A spin off from this thread.
Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution -
Bolding added, since Jefferson didn’t have much by way of fonts to choose from.
So here’s the scenario - GOP Reggie Rightwing has just been elected President, and the GOP has a clear majority in the House and Senate. Reggie is firmly of the opinion that the several states ought to be able to decide for themselves about abortion. He is backed in that opinion by his fellow Republicans in Congress.
Accordingly, the House and Senate pass a bill making an exception - abortion is no longer subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Reggie signs it into law. Almost at once, Utah passes a bill outlawing abortion except in the case of rape, incest, or to save the life (not the health, the life) of the mother. Mormons for Choice immediately sue in state court, and get rebuffed - the Utah State Supreme Court says “nope, perfectly in accord with the Utah state constitution.” MfC then sues in federal court. A local federal judge rules against them, they appeal, the district rules against them.
Mormons for Choice then appeals to the Supreme Court, saying that they are denied their right to privacy or due process or something - essentially “Congress can’t do that”.
Topic for debate: How does the Supreme Court rule, and what would be their justification?
Talk amongst yourselves.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - I don’t particularly care if this would be good for one party or the other, or even if it is a good idea in general, although if you all want to unburden your bosoms on the topic, go ahead. I am more interested in what basis the Supremes would use to rule one way or the other.
PPS - Being a textualist, ISTM that the Constitution says what it says, and no amount of emanations and penumbrae and living document stuff can make the Constitution say “they can’t do that” if it says they can. IANAL.