Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Seeks to Strip the Supreme Court of Its Constitutional Role – Opinion

The left’s vile ferocity regarding Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Unbound by logic or morality, it is not bound by any reality. It is still legal to have abortion in some states. Logic dictates Roe v Wade This was an invalid ruling that should have been rejected. Morality states that maybe, just maybe, an unborn child is just that — namely, a child — warranting full protection under the law. However, this is the modern left we’re talking about, so you can safely dismiss any possibility of any or all of these points in action.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she of dubious reality grasping skills, and fellow Squad pimples on America’s political face have come up with yet another tack they fervently believe will whisk the Supreme Court away. Why, we’ll invoke the Constitution’s Article III! While it is a given the Squad’s collective Constitutional knowledge is less than their knowledge of how to sail the USS Constitution, this latest move demonstrates the frightening lengths today’s Democrats are contemplating to thwart the designed checks and balances the Constitution’s writers assembled to stop such assaults on a constitutional republic’s proper functioning.

Ocasio Cortez posted her appeal to Congress via Twitter.

Let’s at least partially set aside the snark and pursue sober analysis.

The usual hoopla about activist judges starts us off. It’s a bit strange that it comes from the hard left of the aisle.

We write to urge your support for restricting the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction in the areas of abortion, marriage equality, non-procreative intimacy, and contraception. We can do this to ensure that Congress acts in legislative actions to codify these rights and that a new, radical majority of the Court’s justices cannot undermine any protections we enact.

The Supreme Court’s devastating decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)It is unprecedented. For the first time in our nation’s history, the Court rescinded an individual right recognized by our Constitution. In Planned Parenthood in v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court recognized that “overruling Roe’s central holding would not only reach an unjustifiable result under stare decisis principles but would seriously weaken the Court’s capacity to exercise the judicial power and to function as the Supreme Court of a Nation dedicated to the rule of law.”

This is the root of all problems. In this case, the Supreme Court DobbsIt was stated that abortion is not a matter of the Constitution and therefore is state-level. The following quote is from Dobbs decision:

It does not grant the right to abort. RoeAnd Caseyruled invalid and authority to regulate abortion returned to the people, their elected representatives and them.

a) Critical question: Does the Constitution give you the right to get an abortion? Casey’s controlling opinion skipped over that question and reaffirmed RoeOnly on the Basis of stare decisis.Proper application stare decisis,However, it is necessary to assess the strength of each ground. Roeon which it was founded. Therefore, the Court turns its attention to the question of the CaseyThe plurality didn’t consider.

Skip ahead a little:

Guided by the history and tradition that map the essential components of the Nation’s concept of ordered liberty, the Court finds the Fourteenth Amendment clearly does not protect the right to an abortion. The right to an abortion was never recognized in American law until the late 20th century. This right was not recognized by any state constitution. It was only a few short years earlier. Roe,No federal or state court has recognized this right. There has never been a scholarly treatise. Abortion had been considered a criminal offense in all 50 states. The common law considered abortion criminal at any stage of pregnancy. It was also considered illegal and had very serious consequences. American law followed common law through the 1800s, when statutory restrictions increased criminal liability for abortions. Three-quarters (75%) of all the States made abortion illegal at every stage of pregnancy by the time that the Fourteenth Amendment had been adopted. This agreement was maintained until the present day. RoeWas ratified. RoeThis history was either neglected or misunderstood. CaseyRefused to reconsider Roe’s faulty historical analysis.

Somehow, I am more inclined to believe a Supreme Court justice’s law interpretation than that of a bartender with an economics degree. But that’s just me.

The letter next breathlessly declares that Congress can and should strip the Supreme Court of its job duties regarding abortion (or whatever else strikes Congress’ fancy) by invoking the Constitution’s Article III.

The House of Representatives already passed the Women’s Health Protection Act (“WHPA”) last fall to codify the constitutional right to abortion, and if this bill becomes law, we can expect that legal challenges will eventually come before the Supreme Court again. This would put the constitutional right of abortion at further risk. We are concerned by the Court’s dismantling of other statutes duly enacted by Congress, including the Voting Rights Act and the Clean Air Act.

There is a way to block the Supreme Court from reviewing any aspect of the Constitution or Legality of WHPA. It can do this in the next WHPA we adopt. Congress’ authority to limit the Court’s jurisdiction is clear. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution establishes that “the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” Alongside the WHPA, similar provisions must be included in our bills that seek to codify Americans’ fundamental rights to marriage equality, non-procreative intimacy, and contraception.

The first is marriage equality and non-procreative intimate (translation: get rid of the child before it ruin the next date night).), and contraception are not “fundamental rights.” The Constitution does not mention them no matter how hard someone tries to read into the Constitution what they wish to see. Therefore, they fall under the Tenth Amendment’s jurisdiction: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

John Harrison spoke out about this idea in the University of Chicago Law Review a few decades ago.

The traditional meaning of Article III is that Congress has substantial control over federal court jurisdiction. As such, its authority over inferior federal court is as broad as that of the commerce power. As far as Article III goes, Congress can give them any jurisdiction they wish, but not all. If applicable, other constitutional restrictions limit that power just as much as any power Congress has. Congress cannot increase or decrease its original jurisdiction. But it could, subject to Article III limits, give concurrent jurisdiction to the lower federal courts. The congressional power to make exceptions from the Court’s appellate jurisdiction is, in itself, limited only insofar as some limitations might be so large as no longer to constitute exceptions. The exceptions power can be subject to any constitutional restrictions that might apply.

The Squad’s position is very uncertain.

So it is not surprising Ocasio Cortez and his cohorts devised this nude power trap for their evil plans. While this doesn’t stand a chance of getting through even the House, let alone the Senate, it stands as a stark warning that modern liberalism is as drunk on the notion of seizing all power to itself as it is intent on murdering children.

About Post Author

Follow Us