4 ms·

Do you really not believe that these people will follow through with their campaign promises when they have the house, senate, and presidency? All it takes is

Do you really not believe that these people will follow through with their campaign promises when they have the house, senate, and presidency? All it takes is a SCOTUS nominee, a new law defunding planned parenthood and/or banning abortion, and a challenge to the law to get struck down in the Supreme Court, all of which are now in their grasp. I am talking about civil liberties in general. The mechanism for gay marriage would be similar. As a footnote, yes, I have read the decision and I have read my constitution. Furthermore I don't think this is the right place for those kinds of ad-hominem attacks.

masonic 10y ago
"... a new law defunding planned parenthood and/or banning abortion" Not giving Federal taxpayer money to PP doesn't stop them from doing abortions (they officially claim they use no taxpayer funds for abortion anyway), and you can't ban abortion via statute due to Roe v Wade having supremacy. (BTW, PP does a minority of abortions in the USA.) Even if the USSC wanted to replace Roe v Wade, they can't just do that by decree. A relevant case that would give them that nexus would have to navigate itself all the way up the chain from Federal court through the corresponding Court of Appeals (assuming they even hear the case), winning all the way in courts laden with Obama appointees, to even get on the USSC's radar. You didn't understand what you claim to have read.
- mattnewton 10y ago
  Actually they can replace Roe V Wade because it's a ruling on the interpretation of laws that are amendable by the legislative branch. I hope you are right about the courts laden with Obama appointees across the entire nation.
  - masonic 10y ago
    No, they can't. If you have any friends who went to law school, perhaps they could explain it to your satisfaction. Marbury v. Madison laid out these mechanisms over 210 years ago.
- b1daly 10y ago
  I'm not sure I follow. Can't Congress just pass a law outlawing abortion, Trump signs, then it's the law? For the Supreme Court to overturn, there would have to a lawsuit to stop it.
  - masonic 10y ago
    No, for a variety of reasons. First of all, it wouldn't pass, because Democrats would vote 95% against and Republicans at most 75% for. But even if it DID pass the House, the Senate would just filibuster it. And even if by some miracle one was passed and signed, it would hit an immediate injunction from the Federal court of the abortion-backers' choice, using Roe as a precedent. The concept makes for a good scare tactic to raise contributions and volunteers, but it goes nowhere in the real world.
    - KirinDave 10y ago
      > No, for a variety of reasons. First of all, it wouldn't pass, because Democrats would vote 95% against and Republicans at most 75% for. Why do you believe this? On a night when the traditional polling and data mechanisms we have come to rely on have proven totally fallible, I have a hard time trusting ANY proposed split.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      Oh that's cute, you think the filibuster rule is going to survive the first week of this congress?
      - masonic 10y ago
        In other words, you fear that Republicans might pull a trick similar to what Reid did 3 years ago in implementing the "nuclear option"[1]? Did you protest that at the time, or since? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate#Changes_in_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_State...

masonic 10y ago

"... a new law defunding planned parenthood and/or banning abortion" Not giving Federal taxpayer money to PP doesn't stop them from doing abortions (they officially claim they use no taxpayer funds for abortion anyway), and you can't ban abortion via statute due to Roe v Wade having supremacy. (BTW, PP does a minority of abortions in the USA.) Even if the USSC wanted to replace Roe v Wade, they can't just do that by decree. A relevant case that would give them that nexus would have to navigate itself all the way up the chain from Federal court through the corresponding Court of Appeals (assuming they even hear the case), winning all the way in courts laden with Obama appointees, to even get on the USSC's radar. You didn't understand what you claim to have read.

mattnewton 10y ago
Actually they can replace Roe V Wade because it's a ruling on the interpretation of laws that are amendable by the legislative branch. I hope you are right about the courts laden with Obama appointees across the entire nation.
- masonic 10y ago
  No, they can't. If you have any friends who went to law school, perhaps they could explain it to your satisfaction. Marbury v. Madison laid out these mechanisms over 210 years ago.
b1daly 10y ago
I'm not sure I follow. Can't Congress just pass a law outlawing abortion, Trump signs, then it's the law? For the Supreme Court to overturn, there would have to a lawsuit to stop it.
- masonic 10y ago
  No, for a variety of reasons. First of all, it wouldn't pass, because Democrats would vote 95% against and Republicans at most 75% for. But even if it DID pass the House, the Senate would just filibuster it. And even if by some miracle one was passed and signed, it would hit an immediate injunction from the Federal court of the abortion-backers' choice, using Roe as a precedent. The concept makes for a good scare tactic to raise contributions and volunteers, but it goes nowhere in the real world.
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    > No, for a variety of reasons. First of all, it wouldn't pass, because Democrats would vote 95% against and Republicans at most 75% for. Why do you believe this? On a night when the traditional polling and data mechanisms we have come to rely on have proven totally fallible, I have a hard time trusting ANY proposed split.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    Oh that's cute, you think the filibuster rule is going to survive the first week of this congress?
    - masonic 10y ago
      In other words, you fear that Republicans might pull a trick similar to what Reid did 3 years ago in implementing the "nuclear option"[1]? Did you protest that at the time, or since? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate#Changes_in_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_State...