Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Won’t this ruling put the legislatures of the several states at odds with the Executive Branches?21.)
- The issue: The case involves whether North Carolina legislators may intervene to defend the state’s voter identification law in constitutional challenges and lawsuits concerning the Voting Rights Act. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
- The questions presented:
- "Whether a state agent authorized by state law to defend the State’s interest in litigation must overcome a presumption of adequate representation to intervene as of right in a case in which a state official is a defendant.
- "Whether a district court’s determination of adequate representation in ruling on a motion to intervene as of right is reviewed de novo or for abuse of discretion.
- "Whether Petitioners are entitled to intervene as of right in this litigation."[2]
Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP - SCOTUS
How doesn’t this violate the separation-of-powers doctrine that underpins our Constitutional system?
It’s using the judiciary to enforce the legislature’s will upon the Executive branch’s authority as to how best to defend the laws that the legislature passes (in this particular case, as an override of the Governor’s veto).Why shouldn't a legislator have a right to file a lawsuit just like anyone else; and how would doing so violate the separation of powers?
25.)
- The case: In 2018, Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a clinic and abortion facility in Mississippi, challenged the constitutionality of the "Gestational Age Act" in federal court. The law, enacted March 19, 2018, prohibited abortions after the fifteenth week of pregnancy except in cases of medical emergencies or fetal abnormalities. The U.S. district court granted Refers to a judgment granted on a claim about which there is no genuine issue of fact and to which the party moving for judgment prevails as a matter of law.
">summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the law was unconstitutional, and put a permanent stop to the law's enforcement. On appeal, the 5th Circuit The action of an appellate court confirming a lower court's decision.
">affirmed the district court's ruling. Click here to learn more about the case's background.Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
- The issue: The case concerns the constitutionality of a Mississippi state law prohibiting abortions after the fifteenth week of pregnancy except in cases of medical emergencies or fetal abnormalities, and the Supreme Court's decisions in Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).[1]
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. - SCOTUS
I hear if it goes in favor of conservatives it won't really matter that much. The blue states that value abortion the most have Roe enshrined in their state constitutions, it will only affect some red states.
It will be all about states rights right up until there is a republican congress and president then it’s going to be no longer be a states rights issue.I take it this is the big case everybody has been anticipating.
I hear if it goes in favor of conservatives it won't really matter that much. The blue states that value abortion the most have Roe enshrined in their state constitutions, it will only affect some red states.
why do you say that?It will be all about states rights right up until there is a republican congress and president then it’s going to be no longer be a states rights issue.
Long experience with politics.why do you say that?
Since Texas repudiated “states’ rights” with their ill-fated lawsuit against states following their own elections laws (and courts), the conservative principle is no more.why do you say that?
Oh it’s only no more when that is to their advantage.Since Texas repudiated “states’ rights” with their ill-fated lawsuit against states following their own elections laws (and courts), the conservative principle is no more.
LOLOLOL......that's not a repudiation of states rights.Oh it’s only no more when that is to their advantage.
See #75........and attempt to answer the question......I dare you......Since Texas repudiated “states’ rights” with their ill-fated lawsuit against states following their own elections laws (and courts), the conservative principle is no more.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?