It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Govenor Cuomo Threatens To Sue Supreme Court If Roe vs. Wade Is Overturned

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 11:07 PM

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: shawmanfromny

If Roe vs. Wade is overturned

A big if....then there is always legislation created by Executive Order. (By Governors of States)

Interesting times in the US

so when the Judiciary passes legislation making abortion illegal and the Executive passes legislation making abortion illegal... will the Legislature be expected to enforce these new laws AND try them in court when people violate them?
edit on 11-7-2018 by DanDanDat because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 11:11 PM
a reply to: shawmanfromny

So when it eventually turns out that RvW is found to be an artificial right and the SCOTUS punts it back to the states, whom is CumHoe going to sue, exactly?


Love the Progressive drama lately.

posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 11:28 PM
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Govenor Cuomo of N.Y.Supports the Murdering of Unborn Babies . Geez , did I Read that Right ? ....Hmm...

posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 11:37 PM
Ive been paying attention to this issue, and here are my thoughts:

I see, not just here, but many places, people saying "It wont/cant happen".

Mamy of these were the same people saying Trump wouldnt get the nomination, or that he would never win the election. It seems many never learn from past mistakes.

posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 11:53 PM
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Say that Cuomo could legally sue the SC.if Cuomo wins his case, the SC would appeal and it would move up the court system until the SC hears the case of Cuomo vs the SC.

This doesn't make sense. can you explain in precise manner, or who is above the Supreme Court.

posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 11:59 PM

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
a reply to: Pyle


You have to be trolling.

Say that Cuomo could legally sue the SC.if Cuomo wins his case, the SC would appeal and it would move up the court system until the SC hears the case of Cuomo vs the SC.

Before I got on ATS and other social media, I would have said everyone, including Cuomo could guess how that ruling would go, but know I am going with only about 70%. Not sure if that is funny or sad

I know, right?

It's like politicians believe people don't think anymore. What court would hear the case? How much money do you ask for?

God, I wish people could sue the Supreme Court. They would literally have to go to court every day for the rest of their lives. Except holidays and weekends.

posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 12:05 AM
a reply to: DanDanDat

You nailed it. I think the SC in Roe Vs Wade foresaw the future challenges and allowed an "out" for the States to ultimately decide. In other words returning to the the Founders intentions under the Constitution, that preserves States rights.

your words...
than it will be up to the States to make their own decisions.....

The likely outcome of Roe being over turned is meaningful and lasting comonsen legislation on abortion.

Justice Harry Blackmun, Roe’s wizened author, could not mask his surprise at the reversal of fortune. “All that remained between the promise of Roe and the darkness of the [Webster] plurality was a single, flickering flame,” he wrote in his concurring opinion. But Blackmun also knew the fight over reproductive rights was not over: “I fear for the darkness as four justices anxiously await the single vote necessary to extinguish the light.

Twenty-six years later, the darkness has arrived. President Donald Trump’s nomination to the high court of Brett Kavanaugh, a reliably conservative judge who currently serves on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, will likely end the precarious balance that has protected abortion rights for the last quarter-century. Kennedy occasionally voted to uphold some restrictions in the years that followed Casey, but his presence effectively blocked any outright attempt to overturn Roe.

Kavanaugh has never explicitly said he would vote to overturn the 1973 decision. This isn’t surprising, since judges do not disclose how they would decide cases before they hear them. Nonetheless, he is the product of a concerted effort by the conservative legal movement to build a Supreme Court in its own image. His most prominent opinion on the subject came last year when he dissented from a D.C. Circuit ruling that allowed an undocumented immigrant teenager to obtain an abortion while in federal custody.

If Kavanaugh proves the crucial fifth vote to overturn Roe, there are multiple ways in which the Supreme Court could do so. The Roberts Court has already shown itself willing to overturn major precedents on issues like voting rights and organized labor in recent years. Those rulings provide a map to how the court’s conservative majority rewrites the nation’s understanding of the Constitution—and how it could do so again to eliminate abortion rights.

posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 12:33 AM
As funny as this is and an interesting thought, however here is the reality:

The only way that one could sue the US Supreme court, would be for the court to grant permission for such. Beyond that most states, the legislative branch, the executive branch and the Judicial branch, in short, has immunity from such law suits.

However, there is a remedy and it lies within the constitution, and it is called impeachment, and that can only be done by the House of Reps, and there would have to be good cause for such.

posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 12:49 AM
a reply to: DanDanDat

will the Legislature be expected to enforce these new laws AND try them in court when people violate them?

I think a good example of this is the sanctuary cities; no Feds have dared so far to enforce Fed legislation when the a particular State encourages the flouting of Fed law, by providing a haven for example "undocumented workers".

posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 12:55 AM
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

God, I wish people could sue the Supreme Court. They would literally have to go to court every day

An easier path would be to sue your government under a writ of Mandamus to the do the job they were employed for. Then it would end up back in the SC. LOL

Can you overturn a Supreme Court ruling?
There are three major ways in which a Supreme Court decision can be overturned. If the decision is based on a law that Congress has passed, Congress can simply change the law. The Court sometimes has to rule on how they think laws made by Congress apply to certain cases.

posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 01:47 AM
If I needed any more verification that Cuomo is an absolute idiot (which I didn't), this is it.

Firstly, there is no movement to overturn Roe vs. Wade. None. There is no case moving up through the Federal courts that seeks to do so.

Secondly, one cannot sue a judge, and certainly not a Supreme Court Justice. One can only appeal to a higher court. Which court is higher than the Supreme Court? Does the word "supreme" not exist in his vocabulary?

This is just more antics from a clown in a circus, trying to get the crowd to cheer by doing outrageous things. The real concern is not even Cuomo uttering these idiotic statements, but rather why an entire state would elect the clown to run the circus.


posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 05:24 AM
a reply to: shawmanfromny

What else is new,talk about California being liberal,NY have them beat,that place is where the political criminals live

posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 05:46 AM
the state of grace ats strives for is "deny ignorance" and it is a noble goal
in this case of roe v wade and the CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS of the supreme court we here are SWIMMING and in some cases promoting ignorance.

ok lets deal in FACTS not EMOTIONS.

one...constitutionally the supreme court CANNOT (under CONSTITUTIONAL LAW) make laws and rights .

they are entrusted when a law is challenged to take the law itself, the evidence for and against by the two sides and then COMPARE IT with WHAT IS CURRENTLY written in the constitution at that point.
if it matches it then its legal, if it doesn't its unconstitutional.

they are not supposed to create rights or justify laws out of whole cloth , how they feel, how the public at large feels, ect.

two...if one does not like the ruling then you either change the law to meet constitutional muster , add an amendment , or CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION.

lets take a moment at this juncture to see how this was done in the past."
for example slavery (as sad as it is) was LEGAL under the constitution. So was women not having the right to vote, those born here automatically citizens (14th amendment, get to that in a bit), and federal law could not make alcohol illegal.
In all those cases any law not meeting those established standards was unconstitutional and the justices had no right to rule otherwise.

now when slavery was banned in the constitution , when women got right to vote, and when the 14th was passed laws for slavery were illegal, laws against women voting was illegal, and laws against born here citizens were illegal/unconstitutional...the judges had to rule that way.

now with prohibition it made alcohol federally illegal and constitutional...when it became unpopular no one could pass a law making alcohol legal and it pass constitutional muster.
the court (again if following the constitution) would have to rule that it was unconstitutional.

thus the amendment repealing prohibition.

notice it DID NOT make alcohol legal...just returned the right to the states and some states have dry counties where alcohol is ILLEGAL and it is constitutional.

now on to rove v wade.

if it were repealed it does not make abortion on demand (lets be UP FRONT HERE that is what pro abortionists want, no restrictions what so ever) illegal in any way...
what it does is follow the amendment "any powers not SPECIFICALLY granted to the federal government are relegated TO THE STATES

Each state has to decide for itself though the DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC SYSTEM we enjoy if banned, restrictions, ect.

the court by constitution would rule such laws legal...

Now I have challenged people to SPECIFICALLY show that abortion is a worded specific right...
none has existed unless one twists an amendment to intent it was never ment.

now there is a way to get the right for abortion...MAKE AN AMENDMENT

But lets be honest about the elephant in the room
IF as claimed by pro abortion supporters that abortion on demand was a MAJORITY WANTED RIGHT then they would have done this decades ago.

the cold hard deny ignorance truth is the majority DOES NOT want unrestricted abortion.
some restrictions and even bans (depending on state) is more what the majority wants.

hence the roe v wade LEGISLATION from the bench.

someone made a comment about the 14th amendment having to be changed or another amendment to stop automatic birth citizenship for illegals or non citizens.
actually that ISNT TRUE.
a. even the makers of the amendment openly wrote it was to grant former slaves children citizenship..
b. more importantly HAS NEVER BEEN FULLY CHALLENGED and decided by the supreme court.

to sum it up

roe v wade will not ban abortions, but return the decision to the states.
those who want abortion on demand would have to CONVINCE though legislative means the MAJORITY to go along with it.
if you want abortion as a "RIGHT" then you have to pass an amendment.
the 14th amendment has never been decided one way or the other definitively by the supreme court
Lastly whoever tries to "sue" the supreme court is either a moron or does not want to accept legal facts.


posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 06:33 AM
a reply to: scrounger

I appreciated and agree with everything you've posted, except this:

f it were repealed it does not make abortion on demand (lets be UP FRONT HERE that is what pro abortionists want, no restrictions what so ever) illegal in any way...

This is a false narrative. There are no "pro-abortionists" trying to push Roe V Wade past its viability line, to allow women abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy. That's just FALSE!

Only sociopaths and psychopaths are pro-abortion. Most people you have categorized as pro-abortion are really "pro-choice".

On the other hand, there are plenty of activist pro-lifers who are just fine with forcing women to give birth to unwanted babies, and chipping away at Roe V Wade's viability line and women's rights, toward that forced birth goal.

posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 06:36 AM
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I'll just leave this here...


posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 06:54 AM
Make you a deal Governor, take care of America’s largest straw purchaser of firearms that is in your state to the absolute fullest extent of the law and then you can sue the Supreme Court for the ability to seperate children from the parent by lethal means.

Until then, enjoy a big old cup of STFU.

posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 07:22 AM
a reply to: TheRedneck

What laws have those people enacted or introduced for legislation?

You can find people to advocate for anything, but are your rights threatened by their advocation? Nope.

posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 07:36 AM
Sigh... Sue the Supreme Court. Ummm, okay?

Full looney tunes on display.

posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 07:45 AM
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Hey, you said no one was pro-abortion... I just showed some who are.

The rest is your attempt to put thoughts into my head. I wouldn't do that, really. It's dangerous in there.


posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 08:05 AM
Sweet Jesus. More fearmongering. R vs W is going nowhere. Must be an election year.

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in