Posted on 06/24/2022 7:14:03 AM PDT by nwrep
I never said that state abortion laws do not go into effect as enacted. I just said that nothing prevents Congress from imposing a central solution some time in the future. Such a solution could overrule state laws by making them even more strict or less strict.
Yeah, I just finished reading Roberts Concurring in Judgement opinion.
In it he said:
In urging our review, Mississippi stated that its case was “an ideal vehicle” to “reconsider the bright-line viability rule,” and that a judgment in its favor would “not require the Court to overturn” Roe v. Wade, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey. Today, the Court nonetheless rules for Mississippi by doing just that. I would take a more measured course. I agree with the Court that the viability line established by Roe and Casey should be discarded under a straightforward stare decisis analysis. That line never made any sense. Our abortion precedents describe the right at issue as a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. That right should therefore extend far enough to ensure a reasonable opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further—certainly not all the way to viability. Mississippi’s law allows a woman three months to obtain an abortion, well beyond the point at which it is considered “late” to discover a pregnancy. See A. Ayoola, Late Recognition of Unintended Pregnancies, 32 Pub. Health Nursing 462 (2015) (pregnancy is discoverable and ordinarily discovered by six weeks of gestation). I see no sound basis for questioning the adequacy of that opportunity. But that is all I would say, out of adherence to a simple yet fundamental principle of judicial restraint: If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more. Perhaps we are not always perfect in following that command, and certainly there are cases that warrant an exception. But this is not one of them. Surely we should adhere closely to principles of judicial restraint here, where the broader path the Court chooses entails repudiating a constitutional right we have not only previously recognized, but also expressly reaffirmed applying the doctrine of stare decisis. The Court’s opinion is thoughtful and thorough, but those virtues cannot compensate for the fact that its dramatic and consequential ruling is unnecessary to decide the case before us.Roberts agrees with the ruling, but disagrees about overturning Roe v. Wade outright.
So namby-pamby Roberts voted to uphold MS but not to overturn Roe. So media will trumpet 5-4 instead of also saying 6-3 .... what a wuss he is.
That's correct. It was 6-3 on the judgement of upholding the specific Mississippi law at issue, but 5-4 to overturn Roe. It should be pointed out that Roberts did not say that Roe was correctly decided. His position was that the court did not have to reach the issue of whether or not Roe was correctly decided, and so should have left that issue for another day.
I personally don't believe his position makes a lot of sense. His argument was that as long as a woman is given "a reasonable period of time" to choose an abortion, the core of Roe and Casey was not impacted. He thought that reasonable period of time could come before fetal viability, which is why he would have upheld the Mississippi law.
The problem is that his standard of giving the woman a reasonable period of time to consider an abortion is something he simply made up, and is no more constitutionally grounded than is the "viability" standard.
The one thing I would like to know is what would have happened if Trump pardoned Assange. How many Republicans would have really voted to convict Trump?
Agreed,bitches be trippin on CNN.Fun to watch.:)
2 fat disgusting commie pigs and limp-wristed cuck.
Praise You, Father! In Jesus’ Name! It’s the Year of Jubilee!
Ok. I’m gonna have to eat some crow about Barrett and Kavanaugh.
Notice the the dissenters are at the very low end of the IQ scale.
I’m in Tennessee (a native) and welcome your moving here in 2023. To those who relocate to other states, don’t come in and try to change the mindset to suit the politics you might have adhered to in your previous domicile. Use the Serenity Prayer for a guidance tool in all your life choices and you won’t go wrong. From one hillbilly to a future hillbilly, good to have you aboard!
Nothing prevents it right now. It is an open question as to whether Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause to establish a nationwide abortion law. I don't think they would under a reasonable reading of the Commerce Clause, but reasonable readings of the Commerce Clause haven't been in Vogue for more than three quarters of a century.
Ah yes. A farmer can’t grow wheat on his own farm to feed his own animals, Wickard v. Filburn.
I turned on Court TV on TV, & they’re not covering it! They have reruns on.
“I am in tears.”
Nancy P. was closed to years, too. For the opposite reason.
For all of Trump’s negatives (and McConnells), they got the 3 USSC justices and 200+ federal judges confirmed….
Roe v. Wade and Casey today, Lawrence and Obergefell tomorrow.
yep unless it was one of the three leftist justices..
Very good explanations. It’s not uncommon, with all the hair-splitting and legal jargon, for initial interpretations of court decisions by the media and the public to be incomplete and not entirely correct until several readings have been done.
Well, I think I was convinced early in life that there was never anything in the Constitution concerning abortion. I am not a Constitutional scholar or anything close. How is it that I can understand this yet so many in our Congress (and our general population) don’t seem to be able to? They are supposed to be the learned ones governing our nation, yet their only redeeming qualification seems to be that they had the money to run for office. They take an oath to defend our Constitution as I understand, so why are they not summarily dismissed when they refuse to do this? Now the USSC has struck down Roe vs Wade & so many will not agree with this. What do they not understand?
mplicitly protect the right.>>>> Rights are God given. and cannot compel one person to act for another.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.