cajunrevenge
Well-known member
What's the big deal about Texas abortion law? Dont you remember when Dems increased the number of justices? Oh wait that was yet another hoax by the fake posters around here.
Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
Did the republicans do that when they had a super majority in 2016-2018?
sturg33
I
It's hilarious this is a talking point... After we just had a dictator as President who could have done exactly that but they didn't
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Did Obama/Biden when they had that same majority for 2 years? If Trump actually wins in 2024, which would be a first, I guarantee you he will add justices. 1000%
striker42
Well-known member
Something is a taboo for everyone. Then the extremes on one side push it. Next the establishment on the other side considers it. Then the first side actually does it. The other side then retaliates and makes it 10 times worse.
That's the story of the political cycles we're in. You're seeing it play out with the filibuster. When one side acts it creates a new floor that the other side can stand on and reach farther.
Most people considered the Republicans to have had control of the court for over 30 years so why would they have packed it. Now it would just be the crazy people who think that Roberts Isn’t conservative enough or in the past that O’Connor or Kennedy weren’t. It would have been like the Democrats deciding to pack the Warren court.
It is an odd way to say it, but obviously Abbott’s statement is more ridiculous here. Maybe he’ll eliminate murder and theft while he’s at it!
The idea that Texas is just going to “solve” rape as the solution to victims having to carry their rapist’s child. Pretty sure we’ve been trying to do that for centuries.
How would you interpret that quote from Abbott?
striker42
Well-known member
Looking at abortion logically, rape shouldn't be much of a factor.
The main argument about a baby conceived from rape is that a woman should not be forced to deal with the consequence of the rape if it can be avoided. That sounds good but it logically doesn't work. Suppose the woman gets a nasty, debilitating STD from the rape and it is discovered that killing another person and using their fresh, healthy spinal fluid will cure the STD. Well not killing that person is forcing the woman to deal with the consequence of a rape when the consequence could be avoided. However, we instantly know this is wrong as the woman dealing with the consequence does not allow her to invade someone else's right to live.
If a fetus is a person with the same rights of personhood as any other, then dealing with the consequence of the rape is not sufficient justification to invade this person's right to live.
Conversely, if a fetus has no rights separate from the mother then rape is an irrelevant argument as restricting the mother's right to personal autonomy is wrong on its own regardless of the how conception took place.
The only place rape should enter into the discussion is if you believe that different rights of the fetus attach at different times. That it slowly gains more rights over the course of the pregnancy. In this gray area where a fetus has some rights but not all rights you get into more of a balancing test. But this isn't really where the arguments about rape generally happen. Usually you're talking about a very early term abortion that abortion advocates say should always be legal and abortion opponents believe is murder.
His baseball site was amazing
his TV shows are pretty good
His political beliefs are trash.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
This Texas abortion thing illustrates how weal Democrats are. They have the Presidency and Congress, federal law supercedes state law. Really can't come up with a counter law? Add suing a person for having an abortion or aiding someone having an abortion to the definition of legal terrorism. Problem solved.
striker42
Well-known member
Not exactly. This is actually a way more complicated question that you might think. The Federal Government is one of enumerated powers. Congress has to be able to point to a specific grant of power in the Constitution in order to be able to pass a law. The Federal Government lacks what is known as "general police powers." These are the powers to regulate the health, safety, welfare, and morals of the population. The general police powers are powers reserved to the States.
Interpreted narrowly, the only way Congress should be able to make a criminal law is if it's a federal issue (e.g. treason, counterfeiting, etc). However, the commerce clause which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce has been interpreted to give Congress the power to pass a lot of criminal laws.
But generally, whether an act is legal or illegal within a state is left to the state. If Congress tried to make something legal across the country you'd get into issues of pre-emption and state sovereignty that make it a very thorny question.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
That depends a lot on the makeup of the Court though. We've already seen the General Welfare clause ridiculously expanded to include nearly whatever DC critters want to control. I'm honestly surprised it wasn't used for abortion yet. I guess they felt secure after Roe.