I guess that the conservatives on the Court would not have been interested in re-deciding Roe if the Federal Government had indeed banned abortion. So it looks to me like the conservative justices primarily wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade—else why re-deliberate it, I.e. if satisfied with the precedent, why look into it?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 04, 2022 7:13 pmWell, for the very obvious reason that the Feds didn't overstep in all areas...or even in so many. So not everything was up for review. And it was just R v. W's turn...they had since 1973, so they can hardly complain.commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Jul 04, 2022 6:11 pmIf the issue is jurisdiction, then there’s no reason that abortion should be singled out for review.
But now that you mention it, the thing they did immediately afterward is block Biden on the EPA. He's out of his juridiction there, too. But Leftists were so busy screaming about R v. W, they barely noticed that.
So, I think Roe was reviewed because the desire was to permit States to ban abortion. Jurisdiction was the lever that was used to pry abortion away from its protected status. Jurisdiction was the means, abortion was always the end. I still suspect that this is the case, despite what you’ve said here and elsewhere in this thread.
However, when you mentioned that EPA situation, you convinced me that jurisdiction could have been the basis for reviewing Roe.
But one thing that brings me back is that Justice Alito said in effect that the States ought to have jurisdiction over abortion because the people’s elected representatives are the appropriate ones to legislate abortion. That reasoning won’t hold water, because the President, Senators and Congressional Representatives are also the people’s elected representatives.