Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: inquest
But this bill would only prevent the courts from hearing any further abortion cases. Roe would remain the law of the land (that the United States Constitution grants a right to an abortion), and no subsequent case could come along to overturn it.
20 posted on 02/13/2004 9:30:57 PM PST by SedVictaCatoni (You keep nasty chips.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: SedVictaCatoni
A subsequent case wouldn't need to overturn it. Regardless of whether somebody would still consider it "the law of the land", it would be completely ineffective. State passes law against abortion, state courts uphold it, nothing can be done about it, because it doesn't go any further than the state level.
21 posted on 02/13/2004 9:38:39 PM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: SedVictaCatoni
But this bill would only prevent the courts from hearing any further abortion cases. Roe would remain the law of the land (that the United States Constitution grants a right to an abortion), and no subsequent case could come along to overturn it.

It seems the bill specifically allows for the reversal of unconstitutional decisions:

Use by Congress of Article III regulation of the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court and other federal courts is provided by the Constitution as a check on the Judicial Branch when it exceeds its jurisdiction.

At the very least the legislature could return the decision to the states and the SC could do nothing about it.

23 posted on 02/14/2004 1:16:47 AM PST by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson