It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Andrew Cuomo draws chuckles with threat to sue Supreme Court over Roe v. Wade: 'Whom would he sue?'
“We now need to codify Roe v. Wade, which will actually increase the protections in New York, God forbid they do what they intend to do, which is overturn Roe v. Wade. I want to get it done before the Supreme Court does that. Because I don’t want any gap in a woman’s right to protection and we have a better legal case when the Supreme Court acts. Because I will sue when the Supreme Court acts, and I want the New York State law in place.”
“It’s too bad [Mr. Cuomo is] not the Governor of a State or something, given that after Roe the legality of abortion will become a matter of State law. The stupid is strong with this one,” wrote “Satirical Gangsta.”
Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced he is proposing to once and for all guarantee a woman’s right to choose in New York by codifying the protections established by the 1973 Roe v. Wade into the state constitution. This would ensure these protections remain in place in New York in the event this decision is overturned, or altered by a new U.S. Supreme Court.
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Cuomo is pushing for a state constitutional amendment. If Roe V Wade is overturned, and there is enough public outcry, Congress can overrule SCOTUS with a constitutional amendment too. They only problem with that is, a constitutional Amendment has to be approve by a majority, or super majority?, of the states.
That's the same problem with the Republican's have with the 14th Amendment, that says right are afforded to "persons born". To turn that around, we need a constitutional amendment, voted in by the states.
July 12, 2018
It’s uncommon for the Supreme Court to overturn one of its own decisions. Precedent is a cosmic force akin to gravity in the American legal system, and the justices generally adhere to the legal principle of stare decisis, a Latin phrase that means “let the decision stand.” Last year, the Government Printing Office identified 235 cases in which the court explicitly reversed a previous decision it had made over the past two centuries. Some of the court’s reversals are more momentous than others, of course. The Casey troika, for example, likened the prospect of overturning Roe to the court’s decision a half-century earlier to demolish the legal architecture of racial segregation in Brown v. Board of Education.
“Whether or not a new social consensus is developing on [abortion], its divisiveness is no less today than in 1973, and pressure to overrule the decision, like pressure to retain it, has grown only more intense,” Kennedy, O’Connor, and Souter wrote in their joint opinion. “A decision to overrule Roe’s essential holding under the existing circumstances would address error, if error there was, at the cost of both profound and unnecessary damage to the Court’s legitimacy, and to the Nation’s commitment to the rule of law.”
originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: shawmanfromny
Also depending on how the SCOTUS rules it could be illegal in all 50 states by default unless specified by law to be legal.