The case for stripping the Supreme Court of its power

[Legion]

Article 3. Look it up. I explained it. you are wrong as usual.

Claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

I know trolls don't like hearing this, but if you make the claim, it's up to you to prove it.

[Legion]

Congress does not have that authority.

Justice Nerdberg says it does.

Article 3. Look it up. I explained it. you are wrong as usual.

[Legion]

Republicans have had 47 years to do something about Roe and they have not even tried even they they controlled the White House and Congress.

Is that so?

The idea that the Republican Party doesn’t really want to repeal Roe v. Wade rests on Supreme Court decisions that were the product less of political scheming and more of happenstance and luck.

Roe was in serious jeopardy as early as the late ’80s, as the Reagan administration took the position that Roe should be overruled and states passed envelope-pushing statutes to generate test cases. In 1989, the Court issued a ruling in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, which considered a Missouri law that defined life as beginning at conception and declared that “unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being.”

But Roe survived the first major attempt to dismantle it. Chief Justice William Rehnquist (who dissented in Roe) tried to assemble a coalition for effectively ending Roe but fell one vote short. The result was an opinion that expressed hostility to Roe without changing the legal status quo.

The roadblock was Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who in a concurrence insisted that the Missouri statute did not require the Court to consider whether Roe was correctly decided because the “fetal personhood” language did not have concrete legal meaning.

Roe survived, but the threat was clear. “For today, the women of this nation still retain the liberty to control their destinies,” Justice Harry Blackmun, Roe’s author, famously wrote in his dissent. “But the signs are evident and very ominous, and a chill wind blows.”

By 1991, the Court’s two liberal lions, William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, were gone, replaced by nominees of President George H.W. Bush. Combined with the four apparent anti-Roe votes in Webster, this seemed to make overturning Roe a question of “when,” not “if.”

The vehicle was the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The case involved a Pennsylvania statute that imposed several restrictions on abortion that the Court’s previous applications of Roe had deemed unconstitutional. The American Civil Liberties Union’s Kathryn Kolbert, who argued the challenge to the Pennsylvania’s statute in front of the Court, essentially assumed that Roe was doomed and largely dedicated her argument to urging the Court to directly face the question of whether Roe was still good law, rather than continuing to dodge the question as it had in Webster.

But the expected ruling didn’t happen. After initially voting in conference to overrule Roe, Justice Anthony Kennedy ended up collaborating with fellow Republican nominees Sandra Day O’Connor and David Souter to craft a compromise upholding Roe.

The essential holding of Roe — that the 14th Amendment protects the right to choose to have an abortion prior to fetal viability — was explicitly reaffirmed. But Roe’s “trimester framework,” which forbade virtually any regulation of first-trimester abortions, would be replaced with the “undue burden” test O’Connor had long advocated.

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/15/18623073/roe-wade-abortion-georgia-alabama-supreme-court

[Legion]

do the Kanookians have a supreme court?.......

They do, as I suspect you know quite well.

[gemini104104]

HOW VERY STALINIST OF YOU , COMRADE.

IF YOU CANNOT CONTROL/BLACKMAIL THEM, THEY MUST BE ELIMINATED.


GOOD LUCK AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION OVER YOUR SOUR GRAPES...

One thing for sure even SCOTUS is not too far above from being held accountable at coming under review when it comes to its relationship with U.S. Constitutional law, the well being of society and how it is expected to defend Democracy. Now if your tRump ass kissers want a lawless, un American and uncivilized court, do it on your own time and offsite of U.S. territory.

[PostmodernProphet]

Abortion was legal under different circumstances in 20 states before Roe.

until Roe, none of them included "yeah well.....felt like it"......

[PostmodernProphet]

This is suppose to be a Democracy and U.S. Constitutional law gives all citizens the right to speak freely and voice their complaints, concerns and justified arguments but of course your kind would prefer to stick your head in the dirt while your ass his pointed to the sky to get screwed by un American and uncivilized demagogues.

nobody has kept you from voicing your concern..........and nothing has kept anyone from realizing your concerns are butt ugly stupid.....

[PostmodernProphet]

There is another option. Congress has the power to decide what kind of cases the Supremes can see. They can close off abortion and gerrymandering cases if they choose. https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...reme-court-wh/

the article you sourced confirms that Congress can legislate which cases the SC must hear. and gives examples.........show me something which says congress can PREVENT the court from hearing something.....

[PostmodernProphet]

They do, as I suspect you know quite well.

I have never bothered to look........I have no real desire to know how Kanookians conduct themselves......

[Doc Dutch]

...So it’s perfectly reasonable to ask if we should abolish the Supreme Court, or at the very least strip the Court of its ability to overturn laws that it rules unconstitutional. If the Court is no longer a neutral arbiter of the law, if it’s gradually shape-shifting into a partisan weapon, then maybe it’s time to rethink its role in our constitutional system."

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/12/17950...t-mark-tushnet

It's the LW reporter and his friend, cofounder of Vox, who are asking to abolish SCOTUS. The Harvard law professor only advises 18 year term limits, which is reasonable whereas abolishing SCOTUS is a wackadoodle idea.

Mark Tushnet
If you look at the overall course of US Supreme Court history, the description that you’ve offered is basically correct. But there are exceptions, as there always are, to that kind of generalization. One is the relatively brief Warren Court era, which still occupies the imagination of many people who think about the Constitution.

We’ve had the Brown v. Board of Education decision and Roe v. Wade, and then, more recently, the Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage — and all of these decisions were empowering for different segments of the population.

The big question is whether the gains from those kinds of protections of minority interests are substantial enough to outweigh the Court’s interference with legislation on behalf of the most powerful elements of our society. If you’re focused on many recent decisions, like Citizens United, the Court certainly seems to be favoring corporate power, but the picture is less clear when you step back and evaluate it over a much longer period of time.

[CFM]

The OP referred to recent conservative appointments to the court causing the (overblown) problems.

Republicans have had 47 years to do something about Roe and they have not even tried even they they controlled the White House and Congress. About the only thing they could do is propose and push for a constitutional amendment which they have not done. They get more mileage by being anti-abortion than actually stopping abortion.

Abortion was legal under different circumstances in 20 states before Roe.

It was done at the level of government in which the Constitution indicates things like that should be done.

While a Republican Congress could propose such an amendment, there is no way on earth in the political climate we've had for years that it would ever get past being anything but a proposal. The only way Roe will ever be overturned, as it's not going to happen with an amendment, is for a case involving abortion to come to the Court. The Court doesn't go looking for cases to hear. Cases are brought to them and they decide which ones they want to hear.

[Into the Night]

The abysmal ignorance displayed by the likes of Nerdberg explains a lot, doesn't it?

It's pretty typical. They just repeat the Democrat chants and mantras over and over without any meaning, deny anything like science or mathematics or history, then call people names when they can't form an argument of their own.

Yup. It's ignorance. It's illiteracy.

[Into the Night]

Prior to Roe v.Wade, 30 states prohibited abortion without exception, 16 states banned abortion except in certain special circumstances (e.g., rape, incest, health threat to mother), 3 states allowed residents to obtain abortions, and New York allowed abortions generally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States

And IMO, the states should be the deciding authority.

Correct. Nothing in the Constitution of the United States gives the federal government this authority. The supreme court exceeded it's authority yet again, changing the Constitution.

[Into the Night]

These right wing extremist on the so-called Supreme Court, among whom were involved in the treasonous act of facilitating the un Constitutional act of acquitting tRump at the impeachment trial

The Senate has the right to conduct the trial. Only the Senate. Not you. Not the supreme court. You do not get to override the Senate. You are not the king. Following the Constitution is not treason.

despite damning evidence that justified a conviction

None given. That's why the Senate threw it out.

and the act of obstructing witness testimony,

The House does not have subpoena authority. Only the court does. Trump does not have to witness against himself and he doesn't have to allow the House to usurp the authority of the President. See the Constitution of the United States, Articles I and II.

indicates that these hacked in extremist at SCOTUS, especially that unqualified and perjuring creep Kavanaugh apparently think these band of un American extremist can do the job that foreign enemies want to happen at destroy Democracy from within

Kavanaugh is not destroying anything. The United States is and never was a democracy. It is a federated republic.

and trampling all over U.S. Constitutional law,

You are denying the Constitution of the United States. It is YOU that is advocating trampling all over U.S. Constitutional law. Inversion fallacy.

the civil liberties of society

Buzzword fallacy.

and anything else of a core value of America and civilized nature.

Buzzword fallacies. You deny the Constitution of the United States.

Yet, this is not the first time Democracy has come under attack among, in particular, the enemy from within as society has the right to know, see and focus on the true enemy of Democracy and their own lives from within.

The U.S. is not a democracy. It never was.
Neither Trump nor the Senate nor Kavanaugh has violated anything in the Constitution of the United States.

Sour grapes. Denial of the Constitution. TDS.

[Into the Night]

Article 3. Look it up. I explained it. you are wrong as usual.

Article III does not concern Congress. Try again.