Panicked Dems Lay Groundwork to Codify Roe, Impeachment of SCOTUS Conservative Justices
“Several conservative Justices, who are in no way accountable to the people, have lied to the Senate, ripped up the Constitution, and defiled precedent and the Court’s reputation,” read a joint statement from Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
As expected, Democrats just lost it in the aftermath of the bombshell report from Politico about the draft majority opinion from the Supreme Court in which Justice Samuel Alito wrote in response to the Mississippi pro-life case currently before the court that “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled.”
While draft opinions are subject to change and no actual ruling has been made (as Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed in a statement Tuesday), as far as Democrats are concerned this is their Code Red Moment to spring into action and in the process willingly and deliberately undermine every single institution in this country in order to try and preserve the so-called “right” to abortion.
Two options they’re laying out on the table to “rectify” the dire (for them) situation are 1) to “codify” Roe v. Wade via Congressional legislation and 2) to accuse conservative Justices including Alito and Brett Kavanaugh of “lying” during their confirmation hearings when they were asked about Roe v. Wade.
Predictably, “LIED” trended on Twitter for a time today in the midst of Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer leading the way on the “lie” line of attack along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:
Several conservative Justices, who are in no way accountable to the people, have lied to the Senate, ripped up the Constitution, and defiled precedent and the Court’s reputation—all at the expense of women who could soon be stripped of bodily autonomy and constitutional rights. pic.twitter.com/0PaVWBD2oz
— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) May 3, 2022
SCHUMER: “This is a dark and disturbing morning for America. … If this report is accurate, the Supreme Court is poised to inflict the greatest restriction of rights in the past 50 years…several of these conservative justices…have lied to the U.S. Senate" pic.twitter.com/xdhAOigvnI
— JM Rieger (@RiegerReport) May 3, 2022
As many Legal Insurrection readers will recall, Schumer also openly threatened the conservative Justices back in March 2020, stating, “You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions!”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren has had several meltdowns since the Politico story broke. In one video clip, Warren was seen being escorted to her vehicle by someone (maybe an aide) who was guiding her by the hand. Warren said in so many words that Congress has the power to ensure “women’s rights” are protected or whatever. In another clip, she’s seen whipping up the frenzied mobs of bitterly angry leftists:
A visibly shaken and angry Senator Elizabeth Warren just spoke in-front of #SCOTUS. @TheNationalNews pic.twitter.com/KzQ2Z0Lg3b
— Willy Lowry (@willy_lowry) May 3, 2022
I am angry because an extremist Supreme Court thinks they can impose their extremist views on all of the women of this country and they are wrong.
I have seen the world where abortion is illegal. We’re not going back—not now, not ever. pic.twitter.com/5lE8rCQz5U
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) May 3, 2022
Rep. Ted Lieu gleefully amplified a tweet from CNN “journalist” Jim Sciutto in trying to make it look like Justice Alito “LIED … UNDER OATH” in his previous statements to the Senate:
Justice Alito LIED during his confirmation hearing about #RoeVWade. Why? Because he may not have been confirmed if he told the truth.
You cannot square his prior testimony UNDER OATH with the aggressive and arrogant language of his draft opinion overruling settled precedent. https://t.co/yJY1ZfTC9I
— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) May 3, 2022
Twice-failed candidate for President Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist who caucuses with Democrats, demanded Congress act to “codify” Roe v. Wade “NOW” and if they couldn’t, pushed to end the filibuster so Democrats could get their way:
Congress must pass legislation that codifies Roe v. Wade as the law of the land in this country NOW. And if there aren’t 60 votes in the Senate to do it, and there are not, we must end the filibuster to pass it with 50 votes.
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) May 3, 2022
At least one “Republican” Senator – Susan Collins – is sounding an awful lot like Schumer on the “lying” thing, too:
Asked if she was mislead by Kavanaugh, Collins told us: “My statement speaks for itself”
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) May 3, 2022
Naturally, where the “lying” accusations lead to are impeachment hearings, which CNN eagerly pointed out in this segment:
CNN's @VictorBlackwell asks @JohnKasich if the solution to Roe being overturned is "Impeachment" (doesn't specify of whom).
Kasich laughs, "What do you mean?" pic.twitter.com/M7MsXsnnhW
— Bill D'Agostino (@Banned_Bill) May 3, 2022
Gaming out the two scenarios above, Democrats don’t have and won’t get 60 votes to “codify” abortion rights into law. And if what Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema said Tuesday is a reliable indicator, the likelihood that the filibuster is going away is slim to none.
As far as impeachment hearings for the conservative Justices go, Democrats would have to prove the Justices lied, which would be a tall order because Alito and the others were deliberately vague not to mention cautious in their wording as Supreme Court nominees typically have been when asked about Roe v. Wade.
Also, I’m pretty sure not a single Republican Senator is interested whatsoever in hearing any accusations about “lying” SCOTUS nominees considering Ketanji Brown Jackson lied when she said she couldn’t define what a woman was.
But beyond that, Democrats going this route would absolutely rip this country apart and would cause irreparable harm to the Senate and the SCOTUS confirmation process, which may ultimately be what they want but they won’t like it when the shoe is on the other foot.
And if we’re talking about actual lies here, the only ones that matter to the many conservatives who are hopeful that the draft majority opinion overruling Roe v. Wade and putting the issue back to the states will be how things ultimately turn out are these:
The woman behind Roe v. Wade, Norma McCorvery, was a severely depressed drug addict on her 3rd pregnancy by 21. She was taken advantage of by lawyers, paid $500,000 to say what they wanted, lied about being raped, and never even attended a single hearing on the case.
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) May 3, 2022
Never forget that, and the fact that over 62 million unborn babies have been aborted in this country since Roe v. Wade was decided.
— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The way the left behaves over abortion is sickening. I’ll never understand this murderous fervor. They are intellectually inconsistent and morally defective.
They scream autonomy!!11!!!1! except not for masks, or the right to bear arms, or truly free speech, etc. That’s bad autonomy. Good autonomy is having sex with no consequences. And if there are consequences, it’s not a human being, it’s a clump of cells that must be destroyed. Dehumanize the human. The left must do this, otherwise it runs into problems they do not want to face. At their core they are cowards and tyrants, and they cannot get what they want without messy force.
You can’t understand it until you realize it really is honest to goodness demonic child sacrifice.
There is way more to it than a choice.
Someone is making tons of dinero off fetal tissue.
It is always money.
A couple of senators admitted that they had private conferences with judicial candidates in their private offices which is at least secretive and sneaky
The Left are self-hating nihilists. Once you understand that all of their actions make sense. The Left lead miserable, empty, meaningless lives (by their own claims that there is nothing but the physical universe and that is just a random happening, itself) and they want all of us normal people to pay for their having ever been born.
I’m not making myself clear. I used to be on the left (or thought I was). I know what they are about, and I don’t think American leftism is about nihilism. For example, in abortion they find meaning. Look at how they behave when it’s in jeopardy.
But knowing is not the same as fully understanding. I know they have contempt for people in general. What I cannot comprehend is how that must feel. I am not wired to rule with an iron fist. I know it happens. It is abhorrent to me.
I cannot ever know what it feels like to want to destroy the unborn. Also, it’s not like we’re dealing with a few people who think – I don’t want a kid. Or, yeah, I had an abortion, maybe I thought it was the right decision for me at the time, but now I’m feeling some guilt about that life that never got to live. No. It is a widespread lust to kill millions upon millions. When a significant part of the citizenry demands that killing becomes a “right”, you have upended our entire moral code.
This is scary as hell because it goes back to what I said before. They dehumanize the human. That perverted POV does not stop with only abortion. When you classify a person who disagrees with you, or interferes with your progression through life, as an inhuman other, it becomes easier to destroy that “other” by any means available.
I also like that we are now talking about women’s rights all of a sudden. I thought men could become pregnant, too? Where are the cheerleaders to pregnant men’s abortion rights?
They are not just self hating, they hate everyone, themselves most of all.
Hello Colonel! Schumer is worried about liars. Really, Chuckie? How about a little truth from you about how men are men and women are women? Colonel, I hope all is well in Texas. Scott kicked me off PLB so all you have seen of me is upvoting! Hope we can have dinner sometime.
VH, Memphis
It seems to me that any state law attempting to legalize abortion would be challenged in court as unconstitutional because it denies the right to life spelled out plainly in that document.
Every freaking left judge had lied,Every. Freaking. One…
For example, when Sotomayor described herself as “wise.”
“For example, when Sotomayor described herself as “wise.””
That wasn’t a lie, it was a typo. “s” is right next to “d” on the keyboard.
+10
Sotomayor said at her hearing that the Second Amendment was settled by *Heller* and later voted with a minority to overturn it.
It’s not lying for a judicial candidate to say that they believe in the principle of stare decisis, and then later vote to overturn a precedent. Most lawyers and judges understand and respect the need for stability and constancy in the law. But sometimes it becomes obvious that a precedent was wrongly decided, and that it cannot be allowed to stand, in the interests of fairness. Sometimes judicial correctness must override judicial constancy. Roe v. Wade is a perfect example. It is a terrible case, as even rabid pro-abortion activists like the late Ruth Ginsburg admitted. It has proven itself to be hopelessly unworkable, both legally and scientifically. It led to a whole body of other confusing, often contradictory abortion rulings. It was undisguised judicial legislating, and poorly-done legislating at that, and it has long needed to be overturned. It’s just a shame that it took nearly 50 years to finally get a majority to do it.
Office interviews are not under oath nor hopefully recorded.
F-k the left and RINOs too!
So the d/prog don’t want to have the electorate of each State make their own judgment. Instead they seem to want to nuke the legislative filibuster (not gonna happen) to have Congress pass a national statute ensuring by Roe. Then what? The next r POTUS, HoR and Senate will repeal it. Then the next d/prog Congress and POTUS passes it again….and back and forth ad infinitum.
Stupid, divisive and destructive. This is the best opportunity to embrace a reinvigorated Federalism. That might lower the temp in our political discourse. People could vote with their feet and choose the State wth the law and culture that best reflects their values and beliefs. The alternative is unremitting conflict.
I’m looking forward to the Dems classifying abortion as interstate commerce to justify federal legislation sanctifying it.
Ouch,
Once upon a time I would have laughed at how ridiculous that idea was. Not anymore.
It’s not ridiculous at all. An interstate market exists for it, which Congress is clearly authorized to regulate; under current commerce clause doctrine that gives it the power to regulate the entire market for it, even within each state, and even when it is provided pro bono.
That would let Congress either ban abortion nationwide, or forbid states from banning it.
Sure, just like Congress could regulate Amazon, or Twitter, or Facebook, or voter ID, etc., etc., but so far at least, they haven’t dared because they care more about retaining their seats.
Congress could have attempted to codify abortion at any time, but they haven’t. Why? Because they weren’t feeling suicidal. Which puts lie to the left’s claims that “the majority of Americans support abortion”. If the majority really felt that way it would be law already.
So yes, the notion that the congressional left could scrape up enough cojones to try used to be far-fetched. But who knows these days,
“but so far at least, they haven’t dared”
No? Why do you think you’re suddenly paying sales tax on out-of-state Internet purchases?
They didn’t try it because they didn’t need to, and because the numbers have never been there for it and still aren’t. Not unless the senate abolishes the filibuster, and perhaps not even then. And that’s after nearly 50 years; until recently a majority of congress was, or at least gave lip service to, anti-abortion. Hence the Hyde amendment kept getting passed every year.
If the harpies sat and took time to pick off lice they might come to the realization that abortion codified into state law actually secures that so called right more than a court decision. When Roe was before the court I don’t believe that states that had more liberal abortion laws were not in danger of those laws being nullified by the court.
If memory serves it was existing abortion providers who really wanted to see abortion expanded by the court’s decision. They knew that $$$$ was to be made.
Before Roe there was no support for a federal law banning abortion. But Roe created a strong pro-life movement, so now there is considerable sentiment that would support such a law. It won’t happen any time soon, there’s not enough support yet, but it’s at least now a realistic possibility for the intermediate future. Pro-abortionists should worry that in ten years it might happen. Maybe they should start work now on having the commerce clause doctrine overturned.
If the electorate of each State can make its own decisions, leftist policies will be limited to a handful of states on the coasts, MN and IL. While rational people can disagree on various policies, when taken as a collective, d/prog ideas are failures. Voters know it. If it hadn’t been for the false accusations over two years about Trump/Russia, the media and those in the administration actively working against Trump on the first year of pandemic response, we would not be in this situation. Just about all of this traces back to Obama and Hillary.
More than a handful but a pretty good proxy for what we might call reality based governing on the right v wish casting governing on the left would be the twin issues of defund LEO and elimination of bail requirements. Overlay CRT/equity agenda being pushed from the State level on top and one can rapidly identify which State govt still profess to serve the desires of voters v which State govt serve interest groups and ideology instead of voters.
“to have Congress pass a national statute ensuring by Roe. Then what? The next r POTUS, HoR and Senate will repeal it.”
Obamacare should have taught you better.
Once an entitlement is passed, it never, ever, ever goes away.
Is there a correspondence school issuing doctorates somewhere????
The fact that conservatives are clapping like seals at the prospect of five unelected unanswerable officials revoking a constitutional right that has been repeatedly reaffirmed is truly dumbfounding.
Juris Doctor🤡…lol..yah sure🤣
Anyway do tell EXACTLY where this “right” you speak of is actually written of it the Constitution….I’ll wait
I wasn’t aware that there was a big second amendment case before the court these days.
Or are you clapping your flippers about some other constitutional right? (A real one, not a made-up fake one.)
Repeatedly reaffirmed by other unelected unanswerable officials.
Sad to see that it is now going to be settled by state legislatures, elected answerable officials,
I honestly don’t understand why people bother replying to this obvious troll at this point. All he does is spew mindless talking points.
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
And that’s the end of it. If the SCOTUS actually rules in the manner of the released (leaked) document then it simply returns the decisions over abortion back to the states where it should have always been. And those elected state officials will deal with the matter as they see fit answerable to the citizens of the state that elected them.
“Juris Doctor” is working overtime at the marxist desk.
The only thing lower than a cold call sales person is an employee of the marxists attempting to persuade people that baby killing is a constitutional right.
Dude give it a rest. If abortion was a constitutional right then Roe wouldn’t have been necessary to create it out of whole cloth
Tell you what how about you spend the same energy defending actual enumerated rights like the right to keep and bear arms?
Oh, don’t worry cupcake, we cheered when 100% of republicans and only 22% of democrats voted for the 13th amendment. You see, they understood Black people were being denied rights that were their birthright. That’s not the case with Roe. That was a “right” invented by the court because the majority wanted abortion to be legal. There was never any constitutional basis for it.
PSST hey, Juris Doctor: maybe if you type this dumb argument for a 566,484,753rd time it will finally make it stronger. I think that’s what they teach in law school, right? I don’t know. All I remember is when I took Get Off My Lawn 201 as an undergrad I thought law school would be for me, but I never bothered. Maybe I should have. I could have comments as amazing as yours.
“they teach in law school”
It wouldn’t know. It only has one job, put the supervisors talking points in every comment.
“…five unelected unanswerable officials revoking a constitutional right…”
Someone enlighten me. Wasn’t it “five* unelected unanswerable officials” that found a right that didn’t exist for the prior couple hundred years? Or is it that they are only “unelected unanswerable officials” when the ruling is not one you like?
*yea,yea, seven
Of which right do you speak? I never read anything about murdering your offspring in the constitution.
You mean the “right” that a woman could kill her child for privacy reasons?
The one that was ‘discovered’ by 7 other unelected, unanswerable officials?
The one that has never been reaffirmed because it has never been directly challenged, until now.
You’re a bit of a twit, aren’t you.
Five unelected unanswerable officials undoing the damage inflicted on this country when seven unelected unanswerable officials who created a bogus right out of thin air and imposed it nationwide 49 years ago isn’t only something to applaud. It’s long overdue.
This is one of the stupider takes I’ve seen on this topic, and it’s widespread. The SCOTUS has overturned prior SCOTUS precedents over 200 times in our history. What the SCOTUS gives, the SCOTUS has the power to take away. Especially a crap decision. Even pro-abort RBG knew it was wrongly decided.
https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit
“Those more acquainted with Ginsburg and her thoughtful, nuanced approach to difficult legal questions were not surprised, however, to hear her say just the opposite, that Roe was a faulty decision. For Ginsburg, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion was too far-reaching and too sweeping, and it gave anti-abortion rights activists a very tangible target to rally against in the four decades since.
Ginsburg and Professor Geoffrey Stone, a longtime scholar of reproductive rights and constitutional law, spoke for 90 minutes before a capacity crowd in the Law School auditorium on May 11 on “Roe v. Wade at 40.”
“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.”
Do you not understand what the word “constitutional” means? Where did you get your law degree, from a Holiday Inn Express?
It’s depressing enough that repulsive shrews like Warren and Schumer live high on the hog contributing absolutely nothing of value to humanity and on the backs of productive, working people. Then we have to be reminded that they remain in their positions of wealth and power because brainless, abject morons like you are around stealing oxygen and gleefully putting like idiots like them back into power year after year. You and they are lower than ass cancer.
What’s truly dumbfounding is that you could come up with such a self-refuting line. This purported “constitutional right” was “repeatedly” (how many times? two? three?) upheld only by the same five unelected unanswerable officials. Now their successors are hopefully about to decide differently.
Office interviews are not under oath nor hopefully recorded.
The left, meaning Democrats exist to destroy. If they can’t own it to destroy it, they will undermine it and destroy it.
Alito has been on the bench for how long, and the Ds are only now figuring out that he “lied” during his confirmation?
Give me a break.
The Dems are doing what they do best; lying. Alito wrote an opinion on the 3rd Circuit Court concurring in part and dissenting in part when it largely upheld 4 of 5 provisions of a new law that Planned Parenthood alleged to be unconstitutional. The five provisions of the law covered informed consent (the woman had to be informed of specific information by her doctor, wait 24hrs, then sign the form) Spousal notification (again she had to sign a form saying she had informed her spouse if married), Parental consent from at least one parent if the girl seeking the abortion was a minor, the abortion was needed due to a “Medical Emergency” and the law defined what constituted a medical emergency, and finally the law imposed increased record keeping and reporting requirements on abortion clinics.
The 3rd circuit court upheld four of the five provisions, throwing out the spousal notification requirement on the notion it might subject the woman to spousal abuse.
Alito would have upheld all five.
It’s not like his views on abortion weren’t well known when he was nominated for the SCOTUS. He never met an abortion restriction he didn’t like.
Where do the America-hating dems think that Congress even has the power to make national laws concerning abortion? They claim that it is in the Constitution (which it obviously is NOT) but if that were true then it is a Constitutional prerogative and Congress would have no power to change it one way or another.
LOL. What a bunch of morons.
Of course, we know that the dems don’t care about the Constitution or the Rule of Law, in the least.
BTW, Lie-awatha should have been arrested for having trampled those poor, defenseless flowers in that huff.
Exactly. If the Supreme Court can’t find the power to ban abortion in the Constitution for themselves, how the heck are they going to find the power for Congress to do it? Spending Clause? Interstate Commerce Clause? Etc.
That makes no sense. The supreme court has no legislative power. Congress does. If the supreme court decides Roe was wrongly decided, there is no constitutional ban on states banning abortion; but Congress can legislate such a ban. At least until and unless the supreme court takes the radical step of throwing out its commerce clause doctrine, which would probably invalidate the majority of federal laws made in the last 85 years.
“Warren said in so many words that Congress has the power to ensure “women’s rights” are protected or whatever.”
Okay, Granny, but first things first. Please answer, What is a woman.
Chuck Schumer accusing somebody else of lying — that’s rich.
Not to mention Pelosi griping about other people ripping up… anything.
Progs. Puh-lease! The whole lot of them need to experience pain.
Clapping wildly!
Senator Schumer, you are the worst example of a human being in my lifetime. Quite frankly you could give Charlie Manson lessons on degenerate behavior. Please for the sake of humanity take a walk down to a subway platform in NYC without security. You would be doing the rest of humanity a favor. And if you don’t… GFY!!!
He’d probably be fine on the subway, just as millions of people are every day, including me.
Yeah but people know who schumer is.
First of all, most people don’t know who he is. Second, of those who do, most of them like him. The risk on the subway is from crazy people, and they haven’t got a clue who he is.
When Kavanaugh was confirmed, didn’t Schumer admit that removing the filibuster was a big mistake?
Now he is doubling down on stupid?
They (dems) never see past their own avarice. They think they will rule in perpetuity.
I had a couple lawyer buddies that were convinced that they wouldn’t actually try to filibuster Gorsuch because he was so far beyond objectionable.
I told them that the Democrats were just that stupid and shortsighted.
I was proven right.
If there is no right to abortion in the constitution. If deciding if abortion is legal or illegal is not a power given to congress in the constitution, but is instead left to the states to decide by the 10th amendment, then how can congress pass a law-making abortion legal across the US? What am I missing?
As with Covid, we are back to states’ possessing general police powers, and the Congress ginning up some rationale that allows it to pre-empt them. Interstate commerce is the usual standby. Gotta make sure that fetal tissue, unlike Kyle Rittenhouse, can cross state lines.
Twilight Amendment or “emanations from penumbras”, The Twilight Fringe, the faith of the nominally “secular” Pro-Choice “ethical” religion of the Progressive Church, Corporation, Clinic, etc., social justification not limited to the wicked solution for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes. One step forward, two steps backward.
You’re missing the fact that Democrat voters are, in the mass, so putrescently stupid that they are certain this decision “makes abortion illegal nationwide.”
And their masters are carefully not correcting them.
You’re missing the commerce clause, which as it has been interpreted for most of the past century, and especially since Raich, lets Congress do almost anything. There is very little that doesn’t count as interstate commerce. Even the VAWA was reauthorized with a rationale showing a nexus to interstate commerce, and has not been overturned.
Except of course you’re overlooking that fact that conservative and libertarian judges have been chafing at the bit to take a another look at overbroad interpretations of the commerce clause, particularly Raich, for years.
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/03/could-congress-ban-abortion-nationwide-if-roe-gets-overruled/
“…Would such laws be constitutional? I have written about this issue twice before (see here and here). The bottom line is that current Supreme Court precedent likely would enable Congress to ban most, if not all, abortions if it wanted to. That’s because the Court has endorsed a ridiculously broad interpretation of Congress’ powers to regulate interstate commerce. But that precedent might be pared back, thanks in part to that unlikely champion of abortion rights, Clarence Thomas….”
As the author notes, he’s writing his article from the perspective of sweeping abortion bans on abortion, but the same arguments apply equally to a sweeping federal law enforcing abortion-on-demand nationwide on all the states. And ironically the left would only have themselves to blame.
Still writing from the perspective of a nationwide abortion ban:
“Attacking Raich and other ultra-broad Commerce Clause precedents may go against the grain for some left-of-center abortions rights advocates. But immigration advocates have made a similar shift in sanctuary cities cases (with great success), and the pro-choice legal community could follow their example. For some pro-choicers – myself very much included! – the possibility that reducing Commerce Clause authority would weaken the War on Drugs would be a feature, not a bug.”
It would be ironic if the same federalism arguments the left made to protect sanctuary cities from federal attempts to legislate them out of existence were used to protect state abortion restrictions from federal attempts to legislate those out of existence.
I don’t see these hordes of judges wanting to overturn the commerce clause doctrine. Thomas would do it in a heartbeat, but who else? If they did that probably half of federal law would become invalid.
And, that would be bad?
It would be wonderful. But other than Thomas, I can’t think of any justice who would contemplate such a radical move.
I can, Milhouse, simply because anyone who tries to impose a nationwide abortion law, either imposing it on the states or banning it nationwide, isn’t making a commercial argument. We all know they’re making a statement about what should or shouldn’t be a right. We now have 50 years of proof of that. On the other hand, to perform an abortion one will have to use instruments, supplies, ultrasound machines, the construction materials that were used to construct the abortion clinic, etc., etc., that touch upon interstate commerce.
But now you’ve just made an argument that the Commerce Clause abolishes federalism. Pot is legal in Colorado. It’s not in neighboring Nebraska. But now Nebraska has a problem with high college students causing accidents on the interstate.
So, what policy preference should Congress impose? Force Nebraska and the other states that haven’t legalized pot to make it legal on the theory that if they weren’t such prudes Nebraska wouldn’t have a problem as the college kids could just go to the head shop two blocks away?
Gun laws. The Gun Control Act of 1968 permits states to allow private purchases exchanges (gifts as well as private sales) without having to be processed through the National Instant Check System (NICS). States like Texas, Louisiana, South Carolina, etc., permit these sales/gifts. New York doesn’t. Kali doesn’t. Illinois doesn’t. Firearms, the component parts, the raw materials to make the component parts, the office supplies, the raw materials to build the factories, etc., etc.,
So, does the Commerce Clause allow New York, California, Illinois, etc., through their Congressional delegations to ride roughshod over the GCA of 1968 and impose their gun laws nationwide?
On the other hand, The Firearm Owner Protection Act of 1986 states that if I travel with a firearm that is legal in my home state and legal in my destination state I can expeditiously travel through states where my arsenal is illegal.
This isn’t a hypothetical. A hunter is flying from Florida to Maine on a non-stop flight to go bear hunting. Handgun hunting is legal in Maine. The hunter has a scoped .480 Ruger Super Redhawk in her checked luggage, which is perfectly legal.
The aircraft has an issue and has to land in Newark or La Guardia. It’s the middle of the night. All passengers must pick up their luggage at the carousel. Through the vagaries of interstate commerce as soon as the hunter picks up her bag she’s an instant felon as she isn’t licensed in New York or New Jersey to possess a handgun.
I linked to the article I chose for a reason. Because #OrangeManBad leftists in sanctuary states discovered the glories of federalism. And judges, not just Clarence Thomas, bought their federalist arguments. You know, the states being the laboratories of democracy and all that. And the judges who bought those arguments weren’t being persuaded by Clarence Thomas but their enmity toward #OrangeManBad. But still, the precedents are there.
For 50 years the left has argued that abortion is a right because of the 14th Amendment. I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that the judiciary doesn’t have to go along with the charade that Congress can now impose abortion is a right because of the Commerce Clause. They are not making a substantive argument about commerce.
So, can a coalition of states through their congressional delegations using the Commerce Clause force their more liberal gun laws on states like Kali, New York, Illinois, etc.?
Sorry, I was editing my comment and left an artifact. But still, I need to emphasize that states like New York and Illinois claim to have a “gun violence” problem because other states don’t have their “common sense gun safety laws” (their euphemism for gun control).
Apparently, their crime is out of control because it isn’t as hard to get a handgun in El Paso or San Antonio as it is in Chicago or NYC. This is right up there with the claim that your Wuhan virus vaccine that protects you won’t work unless I’m vaxxed (Your umbrella won’t protect you from the rain unless I’m using an umbrella). Guns that don’t cause the same problems in Texas all of a sudden get a mind of their own in Illinois.
Would they substantively be making a Commerce Clause argument when they try to impose their gun laws on Texas? The same ones that don’t work in Illinois?
Fortunately, #OrangeManBad is the gift that keeps on giving. Courts decided that the mean tweets of candidate #OrangeManBad meant that President #OrangeManBad couldn’t do what would be legal for anybody else. For instance, #OrangeManBad tried to ban travel from seven Muslim majority countries. The courts ruled that his travel bans were illegal because his statements as a candidate meant he was doing so because he hated Muslims. Even though he was using the list of problematic countries that had been flagged during the Obama administration. And even though even the plaintiffs suing over the travel restrictions admitted that had Hillary! won the election and had she as President taken the same actions then those restrictions would have been legal under the President’s statutory authority deny entry to all or any class of aliens for national security reasons. But #OrangeManBad had bad ulterior motives.
I don’t think it’s just Clarence Thomas who can be persuaded that Congress can’t use the Commerce Clause to render another part of the Constitution, the 10th Amendment, and indeed the entire concept of federalism and the separation of powers a dead letter.
Norma McCorvery has since become a staunch pro-life advocate. Not even Roe supports Roe v Wade.
Poor Norma, a confused lady who was used by the lefties, did turn pro-life later in her life, but even that change had its complications for her.
She passed 5 years ago, February, 2017.
I believe I read that she flip-flopped at least once more before her death.
A confused, vacillating, incompetent “crazy white chick.”
The poetically perfect poster girl for this whole sordid campaign.
I believe her. I think there’s a lot of normal, obvious stuff that she has no idea about – which is why she doesn’t belong on the court, at all. I doubt that she could give reasonable definitions of much of any words.
I’m waiting for her to start playing the race card. Then Clarence Thomas will step in and set her right.
She already played the Biology card.
Incorrectly, as the left is anti-biology. The left thinks you need to be a sociologist to determine what a “woman” is, not a biologist.
The Farangi creature’s quip about biologists was the opposite of what she intended to convey.
Getting rid of the filibuster for confirmations worked so well that the D’s are going to make impeachment routine. I’m sure that will turn out well.
Oh, now you’ve hit my waitaminnit button. I’m a firm believer that many politicians need to be impeached brutally and often. Just think of how many of them committed incidents ranging from perjury to treason in the last 30 years, and how many of them experienced a single day of punishment for any of them. I think we need more inventive ways to punish politicians, not fewer.
Boy they do get wee wee’d up don”t. And speaking of that, if Schumer and Pelosi were on fire (they will be in the hereafter) and standing in front of me while I was holding a bucket of “wee” I would not throw it on either one them.
I however am more merciful. So merciful that my concerns about spontaneous human combustion would make dumping that bucket of “wee” right over their heads a righteous act to keep the flames from erupting. If either of them play the drums two buckets would be necessary.
There isn’t an open right to elective abortion for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes. Why do progressive liberals restrict women’s rites and Choice?
That said, there is an exquisite symmetry between a baby’s… our first heartbeat, a coherent nervous system (correlated with consciousness) at six weeks, and granny’s viability. Denying the former in planned parenthood, and denying the latter in planned parent/hood in several Democrat districts (e.g. Whitmer/Michigan, Cuomo/New York) paves a progressive path and grade. Abortion rites are a wicked solution, a final solution to a purportedly hard problem. Deja vu.
I just saw a report that a pro abortion/antifa March in LA has turned violent.
Should be a great mid term election strategy to have riots across the country and leftists storming statehouses or attacking conservative politicians, candidates and their supporters.
That is bound to be a great way to sway independent and Hispanic voters to support Democratic candidates.
OMG!
It’s an insurrection!!
My thought when I saw Antifa doing an pro-abortion riot was that they didn’t have a dog in this fight but were just trying to exercise their call-tree to keep it updated.
Time to start calling them thespians and frauds.
Honestly at this point in time I’d almost support some kind or mechanism to recall/depose SCOTUS justices since I feel it’d almost certainly do less damage than the alternative.
Now hear me out: Of course this is not the system as intended by the Founders, who wished SCOTUS to be an intentionally undemocratic aspect of the Federal system, able to ride above the waves of public opinion to issue rulings on the merits of the law. Thing is: When was the last time we actually had that? Moreover, I really, REALLY doubt the Framers intended some massive power grab like Marbury v. Madison.
Of course this system could be very easily abused with each incoming administration doing what it can to remove the sitting justices. But frankly the staggering incompetence and dishonesty of many SCOTUS appointees (like Brown and Sotomayor) as well as the lack of accountability or checks on the abuses of the Court. We also know that the supposed apolitical aloofness is at best incomplete and at worst a farce, especially under our current Chief Justice, particularly given the punting of the 2020 State Lawsuits.
We also know the Left loves abusing SCOTUS as a kind of Super-Legislative that can override the wishes of the Legislative (making our Congress even more impotent and ineffectual than it already was).
So frankly at this point I think it might be the lesser evil, or at least COULD be a useful medium term corrective to show the left the problems of this. Because frankly turning SCOTUS into yet another Monkey-rodeo that fluctuates with the changing electoral tides might be better than what we have now.
“recall/depose SCOTUS justices”
Good idea, after the next election, then we can get rid liberals.
Exactly my point. After all, does anybody doubt they wish to do the reverse to us?
The only check and balance on SCOTUS remains the ability to impeach them. And yes, the Left sees SCOTUS as an alternative legislature, one that takes much less effort to flip and can be much more sensitive to the mob.
Precisely. The problem is that it is a check and balance that has not been used much, which is how we get legal ogres like Sotomayor and Brown around. People antithetical to the Constitution and its values. We need to play by this part of their rule book and clean house.
The very reason the Democrats try and pin their agenda onto Judge nomination to be used later, but to a CRT Judge nomination we can’t even get the meaning of woman from.
Human life to Leftists is meaningless, they slaughter hundreds of millions and don’t care.
The way I see it, the dems are rubbing their hands with glee. This is their path to keeping power. This is the rallying cry to get out the vote. I’m sure they can’t believe their luck. Kind of like when the PRC released that little virus which took down PDT.
Even if you were correct (which I don’t think you are) that is not an argument against this. If we can’t reverse Roe for fear of losing the next election, then what is the point of winning elections?
The Dumb-o-crats are utterly vile and insane. Biological adults possessing the emotional maturity and intellectual depth of toddlers. Narcissists and obnoxious totalitarians, to the core.
Their latest episode of vindictiveness, contrived outrage and unhinged histrionics is contemptible — all because a manifestly wrongly-decided SCOTUS decision that was the exclusive product of judicial arrogance, narcissism and fiat, is going to place the abortion question back where it properly belonged — at the state level, for citizens to express and exert their influence at the local level.
Each side is trying to make itself more unattractive than the other, as far as I can tell.
The right move for the right is pass state laws codifying the status quo, preparatory to finding the point of majority support for an abortion cutoff. Not to march in and say no more abortion for you, which guarantees voting you out, with more than half the population against you where they could be for you.
States already have already passed laws regarding abortion. Roughly 20 have updated post Roe laws that will go into effect upon Roe being overturned; aka trigger laws.
The State level is, IMO, the correct place for abortion to be decided. Each State has its own culture, history, demographics which shape it and make it unique. Let’s allow the laboratories of democracy to function and use the opportunity to move back to a system of Federalism.
I agree, and generally such states with a fallback are blue states. The trouble is with red states going for banning all abortions, making that the November election issue instead of legislating status quo. Republicans aren’t as monolithic on abortion as they imagine.
Neither are the d. As I recall the polling:
Oppose abortion
3rd trimester – 80%+ all voters
2nd trimester – 55% ish all voters
1st trimester -35% ish all voters
The reversal of Roe/Casey in order to rule in favor of the Mississippi law in Dobbs actually reflects the current national opinion. Recall that the MS law doesn’t ban all abortion, it bans abortion after 15 weeks which is another way of saying two weeks ish into the 2nd trimester.
IMO, once the hysterical claims being made by some that all abortions are banned as a result of this case die down as the facts come out then most people, if the polling is correct, will be ok with the decision. Especially when they understand that the State they live in can opt to be a bit less restrictive. IOW they will come to realize it ain’t the end of the world despite the hype.
Seeing your little chart there, I wonder how much the Overton Window has affected it since this whole brouhaha began over 50 years ago? I wonder how the chart would have read back then? I suspect the chart you have now is simply a case of “anything that isn’t the status quo is worse,” like the globular warmening maniacs assume.
The states that will ban abortion are those where the majority support such a ban, which is why they elect legislatures that would enact one.
am not familiar with all the technical/constitutional nuances of the roe decision but appears to be the opinion of many who ARE familiar with the same that roe was poorly construed/decided and should be changed–isn’t that near the fundamental purpose of scotus?–to me, the damning things about ketanjee even being considered remain 1) ” the next candidate for the sc will be a black woman.”(sic) is so fundamentally racist it’s beyond the pale and then, of course, the nominee(presumably an adult and a female) cannot even manage to define what a “woman” happens to be–come on
regardless, kudos to alito for having the courage to do his duty
The chances of impeachment are slim to none. This is the woke world at work which demands the abolition of any institution and the silencing of any individual who question their agenda
An answer by a judge in a confirmation committee hearing that he or she would respect stare decisis or Roe as precedent is hardly inconsistent with the well documented rule that stare decisis and precedent is etched in stone forever,. The woke left respects stare decisis and precedent when it suits their purposes
Supreme Court justices, like everyone else in government, are required to defend the Constitution. That is what the Senate hearings are about. It is the Senate that creates bear traps in their questioning by asking how judges would rule on a specific issue. That is why nominees give carefully worded vague answers. Otherwise, they could just force the nominees to fill out a questionnaire whose answers would tie their hands for life. SCOTUS is not politically accountable to Congress beyond. They are duty-bound to rulings that defend the Constitution.
Schumer is such a slimy piece of human garbage.
Politics actively selects for the sociopathic.
I wish I could make all Americans say this three times upon waking every day, until they accept it as the fact of nature that it is.
Looks like the Democrats are finally realizing the gap in separation of powers with respect to the Judiciary. When it comes to law, the Congress is checked by the Executive veto and the EV is checked by overriding. The executive power is checked by the Congress with the power of the purse, and the power of the purse is checked by the Executive not enforcing laws.
But the Judiciary? The only check is the nomination and consent process. Both of these are prior to any judiciary opinion — nothing can be checked or reversed after the fact.
If Democrats were smart, they would propose a post-opinion check on SCOTUS rulings. A two thirds majority reversal signed by the President. That is the way is ought to be and, I suspect, something that would not shock the Framers.
SCOTUS Justices can be impeached. When Schumer (for example) makes his threats against the members that is what he is threatening.
“But the Judiciary? The only check is the nomination and consent process.”
Huh? The Judiciary checks the Legislative by mooting laws as unconstitutional, and checks the Executive by mooting executive orders and regulations as unconstitutional or outside delegated authority.
Hmm, no. SCOTUS rulings can be checked by overriding them through creation of new, and clarification of existing laws.
Including the constitution, difficult though that may be to achieve.
The checks and balances are already in place.
The essence of the opinion is that there is no federal right to abortion. Not surprising due to the 10th Amendment and the fact that the leftist court in Roe found the “right” in the white space. So abortion regulation returns to “the states and the people” where it belongs. The Democrat push for a federal law is tyrannical because such a law would be just as unconstitutional as the court’s Roe diktat.
No, it wouldn’t. Roe says, incorrectly, that states may not ban abortion. Overturning it will mean that they may, unless forbidden by a valid federal statute. At least under current commerce clause doctrine Congress can squeeze almost anything under that. If Congress can ban marijuana intended for personal use or free distribution within one state, it can ban abortion, or it can forbid states from banning abortion, as it chooses, on the grounds that an interstate market exists for such services.
Congress could pass a law making outright bans illegal AND states could pass laws making abortion on demand difficult to get for life style choices? The State hasn’t banned it, so no federal statue is broken or what ever the legal thingymebob is!
Under current commerce clause doctrine Congress can regulate abortion any way it likes, either to make it harder or easier, to ban it or preserve it. So states could try to get around Congress’s regulation, and Congress could tighten its regulations to prevent that. Congress could, if it liked, enact the current Roe/Casey regime as a statute, and that would preserve the status quo and prevent states from doing anything that would put an undue burden on abortion, including the things you suggest. Then the next congress could go the other way and ban it nationwide.
The marijuana ban wasn’t imposed under the commerce clause, it was imposed under the treaty power.
There was a movement around the time of Ike (the Bricker Amendment) to codify by “clarifying” constitutional amendment that the fedguv could not impose a law or regulation under a treaty agreement that it could not have otherwise enacted as domestic law under its own delegated powers. It was violently opposed by the Swamp and globalist interests, and never got a foothold.
As the old saying goes, when they put you in handcuffs, it’s because they’re going to do something to you that you would never let them do if you weren’t in handcuffs.
That’s not what anyone, on either side, said in Raich. I read that decision and the whole point of both sides was about whether the interstate commerce clause could apply to a product for which there was no legal market, and was not in fact being marketed or crossing state lines. The majority said it could.
They passed the Civil Rights Act at the federal level. They can pass an Abortion Rights Act, if they have the votes. At least a federal statute concerning abortion, whatever its faults one way or the other, would help eliminate this endless Roe v. Wade litmus test nonsense trotted out at every damn Supreme Court confirmation hearing.
It strikes me that these people can say what ever they want because they know what was said I’m these meetings will never be made public.
I would think any self respecting nominee would have answered any question about any case being reiterated that they would have to wait to see what the arguments are and that it would be imprudent to prejudge any case before its actually made.
I am infuriated that Schumer & Pelosi are undermining confidence in the Supreme Court. They are true scum, trying to increase their own power at the expense of the third branch of goverment. I’m sure these two Nazis believe there is little use of the Executive or Judicial arms of government. Congress can handle anything necessary. (I used the term Nazi because their actions demonstrate an apetite fior centralized, dictatorial power. I am ashamed that they are Americans, and horrified that they are members of Congress.)