While I land more on the "pro-life" logic wise, I realized I'm not running out to adopt a kid, run foster care, donate to orphanages, or really help any abandoned infant, so couldn't in good conscience remain a hypocrite. I extend that logic to most cons opposing pro-choice.
Mississippi, Kentucky, Georgia, Ohio, Alabama passing 6 week abortion ban bills
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
Thank you so much. This is a very important observation that you make, so I thank you very much indeed. It is such a pleasure to have knowledgeable correspondents who have their brains in some gear other than neutral. Ocho and I have had a good discussion of this obscure clause on exceptions to the Court's appellate jurisdiction, and now you have added an important observation related to which parties shall have access to original jurisdiction in the Court.
I suppose you meant "cases brought by the state" rather than against the state, Because the purpose of Congress cutting off appeals to the Court with regard to a Roe Statute would be to prevent the states from challenging the Statute on constitutional grounds.
If Congress goes ahead and codifies Roe in a Statute, what should we expect. I would guess there will be an an onslaught of suits brought by the red states against the Federal Government claiming the Federal Statute preempts, or otherwise interferes with, State laws on abortion. The only thing that will be worse is if Congress does not codify Roe. If they don't, there is still going to be an onslaught of suits in the other direction. And since the Court bone-headedly did not stay the implementation of these ridiculous, red state abortion laws, there is gone to be chaos and worse in the meantime.
In the early days of the Republic, as you have pointed out, the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction on matters where a State was a party, and I guess they still have it constitutionally. But this does not mean that other courts can't have original jurisdiction as well. (At the moment the constitution was penned none of these federal courts existed.)
The constitution leaves the structure of the Courts below the Supreme Court up to Congress. Through many judiciary acts over the last two centuries we arrived at today's judiciary structure, where suits brought by the States usually follow the regular order and start in the lower court.
These types of suits were rare, if not virtually non-existent, until the Twentieth Century. Prior to the Judiciary Act of 1875, such cases, I suppose, would have been brought in the high Court, consistent with its having original jurisdiction in matters where the State is a party --
Nowadays, however, the lower federal courts hear these cases which work their way up the appeals ladder.
If the Congress were to instruct the High Court that they shall not have appellate jurisdiction over a particular statute, which clearly they can, then I suppose the unanswered question is, what would happen? What would be the response of the District courts, and what would be the response of the Supreme Court? If a State tried to go directly to the Court under the original jurisdiction clause I doubt the Court would hear the case because the only reason for the State to violate the usual order would be to circumvent the intention of Congress, as Congress clearly indicated in the Statute. If, on the other hand, the State followed the regular order and took their suit to the lower court, my guess is that that court would not take the case either, knowing the sentiment of Congress.
The foregoing is obviously pure speculation on my part, and it seems there is no point in further speculation considering the near zero odds of Congress trying to protect a Statute by invoking their power to create an exception to the Court's appellate jurisdiction. Nevertheless I wish Congress would show some balls and make it clear that a Roe Statute protecting a women's right to supremacy over her own body is not to be constitutionally challenged.
What is bound to happen, if Congress does not soon codify Roe v Wade in a Statute, is that a mountain of citizen suits will be brought against these absurd State, anti-abortion laws; suits that challenge their constitutionality and expose their nuttiness. Citizen plaintiffs will win these suits, because these screwball laws are so blatantly unconstitutional as to make one's head spin. In the intervening 24 months or so that it takes these cases to slither their way through the courts, hundreds of unwanted babies will be born to indigent mothers. And sadly, great heart ache and suffering will unnecessarily result. Why oh why, did the Court not see fit to issue a stay until the inevitable onslaught of challenges could be adjudicated?
Last edited:
Yes, interesting discussion! Thank you as well!
I actually did mean what I said; but I should have just used the original language of where a State is a party.
States can sue states; but so can individuals.
I never debated as to whether other courts have jurisdiction.
But to respond anyway; I agree that there would typically be, in 'this' case, concurrent jurisdiction between the state courts and the SC.
Again, not what I debated, but;
Typically, this is so because the SC does not have to hear the case, so it only makes sense.
My original, and current position (more specifically stated) still is that Congress can't pass an abortion law that would be unreviewable by the SC unless the abortions were to be carried out by the federal government, on/in federal property/facility.
But a state cannot pass a law which violates the Constitution so under the 14th amendment that is how the SC protects the rights of citizens from the states. States have control over certain things but if there laws violate the constitution.... guess what..... they lose.
Based on your reading of the constitution, according to the 10th amendment, states should be able to ban marriages between the races since marriages are regulated by the state and therefore the court should overturn Loving v Virginia..i am not sure you intended to take a racist position asking for the 10th A to be used to reverse a generation of rulings.
Maybe....
That is what happens when you say something without really understanding how the Constitution is interpreted under the SC with the 14th Amendment. Thank God the SC did not take your understanding and actually overturned state's laws that were appaling.
That was not my argument...I was pointing how moronic piezoe's argument is.
Did you pass a bar exam? Nobody thinks the 10th amendment is observed and a winning argument these days.. ...its almost as absurd as thinking Congress could crate abortion and make them non reviewable by the Supreme Ct.
by using piezoe's magic words.
Did you pass a bar exam? Nobody thinks the 10th amendment is observed and a winning argument these days.. ...its almost as absurd as thinking Congress could crate abortion and make them non reviewable by the Supreme Ct.
by using piezoe's magic words.
Last edited:
I don't know that you are right, but you could be. And I certainly agree that having the Federal government step in as an abortion provider -- maybe at VA hospitals -- should certainly get around any state crazy laws. Nice creative suggestion on your part!
jemmy, I don't want to poke a sleeping hornytoad here, but did you take my suggestion.
You know, this one:
"While you are going on about the tenth Amendment you might flip back to Article VI, Clause 2."
And if you did,what did you find?
Oh, here it is:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
[I don't think the underlining was in the original, but the bold part might have been. Probably dipped their feather pens an extra time when they got to "laws made in pursuance to the Constitution."
]
Last edited:
Look moron.... Judicial Review may not be accord with the Constitution by my reading of it or yours... but that does matter...
We live in world where the Supreme Court claimed the power of Judicial Review and they frequently strike down laws made by Congress.
To think that all Congress has to do is write your 11 magic words and the Supreme will not review the law... is absurd.
Do I need to go over the list of Judicial Activism we have seen over the last 50 years.
Or, this is even easier... lets try a thought experiment...
We can start with Gay marriage... If Congress were to pass a law which says is no Gay marriage and then they write your magic words about it being non reviewable.
Do you think lefty judges will say... oh darn we can review that law.
you really are being such an idiot right now... .its funny.
We live in world where the Supreme Court claimed the power of Judicial Review and they frequently strike down laws made by Congress.
To think that all Congress has to do is write your 11 magic words and the Supreme will not review the law... is absurd.
Do I need to go over the list of Judicial Activism we have seen over the last 50 years.
Or, this is even easier... lets try a thought experiment...
We can start with Gay marriage... If Congress were to pass a law which says is no Gay marriage and then they write your magic words about it being non reviewable.
Do you think lefty judges will say... oh darn we can review that law.
you really are being such an idiot right now... .its funny.
jemmy, I don't want to poke a sleeping hornytoad here, but did you take my suggestion.
You know, this one:
"While you are going on about the tenth Amendment you might flip back to Article VI, Clause 2."
And if you did,what did you find?
Oh, here it is:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
[I don't think the underlining was in the original, but the bold part might have been. Probably dipped their feather pens an extra time when they got to "laws made in pursuance to the Constitution."