"I am not joking because you repeatedly express wrong positions."
As in-positions that are in conflict with the constitution? Do elaborate.
#92 | Posted by madbomber
Well, I will just post a few examples:
You think the Supreme Court is going to reverse their position that it is up to the states?
And even if they did, some states have already written the right to an abortion into their state constitutions.
I don't think it would be possible to create a nationwide ban on abortion unless it were carried out through an amendment to the constitution. Which is not gonna happen.
Posted by madbomber
TH: A nationwide ban is as simple as enforcing the Comstock Act. You seem to not understand that federal law is supreme over state law. So an amendment is NOT required to implement a ban.
Next
"IDK, maybe dictating to Congress on how to spend? As in Congress delegated the authority to forgive student loans to the executive branch, but the SC overturned that action."
More like dictating to congress how not to spend, right? In this case, telling the president what he couldn't do with taxpayer dollars. That'd kinda their job.
Posted by madbomber
TH: You completely and utterly mistakes what the Supreme Court's powers are. There sole power is to adjudicate conflicts between parties where an injury has occurred. It is not to dictate to congress how to or not to spend. Nor is it their job to tell the president what he can or can't do with taxpayer dollars. It is Congress' job to tell the Executive Branch how to spend taxpayer dollars. If there is an injured party by the way the president interprets the law, the injured party can seek redress through the Courts.
It is NOT the SC's job to say that the president's acts are not within his authority unless related to a specific injury. no injury no SC role. The MO agency was not injured by the Exec. Branch's actions. THUS THE SC HAD NO AUTHORITY TO ADJUDICATE and say the Executive Branch couldn't forgive loans. All through the process, if Congress did not want Biden to do that, they could have passed a law saying he couldn't. that is why what the SC did was legislating
Next
"Therefore, Congress does not have the authority to tell states that they must allow abortions."
They can. They did. SOCTUS determined that they lacked the authority under the constitution to do so.
So...what's the problem?
Posted by madbomber
TH: Congress did not tell the states to do anything. The SC did not determine they lacked the authority to do so.
These are 3 obvious examples, there are more.