4 ms·

Uh, no, although I'll admit it wasn't taught in my 1085 9th grade civics class. The Founders profoundly distrusted the Supreme Court, and in Article III, Secti

by hga 11y ago

Uh, no, although I'll admit it wasn't taught in my 1085 9th grade civics class. The Founders profoundly distrusted the Supreme Court, and in Article III, Section 2, there is a provision that's been used more than a few times, including in the last few decades, to remove something from the Federal Court's remit: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. 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. ADDED: See this for extensive discussion of the practice of "jurisdiction_stripping": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping That national level Republicans have never tried in the abortion domain suggests to me how much they really care about the issue.

graycat 11y ago
Interesting quote. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that, really, there is nothing Congress can do about a SCOTUS decision such as Roe v Wade just by passing a law and getting the POTUS to sign it. And should a US state pass a law against abortion, the legal system would instantly use Roe v Wade to strike down that state law. If all that is so, then the only way to make abortion illegal is to reverse Roe v Wade, and there are only two ways to do that, (A) have another case brought to the SCOTUS and accepted for review by the SCOTUS and with enough new justices to reverse Roe v Wade and (B) have a Constitutional amendment with, as I mentioned, 2/3rds of the House, .... IMHO, the chances of either (A) or (B) within 100 years look slim to none. If all that is correct, then talking about laws against abortion is some form of self-abuse or manipulation of others and less useful than a spit to windward. Again, I'm just talking about process, not the pros/cons of abortion.
- hga 11y ago
  I apologize for not including this in my original posting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping It is a well established practice, and note the contemporary uses in the '90s and '00s.
  - graycat 11y ago
    Interesting. That's much more detailed than covered in my eighth grade civics class! My brother did a lot in constitutional law, but I didn't, and I'm not a lawyer. So, maybe with some interpretations of jurisdiction stripping, Congress and the POTUS might pass a law saying that the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over cases involving abortion and then pass a law making abortion illegal. Maybe. I am getting a suspicion that maybe jurisdiction stripping could not be used for that little two step dance. And, if that two step dance could be used, then, sure, it's curious why a Republican Congress would not start to take those two steps. For me, I don't know. And the OP didn't talk about such a dance step either! Mike Huckabee seems highly interested in making abortion illegal, and the OP mentioned two more candidates trying to outlaw abortion even in cases of rape and danger to the mother, but, still, I've heard them say nothing about jurisdiction stripping. Out'a my depth!
    - hga 11y ago
      And, if that two step dance could be used It can; as noted in the article, it's been used in the '90s and '00s, as well as long ago, and for things much more fundamental than a right conjured by the Supremes from the "penumbras" and "emanations" ofother parts of the Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut). Note that ultimately the Supremes are just a group of 9 men and women (who e.g. all went to the Harvard or Yale Law Schools...). The President, Executive and the Congress can simply ignore them, impeach them, etc., they just can't cut their salaries ("The Judges ... shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."). then, sure, it's curious why a Republican Congress would not start to take those two steps. For me, I don't know. Curious indeed; I assume at 0th approximation that the majority of them, if not the vast majority, don't give a damn about what they were ostensibly elected to do. Or perhaps prefer not being called bad names by the rest of the establishment for doing that, in which case we're a lot closer to understanding Trump's appeal. In other words, the Supremes and lower Federal courts provide an important political function by allowing politicians in the other two branches of government to claim their hands are tied on a whole bunch of issues where they'd otherwise have to take a real stand and maybe afterwards have to spend more time with their families. Typo correction: my 9th grade civics class was in 1975, not a few years before the death of William the Conqueror ^_^.

by hga 11y ago

graycat 11y ago

Interesting quote. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that, really, there is nothing Congress can do about a SCOTUS decision such as Roe v Wade just by passing a law and getting the POTUS to sign it. And should a US state pass a law against abortion, the legal system would instantly use Roe v Wade to strike down that state law. If all that is so, then the only way to make abortion illegal is to reverse Roe v Wade, and there are only two ways to do that, (A) have another case brought to the SCOTUS and accepted for review by the SCOTUS and with enough new justices to reverse Roe v Wade and (B) have a Constitutional amendment with, as I mentioned, 2/3rds of the House, .... IMHO, the chances of either (A) or (B) within 100 years look slim to none. If all that is correct, then talking about laws against abortion is some form of self-abuse or manipulation of others and less useful than a spit to windward. Again, I'm just talking about process, not the pros/cons of abortion.

hga 11y ago
I apologize for not including this in my original posting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping It is a well established practice, and note the contemporary uses in the '90s and '00s.
- graycat 11y ago
  Interesting. That's much more detailed than covered in my eighth grade civics class! My brother did a lot in constitutional law, but I didn't, and I'm not a lawyer. So, maybe with some interpretations of jurisdiction stripping, Congress and the POTUS might pass a law saying that the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over cases involving abortion and then pass a law making abortion illegal. Maybe. I am getting a suspicion that maybe jurisdiction stripping could not be used for that little two step dance. And, if that two step dance could be used, then, sure, it's curious why a Republican Congress would not start to take those two steps. For me, I don't know. And the OP didn't talk about such a dance step either! Mike Huckabee seems highly interested in making abortion illegal, and the OP mentioned two more candidates trying to outlaw abortion even in cases of rape and danger to the mother, but, still, I've heard them say nothing about jurisdiction stripping. Out'a my depth!
  - hga 11y ago
    And, if that two step dance could be used It can; as noted in the article, it's been used in the '90s and '00s, as well as long ago, and for things much more fundamental than a right conjured by the Supremes from the "penumbras" and "emanations" ofother parts of the Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut). Note that ultimately the Supremes are just a group of 9 men and women (who e.g. all went to the Harvard or Yale Law Schools...). The President, Executive and the Congress can simply ignore them, impeach them, etc., they just can't cut their salaries ("The Judges ... shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."). then, sure, it's curious why a Republican Congress would not start to take those two steps. For me, I don't know. Curious indeed; I assume at 0th approximation that the majority of them, if not the vast majority, don't give a damn about what they were ostensibly elected to do. Or perhaps prefer not being called bad names by the rest of the establishment for doing that, in which case we're a lot closer to understanding Trump's appeal. In other words, the Supremes and lower Federal courts provide an important political function by allowing politicians in the other two branches of government to claim their hands are tied on a whole bunch of issues where they'd otherwise have to take a real stand and maybe afterwards have to spend more time with their families. Typo correction: my 9th grade civics class was in 1975, not a few years before the death of William the Conqueror ^_^.