> Why talk of “codifying” the right to abortion federal law? The court will throw out an unconstitutional federal law as quickly as it overturns Roe v. Wade.
Not if the court's packed. Not if Congress strips the court of jurisdiction to hear appeals about the law.
Certainly. In practice jurisdiction-stripping is a moot point because a significant number of Congressional Democrats are wusses (and I suspect a significant number don't much care to defend abortion access and hence wouldn't defend abortion access with jurisdiction-stripping even if they weren't wusses). But if elected Ds weren't wusses, they could in fact codify Roe v. Wade and at least try to defend it via jurisdiction-stripping or court-packing, even if attorneys subsequently had to duke out the fine points of constitutionality.
That report doesn't seem to contradict my observation that Congress has (some) power to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction. To quote its conclusion:
"Still, Congress may influence how the judiciary resolves lawsuits without violating the separation of powers. Congress can do this by regulating a court's jurisdiction248 or by enacting substantive measures that the judiciary must apply to resolve a legal dispute.249"
Totally agree JD won of Trump’s endorsement! I want someone who is not afraid to speak their mind, JD learned something by his win, put people ahead of politics.
> Why talk of “codifying” the right to abortion federal law? The court will throw out an unconstitutional federal law as quickly as it overturns Roe v. Wade.
Not if the court's packed. Not if Congress strips the court of jurisdiction to hear appeals about the law.
Congress has no power to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction. They are co-equal branches of government.
Oh, but it does: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-3/section-2/clause-2/
But constitutional attorneys will fight it out depending on how the law is crafted - as always.
Certainly. In practice jurisdiction-stripping is a moot point because a significant number of Congressional Democrats are wusses (and I suspect a significant number don't much care to defend abortion access and hence wouldn't defend abortion access with jurisdiction-stripping even if they weren't wusses). But if elected Ds weren't wusses, they could in fact codify Roe v. Wade and at least try to defend it via jurisdiction-stripping or court-packing, even if attorneys subsequently had to duke out the fine points of constitutionality.
It’s hardly that simple. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R44967.html
That report doesn't seem to contradict my observation that Congress has (some) power to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction. To quote its conclusion:
"Still, Congress may influence how the judiciary resolves lawsuits without violating the separation of powers. Congress can do this by regulating a court's jurisdiction248 or by enacting substantive measures that the judiciary must apply to resolve a legal dispute.249"
Again, constitutional attorneys will fight it out. As of now, the votes aren’t there anyway.
True enough. That Congress has the power doesn't mean it has the will to use the power.
Totally agree JD won of Trump’s endorsement! I want someone who is not afraid to speak their mind, JD learned something by his win, put people ahead of politics.