing that kind of law is highly unlikely.

Chances are virtually nonexistent.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Exactly, I am having a field day on Twitter ( first time I have been on there since 2007) its been one heck of a 24 hours flaming the heck out of the left.

Being a total dick, deliberately, isn’t something to brag about.

 

[NatMorton]

Being a total dick, deliberately, isn’t something to brag about.

Stay humble.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Stay humble.

Humility has nothing to do with it.

 

[Exquisitor]

You sound less like a federalist and more like an authoritarian.

Regardless, what you believe in is of no real consequence to this discussion. States have rights in our system of government, and there's no getting around that fact.

I like authoritarian,... if you're a raja risi (saintly King).

If you know how to make sacrifice, put others before yourself.

 

[Exquisitor]

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say.

I'm saying, put a penalty on late term abortions, send both parents to jail for 15, or 60 days, double for the male if we have to find him.

30 or 60 days after 24 weeks, 15 or 30 days after fifteen weeks, depending on the state.

Enough that a high school student could pay in a semester.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

Trump appointed three judges to continue his legacy.

Because of its enormous unpopularity, the conservative Supreme Court has walled itself off from the American people.

The extreme unpopularity of Trump's conservative Court grew in intensity today.

Following the shooting massacres in Buffalo and Uvalde as well as others, the Court expanded gun rights. One can now carry a loaded gun in plain view down Fifth Avenue in New York. What kind of person would want to do such a thing?

Following that fateful decision, the Court made an extremely unpopular decision today.

CNN explains, "The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on Friday, holding that there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion.

"The opinion is the most consequential Supreme Court decision in decades and will transform the landscape of women’s reproductive health in America.

"Going forward, abortion rights will be determined by states, unless Congress acts.  Already, nearly half of the states have or will pass laws that ban abortion while others have enacted strict measures regulating the procedure."

There are hundreds of reasons why this decision was a poor one, and many of them will become clear in the coming months as chaos reigns. Here are a few.

The Court argued that the right to an abortion is not in the Constitution. The enormous duplicity of this statement by the Supreme Court is egregious. The American people have hundreds of rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution. The statement is downright ludicrous, damaging the reputation of the Court.

This is the first time in its history that the Supreme Court has removed a fundamental right, the right of a woman to make her own decisions regarding her health and well-being.

The Court is imposing its religious view on the American people.

The Court determined that the government is in control of a woman's health when it involves a pregnancy. The woman and her doctor do not decide her fate. The state does.

Oklahoma has made abortion a criminal act, punishable by a prison term. If a woman from Oklahoma goes to New York where abortion is legal, can Oklahoma charge the person who performed the abortion?

The Court's obsession with its religious view on abortion overrode all other considerations.

This is Trump's legacy and the Republican Party is solely responsible. It will take a federal law to restore a woman's right to make health decisions. Keep that in mind when you vote in November. It will require 60 votes in the Senate to override Republican opposition to the legislation.