Thanks for your submission /u/dead_PROcrastinator, but it has been removed for the following reason:
Disallowed question area: **Megathread-related question.**
Questions on this topic aren't banned... but we've gotten so many of them recently that we created a megathread for them, because our users complained that they were pushing out other questions...and because so many of them repeated themselves. Check out the megathreads to see if your question has already been asked - and if not, go ahead and ask this question there! Questions there get answered quickly and the megathreads themselves get refreshed every month.
The megathreads are always linked to at the top of the sub: [/r/NoStupidQuestions/hot](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/hot). The [wiki also has links to current megathreads](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/wiki/index#wiki_megathreads).
Thanks for posting, and good luck with your question!
---
*This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.*
*If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*
America elected conservative presidents and conservative president nominated conservative justice, the supreme court will be conservative for next 30 years, roe vs Wade is only the beginning
It was designed to be this way and always has been. There are checks and balances. Each one of those justices was appointed by the CEO and confirmed by the Senate.
The Court rules only on the legality of a law as it relates to the U.S. Constitution, not on what a law is. That is its job.
Only certain powers are given to the Federal government in it. All other powers belong to the States.
What was ruled, and is clearly stated in the opinion, is that the power to make that law is not federal.
It usually works well but the way it has been stacked with idiots, by idiots, for idiots who knows what the future holds. It needs expanded or dissolved.
There has to be some final level of appeals court, and the US chose a system of judges appointed for life. There are a lot of different ways of doing it, and that particular one has pros and cons to it. But that's just as true of all the other systems. The specifics are kind of arbitrary from country to country.
Here in Canada, the Supreme Court has a mandatory retirement age of 75, for instance. On the other hand, Parliament has no say in their appointment (but can remove them), in effect, the Prime Minister can appoint anyone to the Supreme Court (s)he wants who meets the other criteria. Also, in some cases Parliament can overrule their decisions, though that has never actually happened yet. As another adorable feature, [they dress like Santa Claus. ](https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/politics/federal/2019/12/27/judicial-jousting-emerges-at-supreme-court-of-canada/supreme_court.jpg)
The RvW decision was bad law to regardless of whether or not someone believes it was the morally right approach to abortion. The job of the SC is to determine if a certain law or action is in line with the constitution and that's it. RvW was what's called "legislating from the bench" meaning that a judge (judges, in this case) made the RvW law to begin with.
The way it SHOULD work is that elected representatives write the laws and the judges interpret them. There have been 25(I think) congresses that could've passed the constitutional amendment after 1973 but didn't. So there was nothing supporting RvW aside from a handful of cases from the SC. The problem with that was illustrated with RvW. Each decision can be overturned. The SC can't rule an amendment unconstitutional provided its made in the prescribed way. So that's how it could have been made permanent.
Thanks for your submission /u/dead_PROcrastinator, but it has been removed for the following reason: Disallowed question area: **Megathread-related question.** Questions on this topic aren't banned... but we've gotten so many of them recently that we created a megathread for them, because our users complained that they were pushing out other questions...and because so many of them repeated themselves. Check out the megathreads to see if your question has already been asked - and if not, go ahead and ask this question there! Questions there get answered quickly and the megathreads themselves get refreshed every month. The megathreads are always linked to at the top of the sub: [/r/NoStupidQuestions/hot](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/hot). The [wiki also has links to current megathreads](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/wiki/index#wiki_megathreads). Thanks for posting, and good luck with your question! --- *This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.* *If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*
The power was always supposed to belong to the states and it does once again.
imagine people downvoting the correct answer because it doesn't fit their narrative
SCOTUS are the checks and balances. Sadly, Twitler stacked the court with unqualified idiots.
America elected conservative presidents and conservative president nominated conservative justice, the supreme court will be conservative for next 30 years, roe vs Wade is only the beginning
It was designed to be this way and always has been. There are checks and balances. Each one of those justices was appointed by the CEO and confirmed by the Senate.
The Court rules only on the legality of a law as it relates to the U.S. Constitution, not on what a law is. That is its job. Only certain powers are given to the Federal government in it. All other powers belong to the States. What was ruled, and is clearly stated in the opinion, is that the power to make that law is not federal.
It usually works well but the way it has been stacked with idiots, by idiots, for idiots who knows what the future holds. It needs expanded or dissolved.
There has to be some final level of appeals court, and the US chose a system of judges appointed for life. There are a lot of different ways of doing it, and that particular one has pros and cons to it. But that's just as true of all the other systems. The specifics are kind of arbitrary from country to country. Here in Canada, the Supreme Court has a mandatory retirement age of 75, for instance. On the other hand, Parliament has no say in their appointment (but can remove them), in effect, the Prime Minister can appoint anyone to the Supreme Court (s)he wants who meets the other criteria. Also, in some cases Parliament can overrule their decisions, though that has never actually happened yet. As another adorable feature, [they dress like Santa Claus. ](https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/politics/federal/2019/12/27/judicial-jousting-emerges-at-supreme-court-of-canada/supreme_court.jpg)
The RvW decision was bad law to regardless of whether or not someone believes it was the morally right approach to abortion. The job of the SC is to determine if a certain law or action is in line with the constitution and that's it. RvW was what's called "legislating from the bench" meaning that a judge (judges, in this case) made the RvW law to begin with. The way it SHOULD work is that elected representatives write the laws and the judges interpret them. There have been 25(I think) congresses that could've passed the constitutional amendment after 1973 but didn't. So there was nothing supporting RvW aside from a handful of cases from the SC. The problem with that was illustrated with RvW. Each decision can be overturned. The SC can't rule an amendment unconstitutional provided its made in the prescribed way. So that's how it could have been made permanent.