The Real Charge of the Roberts Supreme Court

[Oompa Loompa]

That's a valiant, but weird way to try and twist what I wrote with regard to the thread topic. So, more to the point, McConnell invents a "rule" that we CAN'T HAVE A SCOTUS JUSTICE HEARING when the election was NINE MONTHS AWAY in 2016, but then he suddenly decides we MUST HAVE A SCOTUS CONFIRMATION when the election was SIX WEEKS AWAY in 2020. If you can't see how that was an act of dishonesty at the very least, and a variation on packing the court, well....

Dishonest? Perhaps. Legal? Absolutely. A variation on packing the court? Absolutely not.

 

[SimplyMe]

All state law only applies to laws within it's state. That's why it perfectly legal according to STATE law to travel somewhere to get illegal drugs. My state cannot prosecute my friend for letting me use his car to obtain drugs in another state. They can't do a thing unless I actually have the drugs on me when I cross the state line with them.

Not with that Texas law, it is designed to make it illegal to go out of state for abortion. And the Supreme Court decided not to overturn it -- apparently meaning states can punish you for leaving the state to do something that is a crime in your current state.

 

[Fantine]

When a state enacts policies that extreme, businesses often locate elsewhere. They find it difficult to attract qualified employees and get executives to transfer there.
There are tipping points that become sao extreme that people deem it affects their quality of life and I think travel restrictions would be one of those.

 

[rjs330]

Not with that Texas law, it is designed to make it illegal to go out of state for abortion. And the Supreme Court decided not to overturn it -- apparently meaning states can punish you for leaving the state to do something that is a crime in your current state.

No it's not. There's nothing in the law that makes it against the law to travel out of state and get an abortion.

 

[hislegacy]

When a state enacts policies that extreme, businesses often locate elsewhere. They find it difficult to attract qualified employees and get executives to transfer there.
There are tipping points that become sao extreme that people deem it affects their quality of life and I think travel restrictions would be one of those.

Businesses Are Fleeing California Along With Its Residents, And President Biden Should Pay Attention



Large Companies Are Leaving Chicago, And Some Are Citing Rising Crime as a Reason – NBC Chicago

 

[SimplyMe]

No it's not. There's nothing in the law that makes it against the law to travel out of state and get an abortion.

You mean, aside from the fact that the law allows you to be sued by anyone who wants to (could be millions with the population of Texas) and you would owe each $10,000, under this particular law.

 

[Fantine]

You know many huge athletic events have moved because of controversial state laws.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

When a state enacts policies that extreme, businesses often locate elsewhere. They find it difficult to attract qualified employees and get executives to transfer there.
There are tipping points that become sao extreme that people deem it affects their quality of life and I think travel restrictions would be one of those.

As of right now, many Texans will gladly wave goodbye to any liberal willing to leave their state and take their politics back where they came from.

 

[rjs330]

You mean, aside from the fact that the law allows you to be sued by anyone who wants to (could be millions with the population of Texas) and you would owe each $10,000, under this particular law.

Yep.

 

[Pardon Maoi]

Did the Republicans?

Yes.

[

 

[Pardon Maoi]

As of right now, many Texans will gladly wave goodbye to any liberal willing to leave their state and take their politics back where they came from.

Please don't speak for us.

 

[Hank77]

Simple solution - stop legislating through the courts - legislation is designed to be done by Congress (the legislature) - maybe they can stop investigating long enough to do their job.

There are over 400 people in the House of Representatives, I'm pretty sure that they can work just fine without the 10-12 1/6 committee members. If not they all need to be replaced.

 

[Hank77]

What is consitutional. So, if Abortion is not a constitutional right, because the constituion does not speak concerning it. So.... the decisions concerning abortion go back into the hands of the people. You can vote for politicians that will keep abortion legal without limit, or politicians that will limit abortion, or those which will out law it. It's up to the people to decide. It's all about the power we all have now to decide. Even to the point of voting to amend the constitution to speak to abortion.

This is only valid if one is a one-issue voter.

You can vote for a candidate that agrees with you on abortion but do they agree with you on taxation in your state, gun laws in your state, housing initiatives in your state, school financing in your state, environmental issues, etc?
It's not so easy to choose candidates unless you just close your eyes and vote for a straight-party ticket, which I believe is irresponsible.

 

[hislegacy]

There are over 400 people in the House of Representatives, I'm pretty sure that they can work just fine without the 10-12 1/6 committee members. If not they all need to be replaced.

I fully support replacing them.

 

[Hank77]

I fully support replacing them.

Who would you replace them with?

 

[hislegacy]

Who would you replace them with?

Good question. I couldn't intelligently respond because I do not know who would be a viable replacement. Someone more moderate I would hope.

 

[Pardon Maoi]

Are you not aware that stars decisis is tossed out the window frequently in the courts? Stare decisis is NOT law. As has been proven that previous decisions can be overturned if found to be unconstitutional.

Stare decisis can be used to guide decisions. It does not determine decisions.

I'm aware that three sitting Supreme Court Justices lied during their Senate hearings when they said that Roe was settled law.

But hey! Just like with McConnell and WE CAN'T POSSIBLY HAVE HEARINGS A YEAR BEFORE AND ELECTION becomes WE WILL CONFIRM ANY CONEY BARRETT WITH THREE WEEKS TO GO, stare decisis for the, but not for me.

In my opinion conservatives have utterly abandoned any moral high ground.

 

[JSRG]

No. Re-read Article III of the Constitution - specifically the first sentence:

Congress has control over the existence of lower courts, but the Supreme Court is established by the Constitution. Congress cannot simply unmake it.

Congress cannot pass a law explicitly abolishing the Supreme Court, certainly. But nor is congress obligated to agree to any nominee by the president.

Even if we accept your argument that the Senate has a constitutional duty to keep enough justices on the court because it's constitutionally required to keep the Court around, that would only require them to have enough justices on the court that the court continues to exist. A single vacancy certainly does not qualify for that.

It's similar to how I'm in favor of bringing back the talking filibuster. If you're going to filibuster, then filibuster. You'd better be out on the floor all day reading the dictionary, or the telephone book, or speaking out against the bill that you're filibustering. The fact that you have to waste people's time means that you're less likely to filibuster just for the sake of it. It's about accountability.

It is true that under the "old" rules, the filibuster wasn't used as much. Requiring people to do an actual filibuster would probably cut down its usage... but who knows? The filibuster's been so entrenched now and things polarized enough that perhaps it wouldn't, and we'd end up with the major problem the old rules had: While a filibuster is occurring, you can't do anything. Nothing. The current rules were set up so that, even if filibusters weren't as common, they were still enough of a headache that they changed it so the government could actually function through the filibuster, rather than being ground to a complete and utter halt.

 

[JSRG]

I'm aware that three sitting Supreme Court Justices lied during their Senate hearings when they said that Roe was settled law.

That's not a lie. It's the truth. Every decision is settled law until such time as the Supreme Court overturns it.

 

[ralliann]

This is only valid if one is a one-issue voter.

You can vote for a candidate that agrees with you on abortion but do they agree with you on taxation in your state, gun laws in your state, housing initiatives in your state, school financing in your state, environmental issues, etc?
It's not so easy to choose candidates unless you just close your eyes and vote for a straight-party ticket, which I believe is irresponsible.

Abortion is popular enough in some states I don't think voters will be that limited. If that few people do not want abortion, then nobody has any business pushing it on people anyway.