U.S Supreme Court overturns (Roe v Wade) legalised abortion

[nomadking]

Either the Federal government can impose it's own restrictions over the heads of the individual States, or it can't. Can't see too much of an in-between.
The document is now out there, so any significant changes will involve interfering with the judicial process. The leaking of the document means the decision cannot be changed or the reasons finessed in any significant way.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Either the Federal government can impose it's own restrictions over the heads of the individual States, or it can't. Can't see too much of an in-between.
The document is now out there, so any significant changes will involve interfering with the judicial process. The leaking of the document means the decision cannot be changed or the reasons finessed in any significant way.

The ‘finessing’ would only occur in private discussion between the Supreme Court justices. There’s no role in this process for the federal government. The leaking has probably occurred at the hands of one of the dissenting minority and is designed to put public pressure on the majority to weaken their final, official opinion as much as possible, given that what they’re intent on doing is clearly opposed by a majority across the US as a whole.

Assuming Roe v Wade is set aside this summer, and certain states trigger their pre-prepared legislation to ban abortion, there then might arise the question of whether the federal government can legislate to overrule them. That in itself would I suspect become a constitutional issue though it’s far beyond my knowledge of the subject.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Chris

The ‘finessing’ would only occur in private discussion between the Supreme Court justices. There’s no role in this process for the federal government. The leaking has probably occurred at the hands of one of the dissenting minority and is designed to put public pressure on the majority to weaken their final, official opinion as much as possible, given that what they’re intent on doing is clearly opposed by a majority across the US as a whole.

Assuming Roe v Wade is set aside this summer, and certain states trigger their pre-prepared legislation to ban abortion, there then might arise the question of whether the federal government can legislate to overrule them. That in itself would I suspect become a constitutional issue though it’s far beyond my knowledge of the subject.

You say that the "finessing" would be in private, but also say that it would be a result of public pressure. That is still unduly influencing a judicial decision.

With this decision, complete control would rest with the individual States. Nothing the Federal government could do about it.
Whether or not the majority of the US as a whole, has a certain opinion, doesn't give the Federal authorities the automatic right to override matters that are controlled at State level. Just as the UK government doesn't have a say on devolved matters in the UK.
Link

The Supreme Court is considering a case which challenges Mississippi's ban on abortion after 15 weeks.
If the court rules in favour of Mississippi, it will effectively end the constitutional right to an abortion, and make abortion rights a decision for individual states once again.

Originally Posted by nomadking

You say that the "finessing" would be in private, but also say that it would be a result of public pressure. That is still unduly influencing a judicial decision.

I’m not sure what you find confusing about this. Decisions taken in private can most definitely be affected by public pressure.

With this decision, complete control would rest with the individual States. Nothing the Federal government could do about it.
Whether or not the majority of the US as a whole, has a certain opinion, doesn't give the Federal authorities the automatic right to override matters that are controlled at State level. Just as the UK government doesn't have a say on devolved matters in the UK.
Link

Actually not quite the same because the UK devolution settlements only delegate responsibility for certain issues, they don’t cede sovereignty over them. The UK Parliament can legislate in devolved areas, without agreement from the devolved administrations, and has done so in some recent changes to UK market rules post-Brexit. The UK government has a say - when it really wants to - by putting legislation to the UK parliament.

Funny isn’t it how liberals scream and protest my body, my choice, but didn’t do the same when it came to compulsory covid vaccinations.

If and when Roe v Wade is struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States, abortion doesn’t become banned. Each State will have their own laws, so California and New York, would still permit abortions.

To ban or permit abortion nationwide, would require a Constitutional Amendment and that requires in itself huge hurdles to overcome, it would never happen.

If the Democrats create a law, just via Congressional means, the Supreme Court could declare it unconstitutional via judicial review and strike it down. Critics feel the Supreme Court is undemocratic, overturning Congress and executive orders via the president, but the Supreme Court, always applies the Constitution to legal tests, and the Constitution, is Democratic, because it’s always been the ‘will of the people’.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by nomadking

If the document is genuine, then it has already been decided. The document is in order to set out the reasons for that decision, and for the other majority Judges to agree with it.

You'd better have a read of this. It doesn't represent the court's decision.

Originally Posted by Mick

If and when Roe v Wade is struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States, abortion doesn’t become banned. Each State will have their own laws, so California and New York, would still permit abortions.

Yes but that can be quite a hurdle if you've not got much money and are in the Southwestern States. I believe some of these states are also looking at criminalising going across State lines for an abortion although I imagine that would end up in the Supreme Court pretty sharpish.

The Republicans might be looking at a federal ban after 6 weeks as well: https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...t-mississippi/

Although that is probably unconstitutional as well.

---------- Post added at 09:05 ---------- Previous post was at 09:03 ----------

Originally Posted by pip08456

You'd better have a read of this. It doesn't represent the court's decision.

It doesn't represent a final decision but no one is saying that, they're saying this is a very strong indicator they're going to be making this decision.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Mick

If the Democrats create a law, just via Congressional means, the Supreme Court could declare it unconstitutional via judicial review and strike it down. Critics feel the Supreme Court is undemocratic, overturning Congress and executive orders via the president, but the Supreme Court, always applies the Constitution to legal tests, and the Constitution, is Democratic, because it’s always been the ‘will of the people’.

I don't think the supreme court can strike down such a federal law, especially if it was considered THE correct interpretation of the constitution just a few months ago.

[Hom3r]

I see they have sorted out their priorities


In the US, it's easier for someone with mental health issues to buy an AR15 and enough ammo to start WWIII and WWWIV, than a woman to get an abortion.

Originally Posted by Hom3r

I see they have sorted out their priorities


In the US, it's easier for someone with mental health issues to buy an AR15 and enough ammo to start WWIII and WWWIV, than a woman to get an abortion.

Not in all States it's not - some States like California have by American standards, the most restrictive gun laws.

When I mentioned above about the "Will of the people" being enshrined in to the Constitution - most of it is the will of the people 200+ years ago, when it was the era of the musket which fired one round of a musket ball (lead ball). Given the high death toll attributed to more modern and fast firing guns in the U.S - makes the second amendment out of date and lethal cultural mistake, IMO.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Mick

Not in all States it's not - some States like California have by American standards, the most restrictive gun laws.

When I mentioned above about the "Will of the people" being enshrined in to the Constitution - most of it is the will of the people 200+ years ago, when it was the era of the musket which fired one round of a musket ball (lead ball). Given the high death toll attributed to more modern and fast firing guns in the U.S - makes the second amendment out of date and lethal cultural mistake, IMO.

And therein lies the problem with the constitution Mick. As the "will of the people" changed over the years so should've the constitution. An odd amendment or two is not enough.

The "will of the people" then and now is different.

Their approach makes sense if you believe you can work together and come to a common arrangement occasionally. Amendments should be hard but possible. It's hard to imagine the United States ever making a new amendment now.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Damien

Their approach makes sense if you believe you can work together and come to a common arrangement occasionally. Amendments should be hard but possible. It's hard to imagine the United States ever making a new amendment now.

Whose approach?

[downquark1]

The constitution is not meant to encode the will of the people, in fact it is the opposite, it is suppose to constrain the government and the will of the people in accordance with the designs of the founders and their ideas of a functioning state.

This is a crucial difference between a republic and a pure democracy and why France declares a new republic whenever they throw a temper tantrum (they are on their fifth)

Originally Posted by pip08456

Whose approach?

America's system where they have these check and balances designed to slow things down past a single election cycle.