So, maybe with some interpretations of jurisdiction stripping, Congress and the POTUS might pass a law saying that the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over cases involving abortion and then pass a law making abortion illegal. Maybe. I am getting a suspicion that maybe jurisdiction stripping could not be used for that little two step dance.
And, if that two step dance could be used, then, sure, it's curious why a Republican Congress would not start to take those two steps. For me, I don't know. And the OP didn't talk about such a dance step either! Mike Huckabee seems highly interested in making abortion illegal, and the OP mentioned two more candidates trying to outlaw abortion even in cases of rape and danger to the mother, but, still, I've heard them say nothing about jurisdiction stripping.
Out'a my depth!
It can; as noted in the article, it's been used in the '90s and '00s, as well as long ago, and for things much more fundamental than a right conjured by the Supremes from the "penumbras" and "emanations" ofother parts of the Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut).
Note that ultimately the Supremes are just a group of 9 men and women (who e.g. all went to the Harvard or Yale Law Schools...). The President, Executive and the Congress can simply ignore them, impeach them, etc., they just can't cut their salaries ("The Judges ... shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.").
then, sure, it's curious why a Republican Congress would not start to take those two steps. For me, I don't know.
Curious indeed; I assume at 0th approximation that the majority of them, if not the vast majority, don't give a damn about what they were ostensibly elected to do.
Or perhaps prefer not being called bad names by the rest of the establishment for doing that, in which case we're a lot closer to understanding Trump's appeal.
In other words, the Supremes and lower Federal courts provide an important political function by allowing politicians in the other two branches of government to claim their hands are tied on a whole bunch of issues where they'd otherwise have to take a real stand and maybe afterwards have to spend more time with their families.
Typo correction: my 9th grade civics class was in 1975, not a few years before the death of William the Conqueror ^_^.
Outlawing it would be horrible for them because it would not only make them lose a major issue (to the voters) to run on, it would also galvanize the opposition. The baby steps met by the courts slapping their hands is the best option for showing the voters 'see, I tried, but the nasty mean courts said no, but if you vote for me again I'll give it another try'.
Of course with so many voters who honestly believe in outlawing it, you will end up with some politicians who honestly want to outlaw it and not just use it to gain votes. But this group never gets large enough to change things in any significant ways.
The only use listed in the '00s in the linked article was an attempted use which was (as identified in the article) unsuccessful, as it was itself struck down as a violation of habeas corpus.
I mean, if the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow that the person behind the Hacker News login name "dragonwriter" could be killed without legal consequence by anyone, would it be constitutional?
Are you absolutely, positively, 100% sure you want no checks on the Federal courts besides impeachment? Perhaps read Livy's history on the period of the Decemvir's tyranny if you still say no.
Sure, any decision can be ignored. But then why even bother with jurisdiction stripping at all?
> I mean, if the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow that the person behind the Hacker News login name "dragonwriter" could be killed without legal consequence by anyone, would it be constitutional?
How is that relevant?
> Are you absolutely, positively, 100% sure you want no checks on the Federal courts besides impeachment?
How is that relevant? Specifically, where have I argued in support of such a proposition? Its like you have a canned rant that you are posting without any relation to the post it is in response to.
