Can the SCOTUS actually create new law?

Isn’t a false notion to state that the SCOTUS can simply make whatever they want legal or illegal? Isn’t the role of Congress to make law? Isn’t the role of the SCOTUS to simply decide if such laws are Constitutional? So how can the SCOTUS make abortion illegal?

Chief Justice John Roberts basically did with Obamacare.

1 Like

Didn’t Congress actually create the law and the Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of it?

This is true. However, I think all the R Vs W hype is unwarranted. I don’t believe it is likely to be overturned or even brought up again by SCOTUS.

At least not in our lifetime I think.

I don’t think it was a US law, but a Texas state law that was rejected by SCOTUS.

What law did Congress make regarding abortion?

What the Supreme Court can do is set precedent, which, in the common law system we have, is essentially law.

The Supreme Court can’t just declare abortion illegal. They could, in theory, choose to hear a case involving state abortion laws (there are always plenty to choose from), and in their ruling, reverse the precedent set by Casey and Roe.

1 Like

Do you see the problem?

1 Like

With a common law system?

If amything, I don’t see it as a problem.

The Supreme Court continually makes new laws. Roe v. Wade and other rulings created new law based on what a majority of justices decided based on alleged rights not found in the constitution. The ruling mandating government recognition of same-sex marriage is another example.

These ruling can be reversed by a similar majority. Reversing Roe v Wade would mean that abortion regulations would return to being a matter for states to decide. Some may ban abortions, others may do nothing.

Roe v. Wade isn’t the controlling case regarding abortion laws anymore. Casey is.

Except with Casey, the majority opinion had already been written Scalia before O’Connor and Kennedy switched their votes and it banned abortion nationally.

You guys are just praying that’s how it’ll work out with nothing to back it up.

The bottom line is that the Constitution is whatever five justices says it is.

The court is not bound by prior rulings, nor by logic about original intent. The amendment process is so cumbersome that the only practical way to reverse a ruling is to appoint a new majority of justices.

What was Casey about specifically?

Isn’t the question regarding abortion whether an unborn child should have Constitutional rights?

Keep fighting that “right to privacy” does not exist fight. Please and in fact the GOP should put it on its platform and use it a test for all court nominees. Then broadcast the hearings on every channel

Yes and that’s why viability is the crux of the matter not conception

Correct and this why we have “the corporations are people” ruling

So ignoring the 9th.