Say Anything Blog

It hasn’t been tried before because, like social security, abortion is such a hot topic that congress critters are only willing to tinker with it around the edges.  Paul’s resolution is tantamount to jumping into the deep end of a murky pool head first.  I wish that more of our representatives and senators were as outspoken and fearless as Ron Paul but that won’t happen because a) Paul’s district (and the whole of Texas) is rather unique in their support and b) few of us want a congress full people who are as crazy as Paul.

Besides the Supreme Court feels that they can ignore the Constitution whenever they feel it’s in their best interests to do so.

The latest of this example is the Hamdan decision where the law specifically barred the judiciary from hearing cases from detainees held outside of the US.

Apparently the Supreme Court is above petty things like the rule of law.

Not to change the subject but what the Supreme Court should have ruled is that they were barred from a legally binding decision but in their opinion the military tribunals were not authorized by Congress.

---

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

---

So, in effect, Congress can simply tell the federal courts not to hear any case regarding abortion thus negating Roe vs. Wade.  States would be free to institute laws regulating, or even outright banning, abortion with impunity as far as the courts are concerned.

I’m not sure I follow you here. I don’t see how this negates Roe v. Wade. If Congress had done this in 1968 and prevented the Supreme Court from ever making its decision, then it would work; but as is, the Court already rendered its decision--any act by Congress limiting their future jurisdiction of abortion cases does nothing to change their past decisions.

any act by Congress limiting their future jurisdiction of abortion cases does nothing to change their past decisions.

But decisions are not law.  How do you challenge a state law on abortion if federal courts will not hear your case?

---

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

But decisions are not law.

At the time you posted this comment, somewhere in America, a left law school professor blurted out stare decisis and started to cry.

Well, the only way laws are enforced is through the judicial system right?  If you don’t follow the laws, you end up in court.

But if no court has the jurisdiction to hear the case…

---

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs: