Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

VIDEO: NY Gov Andrew Cuomo says will sue if U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade (seriously)

VIDEO: NY Gov Andrew Cuomo says will sue if U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade (seriously)

Suing to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court – yeah, that should work

Andrew Cuomo has a plan in case the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.

It’s a plan so ingenious, Cuomo couldn’t wait to announce it.

WHEC News 10 in Rochester, NY, reports:

Governor Cuomo announced Wednesday that he will sue if the Supreme Court acts to roll back Roe v. Wade.

Many Democrats and abortion-rights supporters believe the new justice appointed by Republican President Trump could tilt the court in favor of overturning the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.

Cuomo released the following statement Wednesday afternoon:

“We now need to codify Roe v. Wade, which will actually increase the protections in New York. God forbid they do what they intend to do. I want to get it done before the Supreme Court does that because I don’t want any gaps in a woman’s right to protection.”

He continues by saying, “we have a better legal case when the Supreme Court acts because I will sue when the Supreme Court acts and I want the New York State law in place.”

The obvious problem with Cuomo’s statement is that you can’t sue to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s the highest court in the land on matters of federal law.

This has lead to much mockery (some tweets via Twitchy):

But Cuomo’s misunderstanding is even deeper. He seems to be under the impression that if the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, that would make abortion illegal in the country. That’s not the case. A finding that there is no federal constitutional right to abortion would leave the matter to the states.

The problem for Cuomo is that he may not be able to get a bill through the state Senate. So I guess his goal is to sue to have Roe v. Wade continue in effect in New York, even if the Supreme Court overturns it.

If you think this was a slip of Cuomo’s tonuge (ugh, gross!), the video is posted on what appears to be Cuomo’s official Governor YouTube channel. This is something he wants highlighted.

[Click on Image for full video]

Here’s the money quote:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Any lower court federal (feral) judge can reverse this.. right? It has got to be somewhere in the new edition of “The Living Constitution”.

    Yes. This is stupid. But there is something else stupid.

    Americans will not obey laws they don’t like.

    You know, Tea Tax and all that. It is fundamental.

    And yet people into politics and laws think things can be settled at the point of a gun by passing laws (there will be enforcers).

    Isn’t something besides a socialist (government) solution possible?

    To stop abortion women will need to be monitored. Is that really the kind of society you want to live in? Do you think women will stand for it?

      TX-rifraph in reply to MSimon. | July 12, 2018 at 5:35 am

      Thank you providing a demonstration of how a leftist reasons: Make a series of incongruous assertions followed by an absurd conclusion (“To stop abortion women will need to be monitored.”) and we have Cuomo making sense or trying to do the right thing or something.

      Or, I am not smart enough to comprehend your form of logic.

      “To stop abortion women will need to be monitored.” is Orwell’s Big Brother. Leftists want to control other people. So, they apparently assume everybody wants to control other people. I just find this “monitored” statement beyond absurd. I think it reveals a dangerous pattern of thinking.

      rdm in reply to MSimon. | July 12, 2018 at 6:05 am

      To stop theft, people will have to be monitored. To stop tax evasion, people will have o be monitored. To stop jaywalking, people will have to be monitored. To stop speeding, people will have to be monitored…

        Milhouse in reply to rdm. | July 12, 2018 at 10:39 am


        To enforce any law requires constant monitoring of everyone. Democrats want far more laws than Republicans do; therefore it follows that Democrats want more monitoring. And since they have burdened us with oh so many laws in the last century or so, it follows that they must have already implemented this comprehensive monitoring system, and we’re so used to it that we don’t notice it. Even a complete national ban on abortion would not require anything more.

      Observer in reply to MSimon. | July 12, 2018 at 8:32 am

      Overturning Roe v. Wade isn’t going to “stop abortion.” Roe v. Wade created, out of thin air (“emanations” from “penumbras”) a federal “constitutional right” to abortion, even though the practice of abortion is not mentioned or alluded to anywhere in the text of the U.S. constitution.

      Getting rid of this poorly-reasoned ruling will simply eliminate the legal fiction that there is a federal constitutional right to abortion, which will allow the individual states to return to regulating abortion as they see fit. Lefty-run states will allow abortions up to the point where the full-term baby is exiting the womb (or beyond), while more conservative states will likely place restrictions on the practice (such as prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks, which is the law in much of Europe), or outlaw it entirely. And, as was the case in the U.S. before the Roe ruling was issued in 1973, pregnant women who want abortions but can’t get them in the state where they live will travel to neighboring states with less restrictive laws and obtain abortions there.

        Milhouse in reply to Observer. | July 12, 2018 at 10:48 am

        There are many things that are not mentioned or alluded to anywhere in the text of the U.S. constitution, but are indeed constitutional rights, protected by the tenth amendment. These are things that were generally regarded in the late eighteenth century as so obviously a person’s natural right that surely no legislature would ever attempt to restrict them. The fiction of Roe and Casey is merely that murdering babies is one of these things.

        MajorWood in reply to Observer. | July 12, 2018 at 1:21 pm

        I would call it a constitutional privilege to an abortion. One still has to locate a provider and pay for it, whereas to me, a right means that the cost is covered by someone else (.gov?) and a person who does them has to perform it, sort of like voting, where you go to a place vote and they have to take your vote (unless you have lost that right legally). We have very few rights. What we have are a lot of privileges, which to me, are rights that can be enforced at gunpoint, if it comes to that. I have a right to walk on the sidewalk, but driving in the street is a privilege. Using a restroom at Starbucks is still a privilege no matter how loudly some proclaim it as a right. I find it ironic that those who protest so loudly about the use and power of words are those who get the use of them incorrect most of the time.

        Roe v Wade just said that no state or locality could enact laws banning abortion. There were still lots of places to get one, and one might be able to produce real numbers to determine if the annual number of abortions went up or down after RvW. Birth control methods, pre and post-coital, have evolved tremendously. The rate of abortion these days might be lower.

        I am not against abortion per se, but I do have issues with the inherent associated “lack of responsibility” attitude that goes along with it. That attitude is one of the many cancers affecting our moral fiber as a country. It is a band-aid to fix deeper problems, much like distributing narcan isn’t really a solution to the opioid epidemic, it just keeps junkies alive a bit longer before they do successfully kill themselves.

        One of my main issues with liberals is that they simply never look at the unintended consequences of their “brilliant, fool proof, perfect” ideas. The worst part is that they don’t learn even when it backfires on them, such as the 94AWB serving to ultimately put an AR in one out of every 20 closets. Who exactly was responsible for the increase in school shootings. I still think Klinton was a better gun salesman than Obama. Even losing Congress and Presidencies over it still hasn’t let the majority of Dems see the errors in that strategy, I guess is so great their need for ultimate control. I similarly wonder about conservatives who hang onto the pro-life stance despite it losing just as many elections for them as gun control does for the dems. I vote pro-freedom, which means that I am a staunch pro-2A person. The only reason I don’t hunt with a buzzgun is that I get it done with one shot. The buzzguns are reserved for two-legged vermin, as the constitution says, who are present to deprive me of life and/or liberty.

      Arminius in reply to MSimon. | July 12, 2018 at 4:50 pm

      Gee, MSimon, thank you for deep insight. As if none of us knew that our prisons are full of Americans who won’t obey laws they don’t like.

Fighting for selective-child, the wicked solution, under the Twilight Amendment.

Colonel Travis | July 11, 2018 at 9:16 pm

This is dog-ate-my-homework bad.

Who do I sue for the damages suffered when my jaw hit the floor?

“We now need to codify Roe v. Wade, which will actually increase the protections in New York. God forbid they do what they intend to do. I want to get it done before the Supreme Court does that because I don’t want any gaps in a woman’s right to protection.”

    puhiawa in reply to clintack. | July 12, 2018 at 12:00 am

    It has long been suspected that there was an “idiot gene” in the Cuomo family. And a “flamer gene” that made them display it without embarrassment. I think we have confirmation.
    NY has the most generous abortion laws in the nation. There literally are no limits to abortion in New York.

      rdm in reply to puhiawa. | July 12, 2018 at 7:00 am

      Suspected? That’s like saying it’s long been suspected that there is a height gene in Manute Bol’s family.

He does need to sue, overturning Roe vs Wade just returns things to the status quo where the states can decide if they wish to allow abortions or not and under what terms. NY can just pass a law allowing abortions, or perhaps do nothing as I suspect they already allowed them. I doubt there are votes in congress to outlaw abortions nationwide.

    Neo in reply to Fredlike. | July 11, 2018 at 9:57 pm

    New York had a law making abortion legal when Roe v Wade superceded state law in 1973. It’s still on the books.
    Governor Cuomo is merely making an ass of himself (I guess in competion with his brother).

      mailman in reply to Neo. | July 12, 2018 at 4:09 am

      Its the resistance baby!! No…he is merely pandering to the outraged left. Nothing more. Nothing less.

      Edward in reply to Neo. | July 14, 2018 at 8:08 pm

      Well no, he’s not making an ass of himself for everyone, only those with half a brain. His “Progressive” base will eat up every word and agree wholeheartedly.

Let’s see…. a woman’s right to choose to either kill her unborn child or let it live is strictly between the woman and her doctor. Meanwhile if a doctor wants to prescribe 5 Vicodin tablets for a broken arm, all government prescription controls, rules, and laws come into play.

    Neo in reply to Anchovy. | July 11, 2018 at 9:58 pm

    If ObamaCare had gotten into full blown glory, it would have threaten Roe v Wade as when the government gets a financial interest, it gets to vote on the outcome.

      Close The Fed in reply to Neo. | July 12, 2018 at 10:32 am

      I tell my clients all the time, we have veterinarian care of people now. Act accordingly.

What’s the name of the condition he suffers from?

    DDsModernLife in reply to windbag. | July 11, 2018 at 9:50 pm

    Chronic diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain.

    Colonel Travis in reply to windbag. | July 12, 2018 at 12:41 am

    Chronic encephalon degringoladism (Karl Marx Disease). His brain shrunk to the size of a chickpea in his 20s. At this stage in his life it doesn’t even show up in a MRI.

    mathewsjw in reply to windbag. | July 12, 2018 at 12:49 am

    Card Carrying Democrat Party Member (honored by Socialist and Commie AntiFa parties)

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to windbag. | July 12, 2018 at 7:46 am

    Recto-cranial inversion.

    cloudbuster1 in reply to windbag. | July 12, 2018 at 8:51 am

    That would be “CMDA”, congenital,malignant, dumb ass.
    Nearing end stages.No known cure.
    What disturbs me, is the intelligence level this is
    aimed at.If a majority of voters think this is reality,
    we are in for a tough future. What this shows about
    the democrat voter base (and the leadership should know),
    is a very sick party.

SeekingRationalThought | July 11, 2018 at 9:32 pm

This is just a “progressive” plot to undermine Limbaugh’s claim that he is right 99+ percent of the time. If you believe that this moron is dumber than his brother Chris, then Limbaugh is wrong that Chris is the Fredo of the Cuomo family. And after this it is very difficult to believe that Chris Cuomo is the dumbest one.

SeekingRationalThought | July 11, 2018 at 9:32 pm

This is just a “progressive” plot to undermine Limbaugh’s claim that he is right 99+ percent of the time. If you believe that this moron is dumber than his brother Chris, then Limbaugh is wrong that Chris is the Fredo of the Cuomo family. And after this it is very difficult to believe that Chris Cuomo is the dumbest one.

Abortion was already legal in NY State when Roe v. Wade was decided, so any overruling of Roe v. Wade should simply leave the old NY statute (under which abortion was legal) still in place.

Am I missing something? Or is Cuomo seriously Crazy for Cocoa Puffs???

With the formation of a coherent nervous system between one and two months, abortion rites are torture and abortion of a wholly innocent human life that has been deemed unworthy of human rights. #HateLovesAbortion

And recycled-child for spare parts, for colorful clumps of cells, for profit. #CecileTheCannibal

There is precedent for sacrificial rites for virginal human lives in Aztec abortion rites for secular causes (e.g. wealth, pleasure, leisure, narcissistic indulgence, and democratic leverage) that predates and may have inspired twentieth century monotonically divergent ideologies and cults that identify with Stork.

That said, unlike one-child, selective-child has been normalized, and like slavery before it, will either require religious reform or civil war to overturn it. Still, the Supreme Court would be forward thinking to acknowledge human evolution, equal — not politically congruent — rights, and overturn the Twilight Amendment that established selective, opportunistic, and politically congruent as laws of the land.

My first thought was sue who? Then I got it, this is just crap to fire up the liberals of NY to vote for him in the upcoming election cause he has their backs when it comes to killing children. This is the usual posing for nothing and to keep the base angry.

He is much better at killing this state than his dad was, that seemed hard to do, but here he is, killing it. Along with looking to preserve killing babies.

Pro-Choice is two choices too late. Arguments for self-defense, and Planned Parenthood futures, have a specific, limited scope that are technically expanded with a layer of privacy, but are rarely tolerated in practice once exposed.

DDsModernLife | July 11, 2018 at 9:44 pm

I have an MP3 file of this nut screaming, “No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer!!” How NY continues to welcome him to suckle the public teat is beyond me. On the other hand, if he had to get a job to keep himself fed and clothed he’d probably starve.

    MajorWood in reply to DDsModernLife. | July 12, 2018 at 1:30 pm

    There are more deer alive in the US today than when the Pilgrims arrived. Drive through PA in the Fall. The highways look like mass murders took place with all the blood splotches. There are airports who have full time deer eradicators on staff to eliminate runway collisions. That guy with the canned .308, he’s part of the custodial staff.

Reproductive rights: To have sex or not to have sex, that is the question. To prevent conception (the “big bang”) and human evolution, is a right. To elect the abortion or to conserve a human life that poses an immediate and irreconcilable risk to the mother’s life, is the choice.

Never fear. He’ll take ut to The Hague. It’s a universal human right. Ask the Saudis.

There’s a reason they call it the “supreme” court…

    clintack in reply to Ragspierre. | July 11, 2018 at 10:36 pm

    Yeah, but he’s from New York. They have strange ideas about what “supreme” means when applied to courts.

      ronk in reply to clintack. | July 12, 2018 at 12:00 am

      actually, in NYS the NY Supreme Court is not the highest state court, that honor is reserved for the NY Court of Appeals

        Milhouse in reply to ronk. | July 12, 2018 at 1:27 am

        Yes, that is exactly what clintack just said. So maybe he’s hoping to take to the rarely-heard-from United States Court of Appeals. Or perhaps to Judge Judy.

Yeah, well, New York, what can you do.

But looking on the positive side, I’d like to use Governor Crackpot’s outrageous display of personal humiliation as an opportunity to thank him for reminding me that 2016 was the




Look, we’re pretty happy about this here in the big apple. Every moment andy spends in front of the cameras making himself look stupid is a moment he can’t be screwing the taxpayers.

Just think about this- he thinks he could be President.

    ss396 in reply to Chicklet. | July 12, 2018 at 8:36 am

    Reminds me of Doug Adams’ observation in “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” that the position of President was not to wield power, but to attract attention away from those who do.

This is the idea! Have the individual States pass their own laws to legalize the killing of unborn babies. This fool/tool runs a State, write a law, get the legislature to pass it, then sign it. I think it’s written down somewhere, try the Law Library.

It makes me wonder what his IQ is.

Can someone please source the exact quote, it’s very close to:

The more your local officials talk about subjects like climate change, the less you can expect in county services like road maintenance, water main repairs, etc.

I need to bookmark the sucker because I apparently will need it alot for these bozos.

amatuerwrangler | July 11, 2018 at 11:39 pm

So. Cynthia Nixon and her campaign staff see this video and even they realize that their opponent is insane. But what to do?

The campaign ads are almost writing themselves: “This guy thinks there is a way to sue the Supreme Court of the United States”. Then they realize that to attack on this front means telling people that there is no way to do that, showing the Gov to be an idiot, and for this appointee to cause the overturn of RvW four additional justices would have to go along with it. And then they might think of how the SC could get a chance to do this… maybe a decade down the road should an appropriate suit to overturn be filed tomorrow… So maybe RvW is not the best vehicle to oppose the confirmation, and the Dems go nuts…

Must be relying upon Judge Watson in Hawaii. Derrick Watson is pretty sure he is the ultimate authority on the law in the whole world, and he sure doesn’t need some damn constitution to tell him what to do.

4th armored div | July 12, 2018 at 12:03 am

the real issue for the pro baby killing machine is id Roe v Wade then the murder lobby will have a hard time getting Planned Parenthood $500M funded by the Feds.

I like the krazy kwote ‘If G-D forbid ……’

Are we…entirely certain…that Chris is “the Fredo” of the Cuomo family?

If Democrats really had wanted to “codify” Roe v. Wade, they would have been spending at least some of the 45 years since it was written passing a constitutional amendment to add it to the Bill of Rights.

If SCotUS overturns Roe v Wade then Democrat Governor Cuomo will Sue until it gets to the SCotUS and WTF…

Democrat’s Insanity is just that INSANE

Cuomo’s not actually stupid enough to believe this. He just figures that if he tells the base, “Sorry. There’s nothing we can do” he’ll lose income – I mean “donations.” So he lies to them.

y’all just don’t understand how this w*rks: all he has to do is get 2/3rds of the State Supreme Courts to counter-rule against SCOTUS, and their opinion is vetoed.

it’s all right there in the Constitution.


Worse than the idiotic remark was how the audience cheered wildly. A normal person would be a little stunned and think what the f is he talking about?

DieJustAsHappy | July 12, 2018 at 6:05 am

Another instance of just when I though I had heard it all. It’s been happening more frequently these days, as certain persons become increasingly unhinged.

In 2010 when Democrats controlled all branches of government, they could have chosen to codify Roe v. Wade into Federal Statute. Perhaps they did not because they want the issue as a cudgel to frighten their gullible base.

“We now need to codify Roe v. Wade, which will actually increase the protections in New York. God forbid they do what they intend to do. I want to get it done before the Supreme Court does that because I don’t want any gaps in a woman’s right to protection.”

    tom_swift in reply to dystopia. | July 12, 2018 at 1:09 pm

    Yes, they need an excuse to whip up hysteria about judicial appointments, which otherwise, if left to themselves, are b o r i n g . And even if the pro-abortion regimen is codified in proper law, they still want Liberal control of the judiciary, because they can never tell when they’ll need to conjure up another emanation of another penumbra. So maintaining a razor’s edge with something like Roe v. Wade in the balance is just good tactics.

Eff mr. CommieO and the horse he rode in on.

mister naturel | July 12, 2018 at 7:52 am

Abortion was legal in New York BEFORE Roe v. Wade

“We now need to codify Roe v. Wade, which will actually increase the protections in New York. God forbid they do what they intend to do.

Actually God forbids abortion.

I’m embarrassed to live in New York. Again. Daily.