How is the Supreme Court overruling a case that happened 50 years ago unconstitutional?

[Stoner710]

Karine Jean Pierre said that the overruling of Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court does not have the right to overrule a decision that has already been decided on.

if that is the case then Karina John Pierre should not have gone to school with white kids or Asian kids or Mexican kids I don’t know if you’ve heard of a case called Plessy versus Ferguson but that ruled that you have a constitutional right to have separate but equal schools therefore a little black children should not be going to school with little white children this was a stupid case. Plessy versus Ferguson was overruled by Brown versus board and we got the civil rights movement after that. I don’t know if you remember Eisenhower is sending troops down to Little Rock Arkansas so that nine black students could go to a school that was predominantly white but according to her logic Plessy versus Ferguson should never have been overruled. Is she stupid or does she actually believe that little black kids should not be going to school with little white kids.

[monorprise]

"Plessy versus Ferguson" Simply maintained that there was no Federal constitutional requirement for States to integrate schools that they could if they wanted maintain separate but equal schooling.

This is of course correct, as there is no Federal Constitutional mention of schooling at all much less requirement for how it is run.

Roe v. wade itself along with the earlier ruling on which it was based did in fact reverse 90+ years of contrary Court edicts, executive practice, and written law on the limits of the Federal Constitution.

Like it or not the Federal Constitution was written to limit the Federal government to forign issues, with only very few and very spesfic prohibitions on the domestic governments of the States who all had their own Constitutions.

This idea that the people of one state get to dictate the local laws, values and ideas of the people of anther state in a completely different geographic, economic, and geographic part of the country is setting people against each other for no good reason.

If you want integrated schools, or the right to kill helpless people go live in a state that allows it. Its authoritarian to tell other people in other states who's conditions you don't understand that they MUST live by your values.

[Stoner710]

You’re right so why should California values dictate what Texan values are? This is the same idea of abortion. The 13th 14th and 15th amendment protects people of color. There is no constitutional right to an abortion. If the left wants to play that game then the same logic must apply to Plessy versus Ferguson and brown V board. It doesn’t even matter if you are a fore against abortion I’m a guess abortion personally but There’s no constitutional right that says that the federal government can before I guessed abortion therefore the issue Devalles back to the states and taxes can make abortion completely illegal in California can make abortion completely legal.

[Sixgunsound]

Let’s do the federal Dept. of education next!!!

[monorprise]

@Stoner710
That was the point of Federalism to let We the people maximize our freedom and security via the individual vote of our feet as well as the collective vote of our ballots.

Most politicians tend to run for office because they want to tell other people what to do.
Unfortunately a lot of them politicians tend to have bad ideas that tend to cause people to need or want to flee even if they do manage to make the idea sound good every 2-4 years before implementation and many other people depended upon it thereafter.

The power to vote with the feet allows us to effectively over time check such abuses in allowing such schemes to collapse naturally among the people who choose to remain rather than bring down the entire population held captive to them.

At the same time Good ideas and good Government is overtime rewarded with more people and industry
.
@Sixgunsound
I agree, DOE needs to go, particular having seen how it cripples and corrupts schools.
We actually have some really good tools at our disposal to attack this problem, the main issue however is of course money.
DOE wouldn't mean anything if Congress were not illegally granting soo much federal dollars.

[Sixgunsound]

The existence of DOE is unconstitutional. Education is not mentioned once in the constitution, so it is that a power reserved to the states. As such the existence of a federal DOE should have been ruled unconstitutional under Reagan.

[monorprise]

@Sixgunsound I agree the Federal Department of education is in fact unconstitutional as you said its not in the Federal Constitution.

The hand picked Federal politicians in black robes however are not the only politicians responsible for upholding that Federal Constitution. We have other routs to help bring down this abomination.

That said the DOE's unconstitutional behavior started long before it was organized by carter into a corrupt department.

[OlderAndWiser]

Only someone who is not well versed in the hostory of American jurisprudence would make such a statement. Brown v Board of Education (1954) overruled Plessy v Ferguson (1896) and no one on the left complained. In 1938, in Tompkins v Erie Railroad, SCOTUS overruled Swift v. Tyson, which was decided in 1842. There are other examples.

Courts ALWAYS have the power to overrule earlier decisions when the earlier decisions were either wrongly decided or were correct at the time of the decision but are no longer correct.

[monorprise]

It would be more truthful to simply say Federal politicians in black robes on the Supreme Court are free in practice able to refuse to uphold any past edict or really law they like.

Where the system of Constitutional law breaks down in practice is when they are able to also command the cooperation of the state and Federal executive and legislative branches.

Then instead of simply restoring the people to the natural state of liberty with the nullification of an executive and legislative act.
They actually can make laws oppressive to their rights enforced by the same executive and supported by the same legislative power.

This is what those edicts did, it commanded the elected executive to enforce a particular policy they made on the bench rather than simply refuse to enforce a policy made by the legislator as enforced by the executive.

[OlderAndWiser]

@monorprise I suspect that your level of mistrust places you beyond the ambit of logical discourse.

[monorprise]

@OlderAndWiser After reading more than a Few Supreme court rulings, I think its fairly obvious the question is not what the constitution says its what they choose to say.

I use to think this was simply an issue of them making law from the bench but as I read some of the original founding documents and other events it occurred to me that the real issue is the executive choosing to enforce their edicts.
This doesn't have to happen anymore than it did not happen under Jefferson in Marbury vs Madison or 29 years later when Jackson famously refused to enforce a federal court edict against the State of Georgia.

These are examples of checks and balances upon the court which have all but been abandoned in the century since.

[OlderAndWiser]

@monorprise I am quite certain that you are convinced of your correctness.

[StevieNix]

Karine is quite possibly the dumbest human on the planet. That's why Joe's handlers hired her. Psaki pretended to be dumb, but she needed to get out and be dumb on MSNBC. Abortion is not covered in the constitution. The supreme court upheld the law.

If you want or don't want abortion, then vote. This is a state issue. I don't get how people can be so dense to not get that. Next the wingnuts will want the supreme court to vote on pronouns. The federal government is supposed to be protecting our borders from invasion. How bout we leave these social issues aside, until the federal government can walk and chew gum at the same time?

[Stoner710]

I agree with you completely. I will say since the Civil War the idea of states fries cost is validity. But then again the idea that the federal government gets to control all over her lies loss is validity one Roe v. Wade was passed. So we have to get back to States right our superior to the federal government we have no choice. Or the federal government is going to continue to governor lives and in which case that means Civil War. And frankly not murdering unborn children is something I would go to war against. I don’t expect you to go to war because were supposed to defend you as men and what you believe even if it means against our own countrymen. Stay safe how many kids and I’ll die for your right to have them

[Sixgunsound]

Most low information idiots that just regurgitate what their activist teachers told them about the causes of the Civil War believe it was over slavery. Slavery was an economic issue for the union at the beginning of the war, as it was the engine that powered the confederate economy. It took Lincoln three whole years of loss and failure to realize that he could as a last ditch effort motivate his people by wielding morality as a weapon. The issue that the confederacy actually broke with the union over was states rights versus federal overreach, including but not exclusively economics. The north basically enslaved immigrants in all but physical chains, but kept shouting ‘freedom’ and ‘Murica’ whenever those immigrants started noticing that their lives weren’t really too different at the end of the day than slaves in some cases. First generation Irish and Italian immigrants had it pretty bad but nobody ever talks about that.

[Stoner710]

@Sixgunsound what’s the word Japanese and Chinese immigrants for that matter.

Slavery was part of the Civil War it wasn’t the main issue the main issue was whether or not that bad people over actually people it was actually the northern states that came up with the Three fest compromise and of the salsa so the south didn’t have called more power over the north it was a power game and it’s always been a power game. Unfortunately we’ve gone to the point what’s the anti-federalist brought up that each individual state has become so divided that we can no longer stand each other Texas and Florida can’t stand Washington and California. We’re getting to appointment this country where if we want to stay united we have to be separated and the federal level basically the days for in policy and beyond that every state is this individual policy

[Sixgunsound]

Were actually already a house divided, and this time The factions are so lop sided and unequally armed and trained it won’t be a long war.

[Sixgunsound]

It ultimately doesn’t matter which faction wins to the elites so long as the herd of tax cattle culls itself. An American civil war would just be the culmination of a depopulation program that Bill Gates has had wet dreams about on TV and radio and in print since the mid 1990’s. They (or more likely their children) will emerge from their hiding places a couple decades from now to pick up the pieces and try to wrestle control back from whoever survives.

[Stoner710]

@Sixgunsound true a modern civil war is what the elites want or at the very least a national divorce. Unfortunately we have become so divided that the eventual role of the federal government will foreign-policy and make sure if that states don’t have trade sanctions on each other. We need to get back to a states control there own destiny modal or blood will be shed at this point. The democrats are trying to take Californian policy and force it on states like Texas and Florida. Even DeSantis has told the public schools to ignore the recommendations of the federal government when it comes to transing The kids. (Good for Ron DeSantis). But if it just goes to show the rift between Republicans and democratic growing even wider then before which isn’t good if we want to live in the same Country.

[Avicenna]

A peaceful divorce would be the best-case scenario, but the elites do not want that (control freaks don't).

[Chazmatazz269]

Isn’t it curious how facts don’t care about feelings? Ell oh ell!
Let’s be fair about the hypocrisy standard though. If the rumblings are accurate, there may be challenges to marriage laws in the not too distant future. The conservatives will be all too happy to ignore the US Constitution then, i’m sure.
People only care about the facts when the facts support THEIR narrative. Otherwise, we’re expected to their emotional impulses, or their religious rhetoric, or whatever other nonsense. Willful ignorance has become a useful tool of the power mad.

[Sixgunsound]

It isn’t. Without a specific mention in the constitution, any issue whatsoever is a power reserved to the states. Arguably this makes individual citizens more powerful so I’ll never understand people who get angry with the government giving away power that it unlawfully abrogated. Let’s do education next!

[Stoner710]

Exactly my point. Even Massachusetts has basically suggested as amendment to the Massachusetts constitution that they will support doctors outside of their state and openly fund their defense for those who get an abortion outside their states. This very obviously goes too far and I don’t know how we can live in the same country as Massachusetts at this point blue states like the one I live in will continue To try to push their values on red states like Texas or Florida or Alabama or Arkansas we will no longer be the United States of America will be individual countries. The only thing that’s “left leaning “I agree with is the legalization of marijuana and there’s only one red state that I know of that has marijuana completely legal and has Alaska I’m fine moving up there only state north of me I think it would be harder to get a historian job up there but at the same time it would be worth it so they can smoke my weed and live in a conservative state. Also I love snow and the colt so there’s another benefit better there

[Stoner710]

Cold*

[Sixgunsound]

I was going to say if you love Colt you must have much deeper pockets and I do😆

[Sixgunsound]

Than I do*

[BCA6010]

KJP is an idiot who just spouts off buzzwords she doesn't understand. She also doesn't seem to understand what the overturning actually did, just like much of the pro-life movement that has gotten pathetically complacent in the aftermath.

[anylolone]

Because it was. The supreme court at the time seemed to make goddamn sure to make the worst case possible for roe v. wade.
Besides legislating from the bench which is a problem on itself.

There's better cases to be made for a constitutional regulation on abortion laws, but it was not made in ro v. wade and shouldn't be made by courts.

[Cubus]

There's nothing, even indirect, in US constitution, that says abortion should be legal.

Roe vs Wade was unconstitutional itself as it was violating 10th amendment

[TitsMcGee16]

Karine Jean Pierre is a lesbian that speaks on her behalf. Lesbians and homosexuals are a tiny fraction of the population. They do not have kids and don't like kids and should not bring up kids that other people procreated. So what she thinks is irrelevant.

[Soteris]

While overruling Roe might not be unconstitutional, its very likely that abortion is still covered under the 9th amendment.

[jshm2]

Eh? The court decides and codifies rights and laws. Who else did they think does the rewriting and overruling? The British Monarchy?

[MikeInHawaii]

So, in 1954, the Supreme Court had no right to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson, a 58-year-old decision, with Brown v. Topeka School Board?

[Stoner710]

That’s correct if your using the same logic the democrats are using for the over turning of roe v wade yes. If it was unconstitutional for scotus to over turn roe v wade with adobes v Jackson then it was unconstitutional for scotus to downs plessy v Ferguson with brown v board.

Democrats like this think one standard apply behind door A and a different between door B. But the reality is there is no door A or B where just a door then you have the same standard behind regardless if it’s about race or abortion. Double standards shouldn’t exist

[MikeInHawaii]

“My body, my choice” is my favorite example of Democratic hypocrisy. I wish they supported that level of freedom and autonomy when the issue was anything other than abortion!

[Stoner710]

Right you have to mandate vaccines but when it comes to mothers murdering there unborn children that’s perfectly fine.

[MangoBob]

Its not, they put the decision back in the states purview where it always belonged. The 1973 Supreme Court made an incorrect finding of law that has now been corrected.

[jimmy2]

In our constitution there no mention of that. Just because you say it over and over it is. No it's not

[Guy13]

What you saying now?

[StevieNix]

"How is the Supreme Court overruling a case that happened 50 years ago unconstitutional?"

[Stoner710]

What I’m saying is the press secretary of the White House is saying that is unconstitutional for the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn a supreme court case that codified abortion legal according to the constitution.

My point is if that’s truly the case then Plessy versus Ferguson should not have been overruled by brown versus board. It is literally the same situation except we’re talking about race instead of abortion. I can’t stand that argument

[Guy13]

Got it... It is typical Leftist deception and an dumb-down public indoctrinated and unable to critically think. I'm with you on that one !!!

[Stoner710]

Right? They can never find the logical conclusion to what they support and not realizing that logically conclusion is the most evil thing possible.

For example if giving birth to children is really more dangerous than an abortion then the logical conclusion of that would be sterilize all baby girls form the point of birth in order to save there lives. What’s a course means the entire extinction of the human species but then again the left likes to believe that humans are basically parasites and if humans went extinct in the earth would be better off. Which of course is the most evil logical conclusion ever thought. I mean really do these people not have a functional prefunctional cortex.

[noohair]

She is not very intelligent.

[MrTaboo]

Libs are grasping at straws.

[duttyjamagyal]

No she's just stupid