Why Trump will win in 2024.

[The Grand Nudger]

The clerics on the court don't want that, either, because they wouldn't want blue states to be able to use that authority. They've tipped their hand multiple times on this count as well, handing down rulings that are narrow and not to be taken as precedent. One time only, and just for their good buddies.

[Jehanne]

I am still searching for a modern-day example (say, last 50 years) when SCOTUS has overturned a federal right in favor of a state law denying that right.  I can't find any examples.  I am not saying that it is impossible, but, if Roe v. Wade is codified into federal law as a federal civil right, I do not see how SCOTUS could declare such a law as being unconstitutional and/or an infringement on state rights.  With respect to an individual, how could a state deny an individual right which the United States government, a sovereign power, has granted to that person??

As for Trump, I think that he and his Republican cronies (and, adversaries, too!) would breathe a quite sigh of relief if Roe v. Wade was codified into federal law.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I am still searching for a modern-day example (say, last 50 years) when SCOTUS has overturned a federal right in favor of a state law denying that right.  I can't find any examples.  I am not saying that it is impossible, but, if Roe v. Wade is codified into federal law as a federal civil right, I do not see how SCOTUS could declare such a law as being unconstitutional and/or an infringement on state rights.  With respect to an individual, how could a state deny an individual right which the United States government, a sovereign power, has granted to that person??

As for Trump, I think that he and his Republican cronies (and, adversaries, too!) would breathe a quite sigh of relief if Roe v. Wade was codified into federal law.

As I understand, SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is or is not constitutional. Remember - every single one of Trump’s appointees to the Court said that Roe v Wade was ‘settled law.’ 

The current court doesn’t give a fig for precedent, that much is plain. Simply because a law is federal doesn’t protect it from being overturned.

Boru

[Jehanne]

I am still searching for a modern-day example (say, last 50 years) when SCOTUS has overturned a federal right in favor of a state law denying that right.  I can't find any examples.  I am not saying that it is impossible, but, if Roe v. Wade is codified into federal law as a federal civil right, I do not see how SCOTUS could declare such a law as being unconstitutional and/or an infringement on state rights.  With respect to an individual, how could a state deny an individual right which the United States government, a sovereign power, has granted to that person??

As for Trump, I think that he and his Republican cronies (and, adversaries, too!) would breathe a quite sigh of relief if Roe v. Wade was codified into federal law.

As I understand, SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is or is not constitutional. Remember - every single one of Trump’s appointees to the Court said that Roe v Wade was ‘settled law.’ 

The current court doesn’t give a fig for precedent, that much is plain. Simply because a law is federal doesn’t protect it from being overturned.

Boru

One higher authority is a constitutional amendment; perhaps that is what it will take.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sending us back in search of some republicans willing to vote for bortin babbies - knowing they won't survive their next primary because of religious loons. Another problem we'll probably just have to wait to die out. That's why the nuts flooded courts with young hacks. So that they still have a mechanism to assert antimajoritarian control of our government after they plunge over the demographic cliff. The same demographic cliff that has them trying to whip up neoconfederates for another civil war.

Filth piled on filth until you cant see over the mound or smell past the stench.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This is a distinction without a difference, especially when members of the current court have already made mention of going after Obergefehl. Do you think they'll care whether they're overturning their own case law or an act of Congress?

Excellent example!  If SCOTUS overturns Obergefell, the Respect for Marriage Act would still be the Law of the Land, and, so, some state (say, Arkansas) would need to challenge that.

And that will certainly happen. Many states, my own included, have essentially outlawed abortion rights, and they will not back down.

 And, what would that say about federal powers?  Basically, SCOTUS would be pushing United States case law back to antebellum America, where states were sovereign in their domains.

They are going to o that if they can. That is their political outlook, after all. "States' Rights" may not be about slavery any more, but with SCOTUS being held by hardline conservatives with a stated desire to revisit that case, what makes you think they won't entertain, nay, embrace, a states' rights argument? That is, after all, their touchstone a small Federal Government.

I wish I shared your optimism, but I don't.

I am still searching for a modern-day example (say, last 50 years) when SCOTUS has overturned a federal right in favor of a state law denying that right.  I can't find any examples.  I am not saying that it is impossible, but, if Roe v. Wade is codified into federal law as a federal civil right, I do not see how SCOTUS could declare such a law as being unconstitutional and/or an infringement on state rights.  With respect to an individual, how could a state deny an individual right which the United States government, a sovereign power, has granted to that person??

Congress doesn't have the authority to regulate internal state matters except on federal land inside those states. The Congress may regulate interstate affairs, hence the establishment of the FCC or the FAA.

As for Trump, I think that he and his Republican cronies (and, adversaries, too!) would breathe a quite sigh of relief if Roe v. Wade was codified into federal law.

You may be right. It not only takes them off the hook on this issue, it gives them another cause for fundraising and a continuation of conservative Christian support bases. That doesn't mean the conservatives on SCOTUS, who don't have to run for reelection, will care.

[The Grand Nudger]

Their blowing up roe is a good demonstration that, as you note..being unelected and given lifetime appointments, they don't give a fuck what might be more convenient or safe, even for other nutballs. Gods kingdom, as far as they're concerned, can't wait.

[Jehanne]

Excellent example!  If SCOTUS overturns Obergefell, the Respect for Marriage Act would still be the Law of the Land, and, so, some state (say, Arkansas) would need to challenge that.

And that will certainly happen. Many states, my own included, have essentially outlawed abortion rights, and they will not back down.

 And, what would that say about federal powers?  Basically, SCOTUS would be pushing United States case law back to antebellum America, where states were sovereign in their domains.

They are going to o that if they can. That is their political outlook, after all. "States' Rights" may not be about slavery any more, but with SCOTUS being held by hardline conservatives with a stated desire to revisit that case, what makes you think they won't entertain, nay, embrace, a states' rights argument? That is, after all, their touchstone a small Federal Government.

I wish I shared your optimism, but I don't.

I am still searching for a modern-day example (say, last 50 years) when SCOTUS has overturned a federal right in favor of a state law denying that right.  I can't find any examples.  I am not saying that it is impossible, but, if Roe v. Wade is codified into federal law as a federal civil right, I do not see how SCOTUS could declare such a law as being unconstitutional and/or an infringement on state rights.  With respect to an individual, how could a state deny an individual right which the United States government, a sovereign power, has granted to that person??

Congress doesn't have the authority to regulate internal state matters except on federal land inside those states. The Congress may regulate interstate affairs, hence the establishment of the FCC or the FAA.

As for Trump, I think that he and his Republican cronies (and, adversaries, too!) would breathe a quite sigh of relief if Roe v. Wade was codified into federal law.

You may be right. It not only takes them off the hook on this issue, it gives them another cause for fundraising and a continuation of conservative Christian support bases. That doesn't mean the conservatives on SCOTUS, who don't have to run for reelection, will care.

Amazing response!! Thank you!!!

I am going to continue to search, but, if SCOTUS overturns an individual right granted by federal law in deference to a state law that denies that right, then, new legal ground will be forged, to be sure. Maybe another constitutional amendment following in the footsteps of the 14th will ensue. In any case, I think that SCOTUS has become too powerful, when they can ignore clear precedent in restricting individual human beings private choices.

[The Grand Nudger]

You say if as though they hadn't already? What do think they did when they gutted roe, and who do you think they did it for? Remember that time when they all said that roe was a settled issue and clear precedent so they could sleaze their way into the seats?

Honestly, elections are window dressing. You don't need a majority of congress to get anything done. Just a few guys on the bench. The us may be near the end of our experiment with democracy.

[Jehanne]

Roe v. Wade is not codified at the federal level, and so, SCOTUS overruled themselves and not some federal law.