RLENT
Veteran Expediter
You may wish to clear up the difference between a statute ..... and an amendment to the Constitution ....
..... then try reading the first sentence in the link you provided again.
Where do they come up with these rubes ......
- Thread starter RLENT
- Start date
..... then try reading the first sentence in the link you provided again.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
There is no effective anything because a repeal means that it has to be a legislative action and this is an adjudication. There is a HUGE difference between the two, and neither paul or mccain understand the difference or the news is presenting things out of context.
removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation
This is also very important because it illustrates a way to set in motion the process for the right of the congress and the president to tell the federal court system that they are not allowed to hear a case.
BUT in this case, the SC already heard the case, the issue wasn't abortion but privacy rights and limitations from the states and feds on those rights. Something that we depend on as a foundation of other laws that protect our privacy.
Try googling Constitutional Law Class and take one because that is where you will get an understanding how it actually works. You can have Einstein figure out to change it but it will either take one amendment and the states to ratify it or the case will be overturned by the SC because there is absolutely no other action that can be taken.
NO they can't in this case, there is no federal statute (as Rlent has hinted to), it is a binding supreme court decision based on the bill of rights, nothing more. IF it was a decision say on Obama care, then the congress can ignore the findings and send it back to a lower court but not the SC. The SC decision is binding within the limits that could be set by congress and the president but in this case, they already heard the case.
Maybe it's the semantics in my post not being EXACTLY right that's causing the misunderstanding of my argument. At any rate there are THOUSANDS of articles arguing the pros and cons of repealing, overturning, circumventing, negating or nullifying Roe v Wade that are easily accessible on the internet. There's something inside me that makes me believe these legislators, attorneys and professors all have a better working knowledge of the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the land than any of us in the chattering class of this forum. Nonetheless, here are a couple more examples of instances in which SCOTUS decisions can be overcome.
And finally this, with my emphasis added:
Now why would the above mentioned state legislatures have gone to the trouble of passing these TRIGGER LAWS if they weren't firmly convinced of the possibility that Roe v Wade could be overturned???
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Nope ..... it's your misunderstanding of the argument (and the law) that's causing you to forward a flawed premise, to wit:
Congress has a rather simple and direct way to negate unpopular decisions of the Court that have nullified federal statutes: It can pass a new law.
The above is not germane - because the Court didn't nullify federal statutes in it's decision ...... so what you quote is entirely irrelevant to the matter ....
And it's a similar situation in the next quote you offer (because it deals with a federal law that Congress passed that the Court then later ruled on)
Yes indeed ... for some, it's certainly reached the level of ... fetish .....
Ummm ..... the only thing I can offer is: consider exorcism ......
Now you're actually getting somewhere that is relevant - it's certainly true that Roe could be overturned ..... by the Court (or as g points out by amendment and ratification)
Roe can be overturned .... by the Court.
However, here's the rub:
In order for the Court to do so, they will probably have to render a decision which will/may functionally reduce the right to privacy .......
Generally, I believe that to be a bad thing.
While I personally find abortion abhorrent, I would be somewhat concerned about what unintended consequences might arise (that could reduce liberty even further, in ways unimagined as yet) were the decision a flawed one (as Roe itself is)
What the possibility is that that might occur, I really don't know - it's a question I'd leave to those far wiser than I. Nevertheless, it is a concern.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
I feel there is a hope for those who want to see the end of abortion have been trying to come up with a way that would allow the end of abortion to take place.
But as I said a lot of times and Rlent has again mentioned, there is no other way outside a constitutional amendment or a return to the SC to modify or overturn the earlier decision because this goes not to the issue of the procedure but the issue of privacy - a right of the patient and the doctor, with no others involved.
That said, the two things that stick out with all these "experts" speaking or writing is they do not bring up the real reason that the court heard Roe v Wade but more importantly the fail to recognized that Obama care p*sses right on the SC decision with some of the provisions that are in the Obama care law, like electronic medical records provision and the limitation of government run insurance on specific procedures - abortion is one.
No matter how one wants to cut it, there is a right involved, not a statute, not an interpretation of a law but a right.
But as I said a lot of times and Rlent has again mentioned, there is no other way outside a constitutional amendment or a return to the SC to modify or overturn the earlier decision because this goes not to the issue of the procedure but the issue of privacy - a right of the patient and the doctor, with no others involved.
That said, the two things that stick out with all these "experts" speaking or writing is they do not bring up the real reason that the court heard Roe v Wade but more importantly the fail to recognized that Obama care p*sses right on the SC decision with some of the provisions that are in the Obama care law, like electronic medical records provision and the limitation of government run insurance on specific procedures - abortion is one.
No matter how one wants to cut it, there is a right involved, not a statute, not an interpretation of a law but a right.
One more point on this subject - and it's my last one, because it's obvious there's not going to be an agreement (which if fine).
Even now there are those in Congress and the individual states who are proposing legislation that's intended to circumvent or nullify Roe based on Justice Blackmun's 1973 Roe v Wade opinion:
"...if personhood is established, the appellant's case (i.e., 'Roe'), of course collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] amendment."
With this concept in mind, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) has introduced H.R.374, the Life at Conception Act which proposes "To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person."
H.R. 374 - Summary: Life at Conception Act (GovTrack.us)
A similar piece of legislation has been introduced in the Senate by Roger Wicker (R-MS). S.91 is "A bill to implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and unborn human person."
S. 91: Life at Conception Act (GovTrack.us)
Of course Wicker has introduced this piece of legislation repeatedly over several years, and of course it gets stuck in committee with a Democrat controlled Senate. It looks like there are a number of legislators and legal experts that think Blackmun's opinion offers a loophole that can be exploited by the states with fetal homicide and fetal personhood legislation.
These people mentioned above are the legal and legislative experts, not me. I don't have a J.D. or the years of experience before the Bar that it takes to offer an educated opinion on something as complex as Roe - I'm just going by what a lot of others think based on their experience, and some think that Roe v Wade can be repealed without a constitutional amendment or by SCOTUS reversing themselves.
With that thought in mind, I'll close by offering a quote made just yesterday (Oct. 25) by one of the GOP presidential candidates and brings the conversation full circle back to the point of the OP.
“What I want to do is repeal Roe v. Wade. And the best way to do that is to eliminate the federal jurisdiction. So, we could have done that 10 or 15 years ago. We should have done it when the right to life majority was in office.”
Ron Paul: I want to repeal Roe v. Wade | The Raw Story
Where do they come up with these rubes.....
Even now there are those in Congress and the individual states who are proposing legislation that's intended to circumvent or nullify Roe based on Justice Blackmun's 1973 Roe v Wade opinion:
"...if personhood is established, the appellant's case (i.e., 'Roe'), of course collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] amendment."
With this concept in mind, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) has introduced H.R.374, the Life at Conception Act which proposes "To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person."
H.R. 374 - Summary: Life at Conception Act (GovTrack.us)
A similar piece of legislation has been introduced in the Senate by Roger Wicker (R-MS). S.91 is "A bill to implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and unborn human person."
S. 91: Life at Conception Act (GovTrack.us)
Of course Wicker has introduced this piece of legislation repeatedly over several years, and of course it gets stuck in committee with a Democrat controlled Senate. It looks like there are a number of legislators and legal experts that think Blackmun's opinion offers a loophole that can be exploited by the states with fetal homicide and fetal personhood legislation.
These people mentioned above are the legal and legislative experts, not me. I don't have a J.D. or the years of experience before the Bar that it takes to offer an educated opinion on something as complex as Roe - I'm just going by what a lot of others think based on their experience, and some think that Roe v Wade can be repealed without a constitutional amendment or by SCOTUS reversing themselves.
With that thought in mind, I'll close by offering a quote made just yesterday (Oct. 25) by one of the GOP presidential candidates and brings the conversation full circle back to the point of the OP.
“What I want to do is repeal Roe v. Wade. And the best way to do that is to eliminate the federal jurisdiction. So, we could have done that 10 or 15 years ago. We should have done it when the right to life majority was in office.”
Ron Paul: I want to repeal Roe v. Wade | The Raw Story
Where do they come up with these rubes.....
Last edited:
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Pilgrim,
You are missing a very important point - the procedure can be defined, the life can be defined and the limitation of the procedure done under different ways but the ruling that took place with Roe v Wade was not about abortion but about the privacy of the patient and the doctor.
The problem is that if we want to limit abortion, then we have to have the state and federal government step in and tell us that we have no privacy rights and hence they can tell the doctor what can be done and can't be done for all of us under all circumstances.
There isn't a way around this and to have a way around steps on our rights as citizens, so you can't have it both ways unless there is an amendment telling us we have no rights.
Obama care violates that ruling, which a few get and a number of people should be concerned with but don't seem to care.
Those who keep speaking about repealing or overturning the ruling have no real evidence that it can take place because if that was the case, it would have happened already. The same with the stupidity that pops up every time a SC nominee appears before congress - have to ask about abortion. All of this is done to appease a faction of our population who just don't get what's going on or how the process works.
I agree with Ron Paul on the process which should be used for a lot of things, but it is too late - the ruling was made and you can't prevent something in the future to use a ruling already made.
You are missing a very important point - the procedure can be defined, the life can be defined and the limitation of the procedure done under different ways but the ruling that took place with Roe v Wade was not about abortion but about the privacy of the patient and the doctor.
The problem is that if we want to limit abortion, then we have to have the state and federal government step in and tell us that we have no privacy rights and hence they can tell the doctor what can be done and can't be done for all of us under all circumstances.
There isn't a way around this and to have a way around steps on our rights as citizens, so you can't have it both ways unless there is an amendment telling us we have no rights.
Obama care violates that ruling, which a few get and a number of people should be concerned with but don't seem to care.
Those who keep speaking about repealing or overturning the ruling have no real evidence that it can take place because if that was the case, it would have happened already. The same with the stupidity that pops up every time a SC nominee appears before congress - have to ask about abortion. All of this is done to appease a faction of our population who just don't get what's going on or how the process works.
I agree with Ron Paul on the process which should be used for a lot of things, but it is too late - the ruling was made and you can't prevent something in the future to use a ruling already made.
No, I'm not missing the point - I'm looking at the situation from a different perspective. The crux of the matter is the woman's (individual's) right to privacy as opposed to establishment of the fetus's right to life, as mentioned in Blackmun's statement. There seems to be a significant number of "experts", legislators and academics that are convinced this can be done legislatively by taking the "personhood" route as mentioned previously. Considering the level of experience and knowledge of these people, IMHO they're on to something but can't really pursue it unless the Oval Office and Congress is controlled by conservatives with filibuster-proof margins.
Personally, I'm fine with things the way they are; objectively, I think it's going to be changed at some point in time if the public begins to tilt away from being evenly divided on the subject. And regarding SCOTUS taking away our rights - it's already happened, and recently. Remember the Kelo decision?
greg334
Veteran Expediter
I understand where you are coming from.
I also understand that is what is perceived as the problem but it isn't the basis for the ruling which is important. Making the definitions of what is what is something that is a further issue for the court to deal with and has been done.
I would hope this was the case but it hasn't been done in the past with other issues and not likely be done in the future.
Well I would agree with you but being told what this is all about by people who know more than most do about this subject, I would tend to lean toward the idea it has to go back to the court or an amendment is the only real solution. Having any filibuster proof anything won't matter, there are ways around it but it would be political suicide to pursue it in this part of our history.
I too would want to focus on other things but see the politicians pander to those groups who in turn turn off people and when there are some groups who back a candidate or speak of an issue like Perry has, or in this case Cain, it is a bigger turnoff because the important issues are ignored.
I know a lot about Kelo v. New London, a lot more than I can ever say, but here is the problem, the SC didn't take the right away per se, they left the door open for congress and the states to fix the problem they ruled on and caused but alas only a couple states have decided to act on it. Which is a bit different from Roe v. Wade but still enough to be frustrating for those like me who are pro-property rights that nothing has been said about it in a long time. I would have thought that those freedom loving conservatives would have made this the number one issue but I was disappointed by the fact that they worried about Obama playing golf instead.