Let's make miscarriages illegal.

[Felch]

At least they can be held accountable when they screw up.

[Hauldren Collider]

We are talking Congress, right? The same body that likes to cut taxes but not spending and then wonder why the deficit is so big? Yeah, we know the mischief they can get into.

Obviously the Supreme Court should write our tax policy then.

Aren't you supposed to be a lawyer or something?

[MrFun]

What federal law legalizes abortion? I thought it was just a SCOTUS opinion that decided the Constitution protected abortions.

That what I meant by "federal law" - there was no legislative bill.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Obviously the Supreme Court should write our tax policy then.

Aren't you supposed to be a lawyer or something?

It doesn't take a lawyer to realize that Congress not only passes bad bills, but also unconstitutional ones far too often.

[MrFun]

GASP! Say it ain't so, Imran.

[Felch]

So Dred Scott was Constitutional? Or would it be fair to say that both the SCOTUS and the Congress make mistakes, but that the Congress is at least accountable to the people.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You act as if there was no way for Congress and the President to overturn a SCOTUS decision. Your constant references to Dred Scott ignores the subsequent 14th Amendment. And, of course, SCOTUS decisions such as Brown v. Board established rights that we hold as obvious today, but never would have passed through Congress in the era it was decided.

[Felch]

It is tremendously difficult to change the Constitution. Why do you place so much trust in a secretive group of judges who are exempt from many ethical standards? Isn't there a shred of doubt in your mind, given that the 14th Amendment was mocked by the Plessy v. Ferguson case? Oh sure, the Court did the right thing in Brown v. Board, but that was just their way of fixing a problem that they'd created.

It's dangerous to put so much trust and authority in a small, unelected, unaccountable, group of people.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I place trust in them because it appears that they are on the right side of history most of the time.

Constitutionally speaking, Plessy v. Ferguson creates little issues technically. If you note, Brown v. Board really has little law cited.

It's dangerous to put so much trust and authority in a small, unelected, unaccountable, group of people.

Blame the founders. Amend the document if it angers you so.

[Felch]

The original document says, "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

According to that, if Congress passed a law recognizing personhood and legal standing for fetuses, the Court would have to accept it. After all, SCOTUS has jurisdiction, "under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

[DinoDoc]

Blame the founders. Amend the document if it angers you so.

The document doesn't grant the right of judicial review. Neither did the founders. [/pedant]

[Felch]

I figured that would be pretty clear to anybody else who actually read Article 3.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The document doesn't grant the right of judicial review. Neither did the founders. [/pedant]

The founders, aside from Jefferson who wasn't at the Constitutional Convention, didn't bat an eye when Justice Marshall asserted the right. Basically confirming that it was implied that the Supreme Court would be able to have such priviledges considering that it would have to determine whether an action be deemed lawful based on an act or the Constitution if they are at odds and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution would determine Constitution controles. There was parliamentary supremacy in the UK, because there was no written Constitution to compare and contrast the acts of Parliament to.

[Imran Siddiqui]

According to that, if Congress passed a law recognizing personhood and legal standing for fetuses, the Court would have to accept it. After all, SCOTUS has jurisdiction, "under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Which doesn't mean they'd have accept claims made by representatives of the fetuses.

[Felch]

Which doesn't mean they'd have accept claims made by representatives of the fetuses.

Are you saying that nobody would have legal standing to protect the legal rights of the fetus?