We don't have time for that. By the time a congress is elected that is willing to make laws that curb emissions, it will be too late. So much damage will already have been done.
Pushing responsibility to literally save the world onto a broken legislative body is idiotic.
For so long as the American people respect the US Supreme Court, their laws can be nullified on the say-so of this Court and are thus worthless. That's the underlying point of this whole suite of rulings.
Congress can write laws, the Court can decide they don't mean what you thought they mean, and, apparently, you will cheerfully conclude that the Court is wise and you're foolish, perhaps only realising the danger when it is too late.
So far this court seems to be largely giving more power to voters and their representatives to create law, limiting their own power (Dobbs), and giving power to the states.
> The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion.
Seems pretty clear: it's for the states to legislate, not Congress, notwithstanding this:
> The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives.
which clearly does not refer to Congress given the preceding.
That said, state laws regarding abortion almost certainly don't reach a) federal land within those states, b) interstate travel. Congress can easily fund abortion clinics on federal lands, and it can fund travel by pregnant women seeking abortions. So in a way, you're not wrong.
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Article VI, Clause 2, also known as the Supremacy Clause[0].
You’re simply wrong about this friend. Congress could make the Roe standard the law of the entire US tomorrow. This is why you see Biden and others asking them to do just that.
I'm dead certain Congress couldn't before Roe, between Roe and Dobbs, or after Dobbs, not w/o a Constitutional amendment. That much is quite clear. I quoted from Dobbs, and as to Roe, Roe declared a constitutional right, which means Congress couldn't do anything about it w/o a constitutional amendment. If federal statute could compete, then Congress would have made Roe law long ago in any one of the many sessions in which there were vast majorities for it in both houses and in the White House. But no, it requires an amendment, which is why it's never happened -- it's hard to get 2/3rds majorities for anything, let alone controversial things.
So you're saying you're "dead certain" that Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, etc. misunderstand what kinds of laws are and are not constitutional? Where does such a high degree of confidence come from?
For all the consternation, these decisions are very mutable. Congress just needs to pass laws.