Can the SCOTUS actually create new law?

Wouldn’t that case have to involve being denied a certain right?

The case would likely be a challenge to a state law seeking to regulate abortion.

They can’t. What the SCOTUS did with Roe v. Wade was to overturn the legality of State limitation on abortion. Arguably, there was no valid Constitutional basis for that ruling. (The 14th Amendment was Blackmun’s rational, which was so perverse as to be laughable.) What the SCOTUS could do is invalidate that ruling (numerous Constitutional Scolars have called it a legal travesty) which would once again allow States to enact severe limitations on abortion.

Didn’t you take Civics in high school?

No, the Supreme Court could rule that constitutional right to equal protection includes unborn children. Homicide laws would then apply to abortion. That change would be require much less of a stretch that the gyrations the courts have gone through to find abortion rights and same-sex marriage as constitutional rights.

Huh? What does the 9th have to do with Roe vs Wade?
Part of the majority opinion states “The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights.”

If you object to ignoring the 9th amendment then you are on board for overturning Roe.

They could rule that way, sure.

They won’t, though.

The 9th says that just because a right isn’t specifically listed in the constitution doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

I know what it says. It actually means nothing. Does it mean a person has the right to murder someone they don’t like? Does it mean I have the right to take what I want from other people?
There is not a single right that one can say is guaranteed by the 9th

I’d say Roe vs Wade is the linchpin. It “established” abortion as a constitutionally protected right. Casey fine tuned it and got rid of the trimesters.

Yes he did…he turned out to a piece of junk justice.

1 Like

Many constitutional scholars find the right to privacy to be a legal travesty, so no surprise there.

A handful of cases over the last 30+ years, determined by the SCOTUS, made the legal claim that corporations are persons like us, blending the prior distinction of corps being “artificial” persons, into breathing living persons, enjoying the rights dictated in the Bill of Rights and the amendments.

They also concluded, money is equal to speech. Giving wealthy individuals and corps, thru various means, to literally have a lot more speech than the average person.

Hence, why now the legislative and election process is now for sale to the highest bidder.

We are no longer a democracy or republic. We are an oligarchy.

Thanks conservative members of the SCOTUS!

This could be rectified by an amendment, simply stating corporations are not people, and money is not speech.

But that would return us to a democratic republic. Conservatives are generally not in favor of that happening.

Roberts is doing a bang up job deciding in favor of corporations over people, nearly every time.
just as Gorsich is doing now.

You guys fight to get abortion made illegal, as they screw you in every other economic matter.

(FYI, abortion with never be banned. Only safe, legal abortion can be banned)

Have you ever read Blackwell’s ruling? His logic is bizarre and his Constitutional rational non-existent.

At issue is whether abortion is a Constitutional Right, not whether it should be banned or not. That should be decided by the will of the people in each State, not decided for them by the whim of the SCOTUS on highly questionable Constitutional grounds. If Roe v. Wade is ever reversed by the Court, it wil not make abortions illegal, it merely puts that issue back into the hands of the people.

One of the poorest decisions ever written. It was purely political with no legal basis.

If Gorsuch gets his way with Chevron difference then yes…it will be bad…really bad for this nation

I understand that.

If Roe Wade (or Casey) is overturned, and states can decide for themselves,
Safe abortions, performed by professionals, will most likely be banned in those states.

(meaning those with the means will always be able to get an abortion, those w/out the means, are screwed. (pun intended)

Blackmun. The right to privacy is a rational cogent argument. I understand that many disagree with it.

That would be Brown v. Board of Ed. Roe has its basis in the right to privacy.