"I see where you're going and it's an interesting idea.. but don't you think the Supreme Court would hold the local officials in contempt? I don't think there's any way the Justice Dept would buck the Court. Never going to happen...we should focus on some workable ideas IMO."
Yep, the Supreme Court would hold the local officials in contempt. And could do nothing about it unless the President let the Federal Marshalls, et al, enforce an order.
You want workable?
There's only one workable solution, really: leave the border open, and let time and Latino immigration keep shifting the country more and more Catholic and religiously conservative. That, in turn, will mean more Republican administrations and more justices and federal judges who will be willing to strike down Roe outright, or pare it back to the point that it's toothless.
Nothing else will work short of a takeover of the Judiciary through the democratic process.
I've heard the idea of Congress "simply" passing a law that says the Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction in abortion cases. This is unworkable, because, while the Supreme Court will accept laws that restrict legal jursidiction, they will strike down any law that purports to limit the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Supremes.
Roe is Constitutional Law. The Supreme Court says that the Constitution, not the law, demands it, and that the Constitution doesn't permit derogation from their regime. They will strike down anything that purports to say that the Supreme Court doesn't have plenary power to review acts of government for constitutionality, PARTICULARLY if the thing that seeks to be limited is on a dramatically controversial issue in which the Court has always been intensely interested, like abortion.
There is no quick legal fix.
Congress could pass a "No abortion jurisdiction" law, and the Supremes would strike it down before the ink was dry.
And then, as you pointed out, the Justice Department would decide if it was going to defy the Supreme Court or not.
Now, I happen to think that a determined President can command the justice department and remove it from the shadow of the courts, but to do so would require a President willing to use what would amount to an extremely aggressive constitutional strategy.
Basically, so long as there is not a 2/3rds majority of Senators willing to remove the President from office for a particular act, he can do whatever he wants for 4 years.
I think you are too easily assuming that the Supreme Court would strike down congressional action to limit their jurisdiction. With the current justices on the bench, I think four would say it is okay (per Congress's explicit power in the Articles) and we might could convince Kennedy. However, if Bush gets another nomination before 08, the possibility becomes even more likely. Don't dismiss the idea too quickly - I think it's the best Constitutional way to defeat Roe at this time (since an amendment is a no go).
I appreciate your line of thinking with allowing tons of Hispanic immigrants into the US hoping they sway things more conservative. However, most illegal Hispanic immigrants are Mexican -- and Mexicans tend to be the more liberal of the various nationalities we call "latino." Then-Gov Bush did a pretty good job of pulling them our way in Texas but other states have been very unsuccessful. Mexicans have a very different idea of government than do we conservatives because of their history of suffering under colonialism and never-ending corruption in their government. The Latin Americans and especially Cubans are our more favorable voters.
But, since it's on my mind, the Republican Party SHOULD be able to bring ALL Hispanic voters to our side on the life issue alone...but I am afraid we often don't target our message in the right way so as to reach out to these voters. (We're too busy praising Tancredo for being outraged that they speak a different language than we). I do think that is something the party should be more concerned about.