Let’s do that with the enslavement of black people.
Also, do you not believe that there are people who would be ok with abortion being banned on a federal level? It’s all bullshit and hypocrisy.
2 Likes
Pretty sure the Constitution DOES address this issue.
1 Like
No, because it’s the same thing. Name a church without a religion or a religion without a central authority.
That is the goal I believe for most of the pro life crowd.
Some leaders of the pro life movement have said just that in several interviews I have heard on NPR.
Tyranny of the majority is ok, when you are in the majority.
2 Likes
What mechanism do you believe this would be done through? The only thing I can think of that would supersede state-level laws would be a constitutional amendment. The great thing about having a Clarence Thomas and people like him is that he’d be just as ready to strike down a law passed through Congress in Washington D.C. that bans abortion. The interstate commerce clause probably isn’t coming to save anyone who wanted to do try to ban abortion through the US Congress, let alone something as flimsy as an executive order.
It’s about as likely as banning guns in the USA.
1 Like
I don’t think the Supreme Court can declare an amendment unconstitutional. Maybe the lawyers here know better.
Sorry if I was unclear.
I don’t believe a law passed by the US Congress to ban abortion nationwide would pass the Clarence Thomas test if put before the Supreme Court. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t see the basis for it. Typically these sort of sweeping Federal laws are based on the interstate commerce clause, but I don’t see it with abortion.
I don’t believe Supreme Court has any basis to overturn a duly-passed Constitutional Amendment. @Bauber can you weigh in?
Once an amendment has been ratified it becomes a part of the Constitution and must be enforced by the Supreme Court. The only way to override a duly enacted amendment is with another amendment.
Now as any attorney worth their salt will tell you is, “it always depends”.
Theoretically the Supreme Court could intervene on proper application by someone with standing, likely a non-ratifying State.
But otherwise, the very idea of an amendment that violates the Constitution is incoherent.
For instance, if an amendment were validly ratified that stated, “People with blue eyes are not entitled to trial by jury,” it could not be struck down as a “violation of the Equal Protection Clause” it would supersede the Equal Protection Clause.
That is a very simple example, but anything that already knowingly violates another provision of the constitution is probably never going to be ratified anyways.
1 Like
If somehow a Federal Abortion Ban law was passed, do you think it would hold up?
IMO, there are not 38 states who are strongly opposed to all abortions. The amendment could never be ratified
At the same time I don’t believe there is an amendment to allow abortions that could be ratified that would satisfy the Liberals enough to remove “unlimited abortions” from their platform.
I seem to recall that as well. Let’s wait for @zecarlo to confirm or dispel out suspicions.
No hypocrisy! Integrity. What do you believe the pro-life movement is? Duh! It is about a human life form. They want to save the lives of all human life forms in a pregnant woman. How can that possibly be hypocritical.
The Dems may now be in the position that the GOP was in for decades. That being something they can use to drive voters for a long time. I think the GOP kinda caught the car in a way. That was one big carrot for them. Now they handed the Dems a carrot.
1 Like
I totally agree with the Supreme Court opinion, but it seems to clearly come with negatives for the GOP.
To add to that, if I were king, legislating from the Bench should be an impeachable offense.
1 Like
And even that is a result of judicial activism.
How so?
I misread. Certainly, the Constitution could be amended to prohibit to the states the right to permit abortion.
1 Like
The King was the head of both government and the Church. Nothing like a football coach praying while players gather around. If that football coach could jail or fine the players for not participating, it would be closer.
Exactly, the whole point is that publicly funded things (public schools for example) should not be the vehicle for a religious message since the funds for the school come from many backgrounds (presumably). Letting the public prayer happen is tantamount to endorsement of that belief system as something the school follows/pushes.
Do I think this guy did anything morally horrible other than blow his minor issue way out of proportion (dude got fired for not obeying rules of his employer)? No
Does the ruling set the stage for bigger issues regarding similar topics later? Definitely, and it’s the wrong ruling. The opinion even stated that the court doesn’t use a test they have long used in cases like this (this fallacy was pointed out in the dissent). This was a clear case of party politics overriding a body that is supposed to be non-party affiliated. See the Lemon test point 3
1 Like