*face palm*
Well, now I've read the article and the tweet is a hair misleading - they make it sound as though the FBI is just looking to round up protesters or something, just because they attended a BLM protest. Doubly so because they suggest future use to just generically grab everyone who passes too close to an abortion clinic to round them for investigation.
You can't possibly believe this is a bad thing, can you? The alternative is a status quo where outsiders can go onto reservations, commit crimes against the people there, and be immune from both state and tribal prosecution, leaving only the federal government with jurisdiction.
www.npr.org
Well I might be completely wrong here (seriously, if anyone knows more, I would gladly hear it), but I believe it goes that congress makes laws which judges then interpret when determining how to judge someone that is on trial for a crime. Some things are never explicitly written down as laws from congress which leads to situations where judges have to interpret what law there is, and if the ambiguity is big enough it might end up in the supreme court where the result is used as precedent in similar cases. Roe v Wade was such a case, so the books are still open for congress to pass laws ensuring the right to abortion(or limiting access to abortion, wherever congress falls on that issue) on a federal level, and if that law is not in violation with any other law and comes to pass the supreme court will have to make all their judgements going forward with this new law officially on the books.Biden notched gains at summit; returns to turmoil at home
The dissonant realities of President Joe Biden’s second year in office were on display Thursday as he wound up a five-day trip to Europe that highlighted both the key U.S. role in mounting a strong allied response to Vladimir Putin’s aggression and the domestic turmoil that is dragging Biden...www.yahoo.com
Okay someone less cynical explain this to me. Biden wants to undo the filibuster. Sure, it'll never happen, but lets say it does. Then pass abortion rights into law. Sure, it'll never happen, but lets say it does.
So in order to show the Supreme Court, who upholds or strikes down laws as they see fit, who is boss over striking down Abortions rights in law, the Dems are going to...pass a law with abortion rights that now comes under the legal purview of the Supreme Court. A Court that is allowed to strike down laws.
See where Im going with this? What's the strategy here? The Dems have been bringing a knife to a gunfight against the GOP for a generation now, and their response after getting their asses handed to them is to try a different knife? The style of knife was never the issue, the other team has a gun!
That's how they'll justify a federal abortion ban, sure. If it's a federal law the protects abortion, they'll say that the constitution doesn't mention abortion so the Fed's don't have a right to make that law.
State's Rights means state legislatures with zero oversite or accountability to *checks notes* governors, state courts, federal courts, or the general population using state constitutional ballot initiatives.Supreme Court to take on controversial election-law case
At issue is a legal theory that would give state legislatures unfettered authority to set the rules for federal elections, free of supervision by state courts and state constitutions.
Looks like this midterms will be our last free election.
Not unexpected, but still disappointing.Supreme Court to take on controversial election-law case
At issue is a legal theory that would give state legislatures unfettered authority to set the rules for federal elections, free of supervision by state courts and state constitutions.
Looks like this midterms will be our last free election.
Fun fact, the permission to declare a law unconstitutional and strike it down was never actually granted to the supreme court, they just decided that they had the ability to do so when they decided Marbury v. Madison.
Well, that's not quite how it works. SCOTUS can only block a federal or state law if it goes against a positive reference in the Constitution.
That is incorrect. The Supreme Court has decided that it is allowed to negate unconstitutional laws, that was never a power explicitly granted to the court. However, congress is only allowed to legislate on matters permitted by the constitution.
Wouldn't it be great to force a constitutional crisis by suing the Government saying the courts don't have a right to strike down laws, it goes all the way to the supreme court and then asking them all to recuse themselves because they can't judge and rule on their own cases.
from what I've looked up you can't actually sue the Supreme Court. so they have zero checks and balances.
