UN condemns US abortion decision

[jhungary]

You tell me passing a statutory in Obama time aligning to RW is non constitutional or what else?

If Obama have a Bill-of-abortion. those big wig in supreme court today wouldnt have overthrow RW. This is too scandalized and polarizing.

Oh my god, why are you dancing around the same idea about whether or not the bill is constitutional, once a bill pass, IT BECOME A PART OF CONSTITUTION, it cannot be unconstitutional if a bill passed by proper legislative procedure.

This have nothing to do with being Constitutional, you need either an unanimous decision (all agree, no vote) or supermajority to pass a bill in senate (and House)

Whether or not if any bill introduced by Obama would pass is basically a moot point because it would be anybody guess as it DID NOT HAPPEN. As I said, I will concede Obama probably have the best chance of all to pass said bill. But whether or not if he propose one and it will pass? NO ONE KNOWS. All I can say is he will need 10 senators to cross the floor, can he do it? I don't know, that's alternative history shit.......

Yes, if it was codified, SCOTUS cannot say this is not constitutional, but they could still overthrow R v W, as most constitutional scholar agree that is not a constitutional matters. That is individual choice, not individual right, it's like a choice to get a driver license, nobody can force you to get one, but nobody can guarantee you to have one either. Roe v Wade is threading water, the Dem are too stupid to realise and did not do something about it until 2018 when Dobbs challenge Jackson Women Health.

 

[Song Hong]

Oh my god, why are you dancing around the same idea about whether or not the bill is constitutional

This have nothing to do with being Constitutional, you need either an unanimous decision (all agree, no vote) or supermajority to pass a bill in senate (and House)

Whether or not if any bill introduced by Obama would pass is basically a moot point because it would be anybody guess as it DID NOT HAPPEN. As I said, I will concede Obama probably have the best chance of all to pass said bill. But whether or not if he propose one and it will pass? NO ONE KNOWS. All I can say is he will need 10 senators to cross the floor, can he do it? I don't know, that's alternative history shit.......

Yes, if it was codified, SCOTUS cannot say this is not constitutional, but they could still overthrow RW, as most constitutional scholar agree that is not a constitutional matters. That is individual choice, not individual right, it's like a choice to get a driver license, nobody can force you to get one, but nobody can guarantee you to have one. Roe v Wade is threading water, the Dem are too stupid to realise and did not do something about it until 2018 when Dobbs challenge Jackson Women Health.

Get a life.

THe SCOTUS rule all Roosevelt New Deal unconstitutional. Roosevelt basically threatens to manhandle these judges and then they relent, and close one eyes on New Deal.

The reactionaries bring series of New Deal legistration such as Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, National Industrial Recovery Act....etc

For example

Chief Justice Hughes, who wrote the majority opinion, indicated that the policy which Section 9(c) enacted was not unconstitutional and that it was only ruled unconstitutional because it was poorly worded and did not convey specific power.

You can always make laws even against constitution. And you can twist SCOTUS mouth if you have enough bullets against them.

Constitutional challenges to the New Deal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[jhungary]

Get a life.

THe SCOTUS rule all Roosevelt New Deal unconstitutional. Roosevelt basically threatens to manhandle these judges and then they relent, and close one eyes on New Deal.

The reactionaries bring series of New Deal legistration such as Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, National Industrial Recovery Act....etc

For example

Chief Justice Hughes, who wrote the majority opinion, indicated that the policy which Section 9(c) enacted was not unconstitutional and that it was only ruled unconstitutional because it was poorly worded and did not convey specific power.

You can always make laws even against constitution. And you can twist SCOTUS mouth if you have enough bullets against them.

Constitutional challenges to the New Deal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You do know we are talking about two different things, right?

New Deal is a set of regulation and reform proposed by FDR via National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933

SCOTUS can challenge the legal detail of it, but it cannot challenge the bill itself (The bill still stand today even after the New Deal ruling). In Abortion case, let's say a law has passed by Both Senate and House and a bill to legalise abortion is codified, it will still have legal challenge attached to it that is NOT part of the legislation, challenge like how long would a foetus would be consider a human, obviously allowing you the right and codify it does not mean you can go get an abortion say 40 weeks in. There are legal boundary that related to the bill i question even after the bill is passed. If the bill really does say up to 40 weeks, then anyone can sue the bill and give you a X v Y and Supreme Court will still need to decide whether abortion at 40 weeks are constitution, ie did not violate the foetus's right.

Guarantee the right does not guarantee the circumstance.

And I have warned you about personal insult.

 

[Abdul Rehman Majeed]

What about when the women was raped? Nobody can expect a women to carry a child created through one of worst kinds of crime

SCOTUS rolled back Roe v Wade is a lot more than just Abortion.

In fact, if anything, Abortion is probably the least affected because you will always have liberal state that allow them, and you usually don't do it after it is too late (like 30 + weeks in) which mean abortion for American is probably just a bus ticket away, and I am pretty sure there are pro-right group that are more than happy to pay for those ticket and send someone who live in the red state do an abortion on one of those blue state.

The problem is not about abortion, the problem, as Justice Robert put it, is how Roe v Wade being rolled over. Roe v Wade is a court case that has already been judged and affirmed. Which in legal term, that's a precedent. What SCOTUS effectively doing is they can overturn a precedent WITHOUT Prejudice, which mean without condition and you don't send it back to lower court and retried the case. That mean they can do it as long as you have 5/4 verdict. That give SCOTUS a whole lot of power to overturn just about anything. 1st amendment, 2nd amendment, 5th amendment, 19th amendment and so on, all have precedent case (like Miranda right with 5th amendment issue) all those can now overturn without going back to lower court. And Justice Thomas already opined that he want SCOTUS to look at other civil right issue.

Man, this is scary time ahead.


In US, this is not exempted unless state exempted it, in fact, state will grant visitation right or even custody right to the rapist that cause the pregnancy

Some Democrat states like Maryland Allow abortion or killing of babies within the first 28 days after birth

Maryland Bill Effectively Decriminalizes Neglecting Newborns to Death | National Review

A Maryland bill would effectively decriminalize Northam’s immoral proposal without regard to abortion.

www.nationalreview.com

Maryland Bill Effectively Decriminalizes Neglecting Newborns to Death​

(Wikimedia Commons)
Share

• 
  
• 81

By WESLEY J. SMITH
March 5, 2022 11:41 AM
Listen to article

All Our Opinion in Your Inbox​

NR Daily is delivered right to you every afternoon. No charge.
SUBSCRIBE
Remember when former Virginia governor Ralph Northam blessed the right of a mother and her doctor to “have a conversation” and decide to neglect a newborn survivor of abortion to death? Well, now, a Maryland bill would effectively decriminalize Northam’s immoral proposal without regard to abortion.

TOP STORIES​

Life after Roe​

KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON
NRPLUS

Roe Was Never Law​

ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
NRPLUS

The Soviet Past in Putin’s War on Ukraine​

ELIZABETH EDWARDS SPALDING
NRPLUS
First, it reiterates current law that deprives fetuses of all rights, meaning they could be the subjects of live experimentation when that is technologically feasible. From SB 669:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to confer personhood or any rights on the fetus.

Next, the bill would prevent investigations and legal penalties for abortion at any point in the pregnancy and “perinatal” deaths caused by “failure to act” — which extend from the 22nd week of gestation through to the first 28 days after birth (my emphasis):

This section may not be construed to authorize any form of investigation or penalty for a person:
(1) Terminating or attempting to terminate the person’s own pregnancy; or

(2) Experiencing a miscarriage, perinatal death related to a failure to act, or stillbirth

This means that a baby who survived an abortion can be allowed to die without care, and no investigation could be pursued nor legal penalty applied.
But it also effectively decriminalizes death by neglect for the first 28 days of life without regard to abortion. If no investigation can be conducted, what else can it be called? For example, a baby born with a disability could be allowed to die by refusing ordinary methods of care or medical treatment. Heck, for that matter, so could any baby the mother does not want in the first 28 days after birth.
To further ensure that such deaths can take place without consequence, the bill would authorize those illegally investigated for causing babies to die by neglect to bring civil lawsuits!

A person may bring a cause of action for damages if the person was subject to unlawful arrest or criminal investigation for a violation of section as a result of . . .
2) Experiencing a miscarriage, stillbirth, or perinatal death

The pro-abortion left clearly is slouching toward not only authorizing late term abortions for any reason, but also, post-birth deaths of unwanted born babies.

Based on the current advocacy trajectory, such proposals will eventually extend to permitting active infanticide, which is already promoted as legitimate morally by many in mainstream bioethics, and which currently is permitted in the Netherlands upon terminally ill babies and those born with serious disabilities. After all, once the law permits death by neglect, allowing lethal injections would be seen as more “humane” than the extended suffering that would otherwise be caused.
Tell me again: Who are the radicals? Who are the ones who don’t care about babies after they are born?

 

[Song Hong]

You do know we are talking about two different things, right?

New Deal is a set of regulation and reform proposed by FDR via National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933

SCOTUS can challenge the legal detail of it, but it cannot challenge the bill itself (The bill still stand today even after the New Deal ruling). In Abortion case, let's say a law has passed by Both Senate and House and a bill to legalise abortion is codified, it will still have legal challenge attached to it that is NOT part of the legislation, challenge like how long would a foetus would be consider a human, obviously allowing you the right and codify it does not mean you can go get an abortion say 40 weeks in. There are legal boundary that related to the bill i question even after the bill is passed. If the bill really does say up to 40 weeks, then anyone can sue the bill and give you a X v Y and Supreme Court will still need to decide whether 40 abortion at 40 weeks are constitution, ie did not violate the foetus's right.

Guarantee the right does not guarantee the circumstance.

And I have warned you about personal insult.

You should stop trolling with your deviant agenda. I discuss truth.

Lets not go into the the wording of codification or the technicalities of implementation. My argument is you can always pass anything in the Congress with simple majority and a friendly president even if you know SCOTUS will rule it unconstitutional.

And Obama CAN easily pass PRO-ABORTION Bill which aligns with RW. He did not.

The RW is just a rally point for DEMS.

 

[jhungary]

You should stop trolling with your deviant agenda. I discuss truth.

Lets not go into the the wording of codification or the technicalities of implementation. My argument is you can always pass anything in the Congress with simple majority and a friendly president even if you know SCOTUS will rule it unconstitutional.

And Obama CAN easily pass PRO-ABORTION Bill which aligns with RW. He did not.

The RW is just a rally point for DEMS.

Sure, talk about law and legal precedent and don't go into the wording........

You cannot pass anything in both House unless you have Super Majority to do it.

SCOTUS cannot overthrow said code if they pass the bill. At best they can debate the legal side of the bill, not the legislative side of the approach. Technically if someone sponsor a bill call America Killer Acts that legalise School shooting, that bill would become law if they passed with 2/3 of both house, SCOTUS cannot overturn that bill. They can issue legal challenge on that bill but they cannot overturn that bill. Because SCOTUS is on the judiciary branch, passing a bill is on the legislative branch

And finally, saying Obama can pass the bill easy is moot, it did not purpose and nothing had passed, if you can go back in time that may have been different, otherwise we are talking about hindsight, and hindsight is always 20/20

 

[Maula Jatt]

Alright this is disturbing

Spoiler: Ddd

That's a full blown human in thier, and abortion at this point should be considered a murder

 

[Song Hong]

Sure, talk about law and legal precedent and don't go into the wording........

You cannot pass anything in both House unless you have Super Majority to do it.

SCOTUS cannot overthrow said code if they pass the bill. At best they can debate the legal side of the bill, not the legislative side of the approach. Technically if someone sponsor a bill call America Killer Acts that legalise School shooting, that bill would become law if they passed with 2/3 of both house, SCOTUS cannot overturn that bill. They can issue legal challenge on that bill but they cannot overturn that bill. Because SCOTUS is on the judiciary branch, passing a bill is on the legislative branch

And finally, saying Obama can pass the bill easy is moot, it did not purpose and nothing had passed, if you can go back in time that may have been different, otherwise we are talking about hindsight, and hindsight is always 20/20

You can go into hundreds and thousands of pages of for each codification these days in US whereby even legal experts cannot understand. They are designed to confused and create controversy and loopholes, and alternative interpretation (while US legal elites claim it provide big blanket coverage on every circumstances -- which in reality opposite is true).

Takes a team of 5-10 star lawyers team to twist interpretation in their way on the court. I am not interested to discuss every nitty gritty here (not my domain also). They are extremely volatile even with codification.

You have a more less friendly court at Obama reign, you pass it then, no one will bring it to SCOTUS. Even if bring it to SCOTUS, it wont even be ruled. It will be thrown out. Then RW is sealed somehow forever.

Proabably takes a civil war to overthrown such outcome.

This was not done out of deliberation.

 

[jhungary]

Some Democrat states like Maryland Allow abortion or killing of babies within the first 28 days after birth

Maryland Bill Effectively Decriminalizes Neglecting Newborns to Death | National Review

A Maryland bill would effectively decriminalize Northam’s immoral proposal without regard to abortion.

www.nationalreview.com

Maryland Bill Effectively Decriminalizes Neglecting Newborns to Death​

(Wikimedia Commons)
Share

• 
  
• 81

By WESLEY J. SMITH
March 5, 2022 11:41 AM
Listen to article

All Our Opinion in Your Inbox​

NR Daily is delivered right to you every afternoon. No charge.
SUBSCRIBE
Remember when former Virginia governor Ralph Northam blessed the right of a mother and her doctor to “have a conversation” and decide to neglect a newborn survivor of abortion to death? Well, now, a Maryland bill would effectively decriminalize Northam’s immoral proposal without regard to abortion.

TOP STORIES​

Life after Roe​

KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON
NRPLUS

Roe Was Never Law​

ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
NRPLUS

The Soviet Past in Putin’s War on Ukraine​

ELIZABETH EDWARDS SPALDING
NRPLUS
First, it reiterates current law that deprives fetuses of all rights, meaning they could be the subjects of live experimentation when that is technologically feasible. From SB 669:

Next, the bill would prevent investigations and legal penalties for abortion at any point in the pregnancy and “perinatal” deaths caused by “failure to act” — which extend from the 22nd week of gestation through to the first 28 days after birth (my emphasis):

This means that a baby who survived an abortion can be allowed to die without care, and no investigation could be pursued nor legal penalty applied.
But it also effectively decriminalizes death by neglect for the first 28 days of life without regard to abortion. If no investigation can be conducted, what else can it be called? For example, a baby born with a disability could be allowed to die by refusing ordinary methods of care or medical treatment. Heck, for that matter, so could any baby the mother does not want in the first 28 days after birth.
To further ensure that such deaths can take place without consequence, the bill would authorize those illegally investigated for causing babies to die by neglect to bring civil lawsuits!

The pro-abortion left clearly is slouching toward not only authorizing late term abortions for any reason, but also, post-birth deaths of unwanted born babies.

Based on the current advocacy trajectory, such proposals will eventually extend to permitting active infanticide, which is already promoted as legitimate morally by many in mainstream bioethics, and which currently is permitted in the Netherlands upon terminally ill babies and those born with serious disabilities. After all, once the law permits death by neglect, allowing lethal injections would be seen as more “humane” than the extended suffering that would otherwise be caused.
Tell me again: Who are the radicals? Who are the ones who don’t care about babies after they are born?

My stance on the issue is clear, I have write it down twice in this thread.

As I said, this is more of a constitutional crisis than people can't kill their pre-born baby. I agree SCOTUS ruling on overturning Dobbs v Jackson Women Health. I see abortion is a choice, as in you CHOOSE to do it, it is not a given right for you to do it. Which mean if you want one, and your state does not allow one, then you are more than welcome to leave that state and move to another to get one.

But Roe v Wade itself is a precedent, it is a judgment from a case that was heard and tried, SCOTUS cannot just say "Oh I don't think this is guaranteed by Constitution" and ignore the case that had already judge and tried. That is the entire basis of our Jurisprudence. Overturn Roe v Wade, but send it back to Texas Supreme Court or Federal Court to see if the judgement is correct, that is the way to go, not just drop it without prejudice.

You can go into hundreds and thousands of pages of for each codification these days in US whereby even legal experts cannot understand. They are designed to confused and create controversy and loopholes, and alternative interpretation.

Takes a team of 5-10 star lawyers team to twist interpretation in their way on the court. I am not interested to discuss every nitty gritty here (not my domain also). They are extremely volatile even with codification.

You have a more less friendly court at Obama reign, you pass it then, no one will bring it to SCOTUS. Even if bring it to SCOTUS, it wont even be ruled. It will be thrown out. Then RW is sealed somehow forever.

Proabably takes a civil war to overthrown such outcome.

This was not done out of deliberation.

Man, how many time do I have to tell you? It does not matter if all 9 justice (+ chief justice) are Democrats, THEY DON'T PASS LAW.

Do you understand the basic concept of legal challenge? A law is a law. A law is made by the legislative system, the Court cannot decide which law they made, the supreme court, however, can decide whether or not if said law went over the legal burden provided by the US Constitution.

Again, just because if they codify the USC and allow abortion, NOT EVERY abortion are going to be cover in the law, as I said, the main challenge I can see is to set a line on how long is the pregnancy the woman can seek an abortion, that is NOT a legislative issue, that is a legal issue.

 

[Song Hong]

As I said, this is more of a constitutional crisis than people can't kill their pre-born baby. I agree SCOTUS ruling on overturning Dobbs v Jackson Women Health. I see abortion is a choice, as in you CHOOSE to do it, it is not a given right for you to do it. Which mean if you want one, and your state does not allow one, then you are more than welcome to leave that state and move to another to get one.

But Roe v Wade itself is a precedent, it is a judgment from a case that was heard and tried, SCOTUS cannot just say "Oh I don't think this is guaranteed by Constitution" and ignore the case that had already judge and tried. That is the entire basis of our Jurisprudence. Overturn Roe v Wade, but send it back to Texas Supreme Court or Federal Court to see if the judgement is correct, that is the way to go, not just drop it without prejudice.


Man, how many time do I have to tell you? It does not matter if all 9 justice (+ chief justice) are Democrats, THEY DON'T PASS LAW.

Do you understand the basic concept of legal challenge? A law is a law. A law is made by the legislative system, the Court cannot decide which law they made, the supreme court, however, can decide whether or not if said law went over the legal burden provided by the US Constitution.

Again, just because if they codify the USC and allow abortion, NOT EVERY abortion are going to be cover in the law, as I said, the main challenge I can see is to set a line on how long is the pregnancy the woman can seek an abortion, that is NOT a legislative issue, that is a legal issue.

You are the ignorant guy. Common laws are basically extensively on case law unless overruled by statutory.

Common Law judges dont pass statutory but they have great power in giving laws.

 

[waz]

Alright this is disturbing

Spoiler: Ddd

View attachment 857107

That's a full blown human in thier, and abortion at this point should be considered a murder

What a vile poor excuse for a woman.

 

[Oldman1]

Forget Trump. He is hardly the 'stable genius' he claimed to be. Stable is barely and genius definitely not. All Trump did was followed what his conservative aides told him the base wanted. No one have any confidence that Trump have any intellectual capacity to discuss, let alone debate, the abortion rights issue.


No, they are not. That does not mean the Republicans at large, hard core base and moderates, are unconcerned about the consequences of this decision. But as many observers noted, the Virginia governor election should have been taken more seriously by the Democrats when post election polling have abortion rights lower in priority. Glenn Youngkin did not run on RvW but on parental rights and economics, and won.


Here is the main problem...Abortion rights is non-constitutional. Not un-constitutional. To be un-constitutional means to be ANTAGONISTIC or HOSTILE to the US Constitution in both principle and text. To be non-constitutional mean does not exist, at least in text, and that is what the latest SCOTUS decision mean.

The 10th Amendment say:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.​

So how would you get the federal government involved? By what is called 'emanation and penumbra'. Basically, absent text, you interpret what you want to be linked to basic rights and liberties that the federal government is tasked by the Constitution to protect and prevent others from violating.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1992/12/20/privacy-penumbra-and-emanations/9a60c07c-4e98-4ffe-8b53-95fba222012a/

How this mysterious trinity of privacy, penumbra and emanations had eluded legal scholars for the then 176 years of our constitutional history was (and is) a question left unaddressed by the court.​

If your interpretation, as presented in court, is successful, then the federal government is legally obligated to act despite absent explicit text in the Constitution.

Most of us are comfortable with one degree of separation, pretty much arm's length metaphorically speaking, and will support the linkage. But when a side issue is two degrees or more removed from the main issue, then all of us begins to diverge from unanimity, create subgroups, and defend our positions. When you have to interpret something, that is the start of that two or more degrees of separation and also the start of conflicts. Absent explicit text, what abortion rights proponents did was interpret how abortion is constitutionally protected and that argument was so weak that even today, Democratically minded legal scholars admitted that RvW was constitutionally problematic. Scholars no less than the notorious RBG herself.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Wishes This Case Had Legalized Abortion Instead of 'Roe v. Wade'

When Ginsburg was confirmed to the Supreme Court 25 years ago, she explained why

time.com

So it might come as a surprise that, though she made history by endorsing abortion rights during her confirmation hearing, Ginsburg had well-known reservations about Roe.​

What happened today is the prominence of the 10th. No text, no federal government involvement.

Feel like our Founding Fathers knew that abortion will be an issue in the future LOL!

 

[Song Hong]

What a vile poor excuse for a woman.

The issue is not about abortion per se. Its about galvanizing voters for both parties and distracting the peasants on pressing issues, especially the evil of capitalism.

 

[jhungary]

You are the ignorant guy. Common laws are basically extensively on case law unless overruled by statutory.

Common Law judges dont pass statutory but they have great power in giving laws.

lol, the guys who said "Common Law Judge have great power in giving (assume you mean making) laws said I am ignorant.

Supreme Court or any lower court judge make "LEGAL PRECEDENTS" it's not the same as making new law.

For example, the original Roe v Wade ruling in 1973 is the Supreme Court making legal precedents about 14th Amendment, which as per their interpretation, should include abortion as a common right for women. That does not mean SCOTUS made a new law or they made/remake 14th Amendment, there are no new law, and 14A remain untouched, the only thing that's different is that they believe Abortion are within 14a, because funny as it may seems Precedents is NOT binding while the bill that pass the law IS Binding. Precedent can be, and in this case, did overturned.

What is a Legal Precedent? How Does it Affect the Court System?

A legal precedent is a standard established by a court decision that provides an example to guide judges ruling on similar issues in the future.

vistacriminallaw.com

There are also exception to the rules, if something is considered "Super Precedent", which mean it is unlikely to be shaking by the public sentiment, then even SCOTUS cannot overturn it. SCOTUS defined Brown v Board of Education as Super Precedent, Roe v Wade is not.

Super Precedent | Definition of Super Precedent by IncSmart.biz

www.incsmart.biz

Supreme court can only argue a statue on whether or not the situation warrant intervention, and said intervention is not binding, unless it is considered as unmovable by public opinion. Which mean technically if there are another panel of SCOTUS justice, they can overturn this 2022 result and say "Abortion is within Constitution" Because that is their opinion and what they are doing is setting a precedent. But if US Congress put in a bill and amend the US Code, then that would be a "Binding" motion. Which mean this is going to stay, disregarding SCOTUS opinion.

 

[Song Hong]

lol, the guys who said "Common Law Judge have great power in giving (assume you mean making) laws said I am ignorant.

Supreme Court or any lower court judge make "LEGAL PRECEDENTS" it's not the same as making new law.

For example, the original Roe v Wade ruling in 1973 is the Supreme Court making legal precedents about 14th Amendment, which as per their interpretation, should include abortion as a common right for women. That does not mean SCOTUS made a new law or they made/remake 14th Amendment, there are no new law, and 14A remain untouched, the only thing that's different is that they believe Abortion are within 14a, because funny as it may seems Precedents is NOT binding while the bill that pass the law IS Binding. Precedent can be, and in this case, did overturned.

What is a Legal Precedent? How Does it Affect the Court System?

A legal precedent is a standard established by a court decision that provides an example to guide judges ruling on similar issues in the future.

vistacriminallaw.com

There are also exception to the rules, if something is considered "Super Precedent", which mean it is unlikely to be shaking by the public sentiment, then even SCOTUS cannot overturn it. SCOTUS defined Brown v Board of Education as Super Precedent, Roe v Wade is not.

Super Precedent | Definition of Super Precedent by IncSmart.biz

www.incsmart.biz

Supreme court can only argue a statue on whether or not the situation warrant intervention, and said intervention is not binding, unless it is considered as unmovable by public opinion. Which mean technically if there are another panel of SCOTUS justice, they can overturn this 2022 result and say "Abortion is within Constitution" Because that is their opinion and what they are doing is setting a precedent. But if US Congress put in a bill and amend the US Code, then that would be a "Binding" motion. Which mean this is going to stay, disregarding SCOTUS opinion.

You are really a troll.

Case law is in essence a class of law by itself isnt it? When others are referencing to your ruling, it is de facto a Law per se. The judge is de facto making Law.

Case Law is what makes common law different from Civil Law system

Go study.

Wiki

Case law, also used interchangeably with common law, is law that is based on precedents, that is the judicial decisions from previous cases, rather than law based on constitutions, statutes, or regulations. Case law uses the detailed facts of a case that have been resolved by courts or similar tribunals. These past decisions are called "case law", or precedent. Stare decisis—a Latin phrase meaning "let the decision stand"—is the principle by which judges are bound to such past decisions, drawing on established judicial authority to formulate their positions.

These judicial interpretations are distinguished from statutory law, which are codes enacted by legislative bodies, and regulatory law, which are established by executive agencies based on statutes.