Pat @Pat@qoto.org

@bibliolater

Everyone needs B12. It's an essential nutrient.

@marcorobotics @peterdrake

SMTP (aka email)

@freemo

I said that no law can grant a right. Not even the Constitution. They can only recognize rights.

Alright, I've given you several examples here, but you don't seem to want to acknowledge them.

I got to go now.

@freemo

Well then, if you say that congress can not pass a law prohibiting states from banning abortions, then why are all the Democrats saying that they need 60 votes to do just that?

There are all kinds of ways that congress can to do this. The question is, what can anybody do to stop them from doing it?

They pass a law that allows abortions in every state, through whatever means. Then what? Nobody can do anything about it. If a state tries to pass a law which contradicts that, the courts will overturn the state law as violating the supremacy clause because fed law supersedes state law.

Done.

@freemo

Jim Crow laws came AFTER the 15th Amendment.

Another completely different approach congress could take would be to tie federal funds to states based on them not passing laws prohibiting abortion. They also do this kind stuff all the time.

They could say that no medicaid funding will go to any state that prohibits abortions.

@freemo

The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act did just that. It prevented states from passing Jim Crow laws.

A similar law can prevent states from passing anti-abortion laws.

@freemo

The supremacy clause of the Constitution does not allow a state to make a law that circumscribes federal law.

@freemo

For example, no doctor who practices OBGYN can deny an abortion to a person when it can be done in a safe manner.

That's just one way to do it.
I really don't understand what you're talking about here. Congress regulates all kinds of stuff. There are literally thousands of federal laws and regulations about how businesses have to conduct themselves. This would just be another one of those laws.

@freemo

The interstate commerce clause gives Congress the power to regulate trade between the states. The Supreme Court has ruled that that provision of the Constitution also gives Congress the power to regulate trade within a state if it could possibly effect interstate commerce. Congress uses this provision of the Constitution and the Supreme Court's interpretation of that clause to do just about all the regulations that it does.

Since abortions in one state can effect the market for abortions in other states, Congress can regulate that. That's what the holding in Wickard said.

They have the power to do it. Lindsey Graham actually tried to introduce a bill in the senate to regulate abortions, which only differed from Roe/Casey by a couple of weeks, but they refused to even take it up.

@freemo

You mean like this, "It is illegal for any state to prohibit abortions."

@freemo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

Rights aren't "granted" by the Constitution, they are *recognized* by the Constitution or by law.

Dobbs overturned Roe saying that SCOTUS could not decide the issue because there was no right in the Constitution to abortion (privacy). In Dobbs, they said the issue should instead be
decided by lawmakers. They literally said that Congress needs to make the decision.

Congress makes lots of laws that recognize rights. Like the Civil Rights Act, for example. They do this all the time.

In this case, they would likely use Wickard v. Filburn or its derivative decisions as precedent for their power to make abortions legal.

@freemo

>"right and they cant. A simple majority is not enough to address roe v wade"

To change the filibuster rule, they use the same process they used when they changed the rule to confirm a justice with a simple majority.

It's a parliamentary procedure where the senate body votes to overrule the decision of the President of the Senate (or whoever is presiding at the time).

Then they can change the filibuster rule with a simple majority. They've done it before.

They are lying when they say they can't and the MSM just plays along with their lies, while misinforming the public about how congress works.

@jkfecke

I think it's clear what I'm talking about. What are you talking about?

@freemo

>"@Pat How ya figure a simple majority would not be enough."

I said, "They can do it with a simple majority."

@barney@mas.to

The reason why they don't want to make abortion legal and settle the issue is because it brings in lots of campaign $$$ and rallies the base on both sides.

(ps - I don't respond to ad hominem attacks)

@barney@mas.to

@barney@mas.to

A lot of Republicans claim to be pro-choice, enough for a majority in each house. Also, the Democrats had a majority in both houses when SCOTUS handed down the Dobbs decision. They could have easily changed it then.

The filibuster rule can be changed with a simple majority. That's how they changed it when they first confirmed a justice with fewer than 60 votes.

#abortion #analysis

Some US senators claim that they need 60 votes to overturn the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision which reversed Roe. They don’t. They can do it with a simple majority.

- None of the justices who voted to overturn Roe got 60 votes in their confirmation hearings when they were appointed to the court.

- If you add up all of the confirmation votes by senators for justices who favored keeping Roe, it totals more votes than those from senators who voted for justices who opposed Roe.

Right now, there are 55 senators who claim to be pro-choice. They could overturn the SCOTUS decision today if they wanted to.

NEWS FLASH: They don’t want to overturn the SCOTUS decision and make abortion legal.

They are lying to you.

- - - - -

Senators voting for SCOTUS nominee at confirmation:

Votes for justices who support Roe
87
78
68
63
total = 296

Votes for justices who oppose Roe
52
58
54
50
52
total = 266

#USPol #corruption #revolution

@gricka

Was she making that much before his was seated to the court?