Mississippi, Kentucky, Georgia, Ohio, Alabama passing 6 week abortion ban bills

El OchoCinco said:
I am not sure where people are reading that congress can pass a law and claim there is no review at all whatsoever?
More...
It is not "people" here that are reading that Congress can pass a law that is not reviewable by the Court. It is one person, me. And I am reading in our Constitution under Article III:

The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction... with such exceptions and regulations as the Congress shall make. ​

This is what I read. I interpret the words according to their common definitions. What does this statement mean to you? (You may be concerned regarding the words replaced by an ellipsis. You can see these omitted words in my post #122, or consult your own copy of the Constitution.) I put in an ellipsis so as to emphasize what this clause in our Constitution under Article III says.

It says Congress can both regulate the Court and make exceptions as to which laws and facts may be appealed to the Court.

How do you read this?

But believe me things are not nearly so straight forward as a straight forward reading of Article III would lead one to believe!

It was fifty-four years since 1803, when the inferior body of the Court first declared a portion of an Act by the Superior legislative body to be "unconstitutional," that a second act of Congress (The Missouri Compromise) was declared unconstitutional. The years since have been filled with increasing participation of the Court not only in adjudicating law according to our statutes, but also in determining whether the statutes themselves are valid. It would take a powerful Congress indeed, and speaking as one body, to wrest back the full power given it in our Constitution and instruct the Court. Just as the Framers intended the Congress to be able to do.

In this there is a great danger. Nevertheless if ever there was a time for Congress to step up to their Constitutional responsibility it would be now. I'll not hold my breath.
 
Last edited:
piezoe said:
Perhaps some of them did not read the law themselves or were inadequately briefed by their clerks. The law as written seems prima facie unconstitutional. It seems a violation of the equal protection clause, among other violations, and it breaks with 200+ years of legal precedent in that it imparts judicial standing to those who under 200+ years of judicial practice would never have had judicial standing. Why on Earth did the Court not stay this strange TX Law until it could be properly heard by the Courts? Why, oh why, would it have left such a prima facie screwball law in place while it was being adjudicated. It is not as though no harm will be done in the meantime. Has our Court lost its mind!
More...


THe SC was simply punting because it probably needed to go through the lower courts first. You think the SC wants to be inundated with thousands of emergency actions over abortions, guns, prayer, meetings etc.... Also since they are Conservatives it allows them to decide without deciding. Cons view has always been leave it to the states and that is basically what they achieved until it comes back.
 
piezoe said:
It is not "people" here that are reading that Congress can pass a law that is not reviewable by the Court. It is one person, me. And I am reading in our Constitution under Article III:

The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction... with such exceptions and regulations as the Congress shall make. ​

This is what I read. I interpret the words according to their common definitions. What does this statement mean to you? (You may be concerned regarding the words replaced by an ellipsis. You can see these omitted words in my post #122, or consult your own copy of the Constitution.) I put in an ellipsis so as to emphasize what this clause in our Constitution under Article III says.

It says Congress can both regulate the Court and make exceptions as to which laws and facts may be appealed to the Court.

How do you read this?

But believe me things are not nearly so straight forward as a straight forward reading of Article III would lead one to believe!

It was fifty-four years since 1803, when the inferior body of the Court first declared a portion of an Act by the Superior legislative body to be "unconstitutional," that a second act of Congress (The Missouri Compromise) was declared unconstitutional. The years since have been filled with increasing participation of the Court not only in adjudication of law according to our statutes, but also in determining whether the statutes themselves are valid. It would take a powerful Congress indeed, and speaking as one body, to wrest back the full power given it in our Constitution and instruct the Court in a way that was intended by those that framed the Constitution.

In this there is a great danger. Nevertheless if ever there was a time for Congress to step up to their Constitutional responsibility it would be now. I'll not hold my breath.
More...


There are other courts empowered to hear appeals such as Administrative courts of appeals. congress cannot exempt a law from judicial appeal because it is part of the role of the Judiciary. An exception as Congress may make may change the PROCESS basically. Congress cannot legislate out the entire role of the judiciary.
 
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.


You are misreading this I think... Congress created lower federal courts of appeals such as the Circuit Court of Appeals and the District Courts. These courts will have first jurisdicton for appeals over the SC. It is not an exclusion of the SC it is an ordering of the process. Congress cannot pass a law and say "The SC will have no judicial review over this law" That is kind of ridiculous.

The language of the Constitution simply refers to APPELLATE JURSIDICTION and laws were passed to add to the judiciary levels not remove SC as ultimate arbiter.
 
piezoe said:
exactly. That's why it,so far as I know, has never been used. This might however be the the occasion when it is needed to save the Republic, if in fact the Court has been so corrupted as to threaten the existence of the democratic Republic. Congress could be very specific in passing a law, such as codifying Roe, and then stating within the statute itself. "This statute shall not be reviewable by the Court."
More...


Cannot happen sadly.... only thing that can happen is lower courts reject a challenge to the law and SC declines to review case but Congress cannot usurp the constituion.
 
El OchoCinco said:
There are other courts empowered to hear appeals such as Administrative courts of appeals. congress cannot exempt a law from judicial appeal because it is part of the role of the Judiciary. An exception as Congress may make may change the PROCESS basically. Congress cannot legislate out the entire role of the judiciary.
More...
Is that how you read this?:
The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction... with such exceptions and regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Court here is the Supreme Court of the United States. Not some other court. And the only appellate jurisdiction mentioned is that of the Supreme court, not the appellate jurisdiction of some other court. Lower Courts ,i.e., district and appeals courts, are naturally bound by rules consistent with those of the Supreme Court. If Congress denies the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over a statute, it will be denied to the lower courts as well. However consider what would occur were Congress to pass a Statute blatantly unconstitutional according to any reasonable reading of the Constitution. If Congress were to deny the Court appellate jurisdiction over this Statute, the only recourse left to the people would be to appeal directly to Congress. Such an appeal would likely occur through the election process. If the Statute itself denied such a people's appeal, it would occasion a Constitutional crisis.

We have discussed this enough by now, and there is no need for further discussion on these same lines. But I would leave you with something that I think is worth considering. In very important fundamental matters such as the issue of whether a women shall have the right to choose when she will bear a child, would you rather have the final appeal on such a matter rest with a body appointed for life and to which, practically speaking, there is no further appeal once they have spoken, or would you prefer such a serious matter to be settled by an elected body responsible to the people, a body whose members are subject to recall at the ballot box, and the composition of which can be changed at the will of the people rather than only by death or voluntary retirement? Yes, courts are needed as a matter of efficiency in administering the law. Are they essential to the process of making law. I don't think so. There, they are just a valued contributor.
 
Last edited:
gwb-trading said:
Tech journalist thinks she's figured out how to shut down the Texas abortion snitch website for good
https://www.rawstory.com/texas-abortion-hotline-2654886766/
More...

Done deal...

GoDaddy is cutting off Texas Right to Life’s abortion ‘whistleblowing’ website
The web host gave the Texas anti-abortion group 24 hours to find a new home
https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/3/22656196/godaddy-texas-right-for-life-abortion-whistleblowing-site

In case you haven’t heard, Texas now has a law that makes it illegal for anyone to help women get an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy — and to take advantage of that, the anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life is encouraging citizens to report those people at a dedicated “whistleblower” website, promising to “ensure that these lawbreakers are held accountable for their actions.”

However, it now looks like Texas Right to Life may have trouble keeping a home on the web, because hosting provider GoDaddy has given the group 24 hours to find a different place to park its website. “We have informed prolifewhistleblower.com they have 24 hours to move to another provider for violating our terms of service,” a spokesperson told The New York Times and The Verge.

GoDaddy didn’t answer a question about whether that applies to the group’s other domains, but tells The Verge that it violated “multiple provisions” of the site’s Terms of Service including Section 5.2, which reads:

You will not collect or harvest (or permit anyone else to collect or harvest) any User Content (as defined below) or any non-public or personally identifiable information about another User or any other person or entity without their express prior written consent.

The anti-abortion group’s website has been under siege for days now, with angry protesters flooding it with fake tips — including at least one fake claim that Texas governor Greg Abbott himself had violated the law, according to NYT. One activist on TikTok even created a script that can automatically feed fake reports into the website’s tipbox, as Motherboard reported yesterday. He told the NYT that the automated tools he’d created had received over 15,000 clicks.

(More at above url)
 
These ET Trolls that think they understand The Constitution don't even know that Congreff has no way to amend The Court's original jurisdiction. What a bunch of fools.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top