I think you misunderstand the ruling in Roe. It did not address any federal powers re: abortion. The basic issue was that citizens have rights both implicit and explicit, the one in question being a right to personal privacy, and the constitution protects those rights by limiting State power. The Roe decision was essentially a discussion of the balance between that personal right and the the States' interests.
Now, one can disagree about how to weight that right against State interests, or whether "personal privacy" is a even a right at all; but that is the fundamental issue, not "is legislating abortion a state or federal power under the Constitution?"
Last edited by Metaphysicist; 02-04-2017 at 12:38 AM.
The Switch in Time tha Saved Nine was probably the most interesting political drama involving the court since Marbury v Madison. But with the political atmosphere now who knows how such a gambit would play out.
Hence my comment that the Constitution provides little direction as to the legal status of a fetus. It's a question the framers almost certainly never thought about. This lack of guidance would probably lead a full on originalist to defer to the States. Whether that's the right answer is something I don't know.
That being said, the lack of a Constitutional basis for determining the legal status of a fetus means to me that the court should be very constrained in their decisions and resist the urge to be the ultimate word in the debate. Alas it is too late for that.
I think its been angling that way for quite some time. I believe that America finds her to be genuine/smart/able. She will also have at least the next 4 years to be in the spotlight and get more 'known' to America. I don't think it happens in the next 8 years but starting in 2024 I could absolutely see her throw her name into the mix. If Trump is successful then it only increases her chances.
Natural Immunity Croc
Will a Gorsuch appointment make it easier for Kennedy to retire? Link
Bar Association gives Gorsuch its highest rating - link
Should have.
Gorsuch it is, indeed.
Hate that it came to the nuclear option. Makes the next several cycles that more much crucially important for both parties.
I understand the emotional case for the filibuster, but not the political one, nor the basic "norms and good government" case for it.
I didn't support the filibuster and I hated watching it happen, both sides' public statements being notably disingenuous and hypocritical.
Merrick Garland should have had that seat, and it sucks to see the Senate Republicans rewarded for their bad behavior. I think that should be part of any discussion of the subject, but I'm with the simplistic crowd that says "two wrongs don't make a right."
The short-term Senate math makes this look even worse for democrats, though this obviously is going to have implications far beyond that.