As the stokers of the outrage engine continue to add fuel to the Left's melt-down over the Dobbs ruling (in case you're living under a rock, that's the one that overturned Roe v Wade and returned the matter of regulating abortion to the states), the already-pathetic quality of logic and low signal-to-noise ratio we normally endure in the "town square" has sunk to even more abyssal depths.
The primary reason WHPA doesn't pass, I believe, is there's no constitutional authority for Congress to make abortion law. Sure they could go the interstate commerce route - which THIS SC would reject. They could tilt the privacy windmill, but THIS SC has already rejected that in reviewing Roe. So under what constitutional auspices might Congress pass pro or anti abortion law? There's no legitimate role for the US Congress - it's a states' issue.
And it's for precisely this reason that THIS court will likely hear a challenge to Obergefell and this time decide properly that the definition of marriage belongs among the states and that the court had no proper constitutional authority to undermine the political process.
You know what's funny? I knew 1973, but I got 59 years in my head, and never thought twice about it. Correcting.
As for Congress writing a law - there are a zillion other laws that I'd argue don't pass Constitutional muster, but we have them anyway. If they could, they would, and they'd take their chances with the Court.
That's politics. I still believe that Dems are better served leaving it with the states, though.
I believe we're all better off leaving to the states the impassioned political decisions which aren't circumscribed (or permitted) within the constitution. But a federal abortion "law" would immediately be put on hold by this court and seen, properly, as an end-run around Dobbs. I suspect 35 or more state AGs would jointly request that as affected parties and it would overnight be fast-tracked to the court.
I'm not so sure it would unfold that way - at least the fast-track part. It might, and the Court might take it. Or, the Court might say "we need to let it filter through the appellate process to establish the argument chain. Or, the court might not grant cert at all.
It'd have to be a 10th Amendment argument, no matter what.
And, it'd depend, I'd suggest, on what the law actually says.
My favorite iteration of the "dead cat" aphorism was from my engineering days, when I was on an Air Force job out of a base I shan't name. I was talking with one of my bosses after a meeting with a lieutenant colonel who worked in logistics. My boss observed that he seemed capable but not really a "leader of men." Another of the senior guys then commented that 'you can't swing a dead cat around ___ without hitting a light colonel.'
“Blowing up the system to get a particular result may feel good in the short term, but the damage hurts everyone in the long term.”
This whole piece is excellent!
Roe was decided in 1973 - that's 49 years ago.
The primary reason WHPA doesn't pass, I believe, is there's no constitutional authority for Congress to make abortion law. Sure they could go the interstate commerce route - which THIS SC would reject. They could tilt the privacy windmill, but THIS SC has already rejected that in reviewing Roe. So under what constitutional auspices might Congress pass pro or anti abortion law? There's no legitimate role for the US Congress - it's a states' issue.
And it's for precisely this reason that THIS court will likely hear a challenge to Obergefell and this time decide properly that the definition of marriage belongs among the states and that the court had no proper constitutional authority to undermine the political process.
You know what's funny? I knew 1973, but I got 59 years in my head, and never thought twice about it. Correcting.
As for Congress writing a law - there are a zillion other laws that I'd argue don't pass Constitutional muster, but we have them anyway. If they could, they would, and they'd take their chances with the Court.
That's politics. I still believe that Dems are better served leaving it with the states, though.
I believe we're all better off leaving to the states the impassioned political decisions which aren't circumscribed (or permitted) within the constitution. But a federal abortion "law" would immediately be put on hold by this court and seen, properly, as an end-run around Dobbs. I suspect 35 or more state AGs would jointly request that as affected parties and it would overnight be fast-tracked to the court.
I'm not so sure it would unfold that way - at least the fast-track part. It might, and the Court might take it. Or, the Court might say "we need to let it filter through the appellate process to establish the argument chain. Or, the court might not grant cert at all.
It'd have to be a 10th Amendment argument, no matter what.
And, it'd depend, I'd suggest, on what the law actually says.
This should be put on a billboard in every Democrat run city: "...we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy..."
And this made me laugh and might be my new favorite phrase: "But, you can't swing a dead cat around the political sandbox without hitting hypocrites."
Rules for thee but not for me
My favorite iteration of the "dead cat" aphorism was from my engineering days, when I was on an Air Force job out of a base I shan't name. I was talking with one of my bosses after a meeting with a lieutenant colonel who worked in logistics. My boss observed that he seemed capable but not really a "leader of men." Another of the senior guys then commented that 'you can't swing a dead cat around ___ without hitting a light colonel.'