'The Strange Case Of Justice Alito'

[Chris]

I would have to think about the constitutionality of it. There's no political will for it.

Agree on the lack of political will, especially when the Democrats are so extreme in their bill.

To me, Dobbs said there is no federal constitutional power to regulate abortion.

[RMNIXON]

Alito did have the right because it was bad unconstitutional law to begin with. Popularity and public activism has nothing to do with the Job of SCOTUS.

[FindersKeepers]

Not in your lifetime or mine.

Unless you're on the verge of keeling over, I'm guessing we'll both be around to see it.

[Peter1469]

Agree on the lack of political will, especially when the Democrats are so extreme in their bill.

To me, Dobbs said there is no federal constitutional power to regulate abortion.

Didn't it say there was no SCOTUS power to regulate abortion? We would need Congress to pass a law and it be challenged for the issue to arise.

[Chris]

Didn't it say there was no SCOTUS power to regulate abortion? We would need Congress to pass a law and it be challenged for the issue to arise.

Could be, but Dobbs returned the issue not to Congress but to the States. And where does the Constitution grant such power?

[Chris]

Congress Can’t ‘Codify Roe v. Wade’

...The Constitution is silent on abortion, as the Supreme Court held last month in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. But it speaks clearly about the limits on congressional power. The most recent version of the Women’s Health Protection Act doesn’t cite any source of congressional authority, but earlier versions pointed to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and Article I’s Commerce Clause.

Both are dead ends. Section 5 gives Congress the power to enforce the 14th Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. But in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the court emphasized that Section 5 wouldn’t permit Congress to alter the 14th Amendment’s substance. The court found that Section 5 wouldn’t permit Congress to impose on states the Religious Freedom Restoration Act’s rigorous test for regulations infringing on religious exercise.

The same rationale precludes Congress from using Section 5 to breathe life back into Roe. In overturning Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the justices held that the Due Process Clause doesn’t guarantee women the right to choose abortion. Dobbs effectively foreclosed Equal Protection challenges to abortion restrictions as well. Thus, with regard to abortion, the Constitution leaves the states with the same broad discretion they have to regulate other aspects of medical practice. Congress can’t use Section 5 to change that.

The Commerce Clause likewise is of no avail. To be sure, the court has interpreted Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce broadly. The justices have upheld, among other things, federal regulation of the price of milk produced and sold exclusively within a single state and restrictions on the production of wheat for a farmer’s own use.

But the Commerce Clause has limits. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), five justices determined that Congress can’t use its commerce power to compel individuals to engage in commerce. Congress similarly can’t force a state to allow a healthcare provider to offer abortion services on congressional terms. In the License Tax Cases (1866), the court emphasized that “the power to authorize a business within a State is plainly repugnant to the exclusive power of the State over the same subject.” States get to decide whether and to what extent they permit abortion within their borders.

In Linder v. U.S. (1925)....

[Cletus]

The problem with Roe was that it wasn't too constitutional to begin with, but you make a good point about the Justices who said they wouldn't overturn it and then did. Did they have a change of heart? Or, did they flat-out lie? Maybe a combination of both.

Neither.

When the case was presented to them, it became their responsibility to examine the issue and rule on it based on their findings. That is what they do. It is their job.

All these people who say they committed perjury because they recognized it as "decided" are either clueless or malicious liars. I suspect most are both stump stupid and evil. There is not such animal as "settled law". Any law can be challenged and if the arguments in support of that challenge reveal flaws in the law, it can be overturned.

That is what happened with Roe. The initial finding half a century ago was flawed and this Court examined it and corrected that mistake.
Everyone should be thankful that the Court found in favor of the Constitution instead of the will of the mob.

[Peter1469]

Could be, but Dobbs returned the issue not to Congress but to the States. And where does the Constitution grant such power?

Yes, the Court returned to the pre-Roe status quo- the states.

They said nothing about what they would say if they were faced with a case concerning federal legislation. Congress would have to first pass a law, then it be challenged and make it to SCOTUS for them to opine on that.

[LWW]

"If confirmed to the D.C. Circuit, I would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully. That would be binding precedent of the court. It's been decided by the Supreme Court." Brett Kavanaugh

Please explain how the DC CIRCUIT COURT has the legal jurisdiction to override the SCOTUS.

[LWW]

We have a SCOTUS full of perjurers today, I will be tactful and not mention Thomas and Kavanaugh's misdeeds. So then how did America get a court of fools. Partly it was Trump, elect a dishonest person and you get dishonest choices. But oddly Alito told the truth and they still confirmed him thinking of course that others had more compassion and dignity. Never assume is a golden rule.

"Prescient commentary on Justice Alito's 2006 confirmation hearings, arguing that Democrats did not press Alito nearly hard enough on matters of civil rights. "If he had revealed the opinions he actually holds about what rights the Constitution protects, he might well have been defeated". That said, Alito did tell Congress that he "expressly reserved the right to vote to overrule Roe v. Wade""

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/200...f-judge-alito/

"If confirmed to the D.C. Circuit, I would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully. That would be binding precedent of the court. It's been decided by the Supreme Court." Brett Kavanaugh

Why the bogus quote?

Although accurate, not sure if it is exact, but he did not say this ... or anything similar ... in his SCOTUS confirmation hearings. The quote is from his 2006 hearings for appointment to the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT COURT.

You seem to be, like most leftists, confused by what 'STARE DECISIS' actually means.

In my never-ending quest to help them out, stress decisions most assuredly does not mean that the decision can never be reversed.

What it means is that a lower court is obliged to rule by the prior decisions of a higher court.

IOW it means that a lower court cannot overrule a higher court's decision ... it does not mean that a prior decision is inviolable.

To believe otherwise means one believes that decisions such as BROWN vs BOARD OF EDUCATION and DRED SCOTT vs SANDFORD should stand ... which would return 'SEPARATE BUT EQUAL' racial school segregation and that people of color had no rights which the white race must respect.

Are those your standards? Or, are you merely parroting the party talking points?