Nope, the whole point of codifying Roe v Wade into law is to protect it from Supreme Court reversals. As long as it merely stood as a judicial law, or common law, of the land, it could be revoked by the Supreme Court if they chose to review it. By making it statutory, it protects the law from that judicial review. It raises the standard by which the law needs to be reviewed, and how that law has to be approached when reviewing it. A common law can be overturned by a judge or body of judges, whereas a statutory law becomes a legislative object, requiring a governing body to address it. It might seem like it's the same thing, but while legislative bodies are beholden to electors (theoretically anyway), Supreme Court Justices serve lifetime appointments and are beholden to no one. All of these Supreme Court decisions that have not been codified could, theoretically, be up for review by this Supreme Court. That should give anyone pause. Sources: https://www.bu.edu/articles/2021/what-would-it-mean-to-codify-roe-v-wade/ https://www.diffen.com/difference/Common_Law_vs_Statutory_Law
https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/unconstitutional-laws/ Again, the supreme court can declare any federal law unconstitutional once a challenge reaches them, and even if their reasoning is "because fuck you, that's why," there's no legal recourse to overrule that. Remember the Affordable Care Act? The supreme court can also declare that a constitutional amendment stating "everyone's right to an abortion is guaranteed" actually means "female circumcision is mandatory because Jesus said so," and there's no legal recourse to overrule that either.
Regardless if that is so or not, it’s not going to happen. Biden answers to the same bosses as congress. And they want a large population of poor people.
Yes, they can, to a point, however, the bar becomes much higher when it's made into a federal statutory law rather than just common law that can be broken down by the states. By codifying it, you take it from just being an understanding that is upheld by judicial fiat (I kid you not, Roe v Wade has literally been the legal equivalent of "eh, it's fine" in its status as being a law of the land for the past 45 years), common law, and you give it actual resilience through the legislative system. That doesn't mean it can't be overturned, but the bar for doing so is placed much higher. Quite frankly, the Supreme Court needs to be either drastically changed, or tossed on its ass. It mostly exists to work outside of the will of the governed, sometimes for good, but often to maintain the status quo, which isn't usually good for the people at the bottom, the people most affected. Anyhoo, as I mentioned earlier, the Democrats ran on codifying Roe v. Wade as a measure of protection against a simple SC review being able to toss it aside. Instead, they put it on the back burner time and time again, knowing full well that the GOP kept promising to overturn it. There is an out, however: congress can overturn a Supreme Court decision if they enshrine it in a Constitutional amendment. They could make abortion, and health services related to it, a Constitutional right. We've done it before with other rights, we could do it with this one. I don't hold out much for that, but it's something that can be done.
Actually, that is exactly what has happened. That is the only thing that happened with the SCOTUS ruling that took away rights to abortions.
No one’s? This says so much about your posting. This is why you can’t get a girlfriend. You don’t think women are “anybody”.
Yes, We get it. You believe if an 18th century man didn't say you have it then it's not a right Americans have.
I know you think you’re being clever, but you’re actually just showing your ignorance. BTW, you forgot to log out of your FF account and log into your TLS account.
Until yesterday the US Supreme Court disagreed with you. Meaning that under US law a right was recognized that is now no longer a right.
This is true and some states will no doubt codify that right. Maybe the Democrats should try the amendment process for a change instead of relying on activist judges to create legislation out of thin air.
This is why you’re not a real Libertarian. Alito's Abortion Ruling Overturning Roe Is an Insult to the 9th Amendment The Constitution protects many more rights than it mentions, as James Madison explained.
Find a YouTube video with a guy wearing a Cylon helmet reading the article and you might have a chance of making a dent in his thought processes.
As I've said before, it's horrifyingly sad that you think the only rights you and your fellow countrymen have are those set in motion by people born in the early 1700s.
I agree that they could try for a Constitutional amendment. If they want it done the right way, that's the option. But we all know that that will never happen.