So I'm not especially clear on this - how exactly could the Dems have "codified Roe into law" or "pack the courts"? So far as I'm aware for example Roe WAS law - it was an explicit Supreme Court decision that the 14th Amendment made abortion legal and you can't get more codified than that. - ThreadSky

About ThreadSky

saphroneth.bsky.social • 21 days ago

So I'm not especially clear on this - how exactly could the Dems have "codified Roe into law" or "pack the courts"? So far as I'm aware for example Roe WAS law - it was an explicit Supreme Court decision that the 14th Amendment made abortion legal and you can't get more codified than that.

Comments

laughtrack.bsky.social•21 days ago

Pass a law clearly and plainly stating abortion is legal in the US, instead of relying on an interpretation by the Supreme Court that was overturned at the first opportunity. At the very least it would have forced the courts to litigate on the new law, which buys more time.

saphroneth.bsky.social•20 days ago

Which gets overturned on federalism grounds, probably still during the Democratic presidency in question.
More to the point, there's not actually a very significant period of time when this is possible - it's about four months in 2009, the period in which the ACA was hammered out and got through.

saphroneth.bsky.social•20 days ago

Unless your suggestion involves blowing away the filibuster, in which case a Republican congress could of course just reverse it (something they can't do to a Supreme Court decision). And of course the Supreme Court can still negate a codify-Roe law eve if the filibuster is gone.

saphroneth.bsky.social•21 days ago

As for expanding the Supreme Court, it's certainly my understanding that it's... like... a good thing that that's not something you can do with a simple trifecta?

Posting Rules

Be respectful to others
No spam or self-promotion
Stay on topic
Follow Bluesky's terms of service

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply