She was writing in the minority. Do you know that means the Supreme Court of the US just told her otherwise. By definition it us not flagrant.
Last edited:
Mississippi, Kentucky, Georgia, Ohio, Alabama passing 6 week abortion ban bills
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
Again. The have the constitutional authority to make such a statute nonreviewable by the court. That's what i doubt they will do. They should!
So where does this leave cases where the mother's life will be lost? She dies?
Its remarkable to me really how in a country filled with guns, trained military personnel and a fuckton of mentally ill there are not more directing their anger in a pointy manner. I guess a lot of this is the 'no head in the snake' effect where individuals can't identify a specific ringleader and feel that another would rise anyway.
Nobody likes abortion, until the creation for political partisan creating purposes of the "moral majority' it always seemed a bipartisan enough issue. So they are after sex education in schools next and access to contraception.
Its remarkable to me really how in a country filled with guns, trained military personnel and a fuckton of mentally ill there are not more directing their anger in a pointy manner. I guess a lot of this is the 'no head in the snake' effect where individuals can't identify a specific ringleader and feel that another would rise anyway.
Nobody likes abortion, until the creation for political partisan creating purposes of the "moral majority' it always seemed a bipartisan enough issue. So they are after sex education in schools next and access to contraception.
Last edited:
Thanks. I am aware of unreviewable regulations/determinations etc. written by agencies; but that's it.
I'm going to look into this today or tonight. But I will ask right now:
What do you think would happen if someone appealed a so-called "unreviewable" statute/law?
What do you think would happen if, in that case, the Appellate/Supreme courts ruled that such statutes/laws are reviewable regardless of Congress's intent?
Good questions. in the latter case it surely produce a constitutional crisis. In the first instance you mention the only recourse would be to Congress itself, and not through the courts.
We should recall that nothing in the constitution specifically gives the court the power of review.. It is a power seized by the Court in Marbury and never seriously challenged since.
The constitution does however give the Congress very specific power to specify what matters are off limits to the court.
Last edited:
So says Congress; but that directive can't physically stop someone from appealing anyway.
Piezoe just made some shit up... and then he realized what he wrote is ridiculous.
He is not a lawyer and gets the law wrong... almost every time he writes about it.
Its obvious to anyone that studies Constitutional law or history... that each branch has its own baliwick... and the interesting thing is that the Sup Court has to rely on different branch to enforce its decisions...
So if Gingrich says Congress can do what it wants... Its because the court can't stop it...
if congress does not listen we have what is frequently called a "constitutional crisis..."
no branch is "superior". It they want to avoid a constitutional crisis they respect each other. If they don't we have a constitutional crisis.
He is not a lawyer and gets the law wrong... almost every time he writes about it.
Its obvious to anyone that studies Constitutional law or history... that each branch has its own baliwick... and the interesting thing is that the Sup Court has to rely on different branch to enforce its decisions...
So if Gingrich says Congress can do what it wants... Its because the court can't stop it...
if congress does not listen we have what is frequently called a "constitutional crisis..."
no branch is "superior". It they want to avoid a constitutional crisis they respect each other. If they don't we have a constitutional crisis.
Last edited:
Not sure you can say a state law or regulation is unrevieable because many cases go up to the SC that were state laws.. (Loving v. Virginia anyone???). So the Texas law can be appealed to the State Supreme Court and then moved to the U.S. Supreme Court also. Especially if a case is made a state law contradicts directly a SC decision setting a precedent.
SC will never say abortion is illegal because it is not illegal, it is being regulated by the states and SC steps in when regulation goes too far and chills access or freedom unreasonably.
I am not sure where people are reading that congress can pass a law and claim there is no review at all whatsoever? The cfhallenge of unconstitutionailty for laws passed is a really high one at times and SC might defer when it is an issue of elected officials making a policy decision.
Last edited: