American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Macman

So does an executive order over ride a Supreme Court ruling?

I was watching a bit of Biden’s speech yesterday and when he talked about women’s rights I could already hear the other side going off about their rights and guns.

It doesn’t help that the SC is so partisan and political, just another arm of government and not really a neutral SC.

The executive order didn't change anything that the supreme court ruled.

But the supreme court is the final word in deciding if laws are in line with the constitution. So if this executive order is (in their mind) not constitutional, they can make it no longer valid.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well, yeah.

But people like it when their side does it, and hate it when the other side does it.

Or people just have brains and can look at things on a case-by-case basis. Here are the details of the Executive Order:

• Department of Health & Human Services has to submit a report to Biden within 30 days on the matter
• HHS will work to maintain access to contraception/IUDs
• HHS will ramp up outreach and public education on abortion and laws
• White House Counsel and the Attorney General are facilitating pro bono attorneys and organizations to assist people with legal matters relating to abortion.
• Recommendation to improve patient privacy standards and issue new guidance related to HIPAA rules.

How is any of that an overreach of Executive power? Much like most of Biden's work, it's a bunch of fluff that makes it look like they're doing something.

[photon]

An EO doesn't override a SCOTUS ruling no.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Or people just have brains and can look at things on a case-by-case basis. Here are the details of the Executive Order:

• Department of Health & Human Services has to submit a report to Biden within 30 days on the matter
• HHS will work to maintain access to contraception/IUDs
• HHS will ramp up outreach and public education on abortion and laws
• White House Counsel and the Attorney General are facilitating pro bono attorneys and organizations to assist people with legal matters relating to abortion.
• Recommendation to improve patient privacy standards and issue new guidance related to HIPAA rules.

How is any of that an overreach of Executive power? Much like most of Biden's work, it's a bunch of fluff that makes it look like they're doing something.

Yup. Much ado about nothing.

"We care! Super swearsies we do!"

[White Out 403]

i think people are misunderstanding this a little. no one is suggesting an executive action can override a SC ruling. In effect the Supreme Court simply said that legislators need to legislate if you want to protect abortion rights. There's no constitutional right to an abortion now, so, a law must be made. An EO is a sloppy, makeshift law to fill that gap.

edit: and as others have said it appears the measures in the EO are not very meaningful.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Or people just have brains and can look at things on a case-by-case basis. Here are the details of the Executive Order:

• Department of Health & Human Services has to submit a report to Biden within 30 days on the matter
• HHS will work to maintain access to contraception/IUDs
• HHS will ramp up outreach and public education on abortion and laws
• White House Counsel and the Attorney General are facilitating pro bono attorneys and organizations to assist people with legal matters relating to abortion.
• Recommendation to improve patient privacy standards and issue new guidance related to HIPAA rules.

How is any of that an overreach of Executive power? Much like most of Biden's work, it's a bunch of fluff that makes it look like they're doing something.

I wasn't talking about this specifically. I was talking about the idea of the Executive Branch constantly using Executive Orders to do something. It really isn't the proper way things should be done, and to a large extent just continues to let Congress get away with their stupidity.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

i think people are misunderstanding this a little. no one is suggesting an executive action can override a SC ruling. In effect the Supreme Court simply said that legislators need to legislate if you want to protect abortion rights. There's no constitutional right to an abortion now, so, a law must be made. An EO is a sloppy, makeshift law to fill that gap.

edit: and as others have said it appears the measures in the EO are not very meaningful.

The SC basically said that the state legislators need to decide on abortion rights, and removes the federal protection, no?

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Azure

The SC basically said that the state legislators need to decide on abortion rights, and removes the federal protection, no?

I could be completely wrong on this, but the only thing the Supreme Court ruled on was that there is no constitutional rights for an abortion. I don't think they ruled on the specific Federal legislation because there is no federal legislation it's a state issue.

Now what can happen is the government federally can create poison pill scenarios where the states have to abide by certain standards to get funding for things, to comply with executive orders or other federal laws.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Just an absolute charisma vacuum with zero authenticity.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1545536560648560642

It's baffling. She was such a great communicator in Congress, but I guess in those situations, she can prepare. She's been pretty terrible at answering questions.

[photon]

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

I could be completely wrong on this, but the only thing the Supreme Court ruled on was that there is no constitutional rights for an abortion. I don't think they ruled on the specific Federal legislation because there is no federal legislation it's a state issue.

Now what can happen is the government federally can create poison pill scenarios where the states have to abide by certain standards to get funding for things, to comply with executive orders or other federal laws.

You are correct. It's now a state issue. On the flip side, if California passed a law that you could abort a baby 1 minute before birth (making this up), there's nothing the federal government could do about it.

The EO is a ploy for votes. "We're doing something about this and if you vote in 2 more pro-choice senators, we can really do something about it."

They had to do something as they were getting destroyed in public opinion for allowing this to happen. The EO is pulling the wool over someone's eyes.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1545554152176091141

[White Out 403]

i think a federal law protecting abortion would likely find its way to the SC as well. Maybe?

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

i think a federal law protecting abortion would likely find its way to the SC as well. Maybe?

Maybe but I mentioned in a previous post, who would sue all the way to the SC to not have an abortion? If you don't want an abortion, you just don't get one.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Maybe but I mentioned in a previous post, who would sue all the way to the SC to not have an abortion? If you don't want an abortion, you just don't get one.

the states attorneys general would be the ones suing

[Wormius]

She should challenge this ticket all the way to the Supreme Court.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1545613631760506880

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by activeStick

It's baffling. She was such a great communicator in Congress, but I guess in those situations, she can prepare. She's been pretty terrible at answering questions.

She got bounced early in the presidential race because she sucks. I hope they have someone better lined up in 2024.

[rubecube]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...al-court-pick/

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D) called on President Biden during a press conference on Thursday to rescind any decision to nominate Chad Meredith to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

“It’s been plenty of time and by now they should be telling us that it’s going to be rescinded,”#Beshear said.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1545766726717038592

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Wormius

She should challenge this ticket all the way to the Supreme Court.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1545613631760506880

I didn't think HOV rules apply to children though. Maybe it's different in different jurisdictions, but I am pretty sure that in the Vancouver area, the additional passengers have to be licensed drivers.

[oldschoolcalgary]

This is my understanding of the law - of course I am no expert by any stretch either, so I could be completely wrong.

Codifying abortion rights is a non starter. It will pass the House, but never get the 60 votes required in the Senate to become federal legislation.

Ending the filibuster in the Senate to do it cuts both ways - it opens the door for the GOP to push through its legislation on a simple majority.

Even if they somehow pass legislation to codify abortion rights, it will undoubtedly be challenged in court. With the Supreme Court heavily skewed to the right, these laws aren't going stand up.

Individual states may/will codify, like New York and California, but I expect there will be ongoing court challenges - this has been occurring ever since Roe v Wade, but with the anti-abortionists on the other side of things...I don't expect Scotus to favor states rights in this case, even though they used that excuse for reversing Roe v Wade...

[Harry Lime]

Directly attacking the court decision seems to be nothing but more of the same. Use of abortion as a political foil. None of these people care about Americans, only their own power, and being able to use such an effective smokescreen benefits them all. Why would they get rid of it?

If the Dems were serious about abortion, gun rights, or any of these perpetual issues, they would start by altering the makeup of the supreme court or find a way to break the block voting gridlock. But what is in the interest of the majority of Americans is not in the interest of the people in positions of power.