Will SCOTUS overturn Roe v Wade?

[Sand Dancer]

I'm most confident the SCOTUS will uphold Roe vs Wade in order to keep a women's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy safe and easily accessible. I doubt the SCOTUS would want women performing abortions by coat hangers, nor would the SCOTUS want impregnated women traumatized by having to carry an embryo spawned by a rapist or undesired would-be father. Furthermore, the SCOTUS would not want impregnated women burdened with having to travel long distances in order to have her unwanted embryo removed from her body.

I am also afraid of suicides. I don't think the more conservative SCOTUS members care how far a woman has to go, as they would prefer her not to do it at all. I think they really want a burden. Heck, it wasn't that long ago that some folks were against epidurals because women were supposed to have painful labor, as per the Bible. We have a small percentage of irrational people, and they tend to vote at a higher rate than the more rational folks.

 

[sun rise]

AHA!

You see -- this is not "politics," this is the Supreme Court. And if SCOTUS comes to be seen as just another branch of politics, I suspect that it's luster will fade away.

Right now on some issues I do indeed see it as another branch of politics. That relates to who is chosen and why they are chosen. Politics A-Z.

 

[F1fan]

I listened carefully today to oral arguments in the Supreme Court of the United States, in hearing the case of Mississippi's law banning abortion after 15 weeks. The questions that I heard the Justices ask strongly suggest to me that, at minimum, they'll let Mississippi stand, and very likely overturn Roe v Wade altogether.

What do you think?

I found the Barret and Kavenaugh questions very telling about that they want Roe to be eliminated.

The female lawyer made great points about women's liberty and the Constitution guaranteeing liberty equally.

I don't buy into originalism because that would mean no rights for blacks, nor women to vote. Our nation evolves, and the moral and humanistic evolution needs to stand be be supported.

I suspect Roe v Wade will be overturned and will further create the backwards slide of the USA through modern conservatism.

 

[F1fan]

AHA!

You see -- this is not "politics," this is the Supreme Court. And if SCOTUS comes to be seen as just another branch of politics, I suspect that it's luster will fade away.

That's the open question I have. Do the new trump appointed have enough respect for the institution and the precedent to offset their own personal attitudes and motives?

 

[AlexanderG]

I am also afraid of suicides. I don't think the more conservative SCOTUS members care how far a woman has to go, as they would prefer her not to do it at all. I think they really want a burden. Heck, it wasn't that long ago that some folks were against epidurals because women were supposed to have painful labor, as per the Bible. We have a small percentage of irrational people, and they tend to vote at a higher rate than the more rational folks.

Yes, the worldview of conservative Christianity seems to revolve around punishment. Threats of punishment as motivation, punishment for prevention, punishment for the sake of raw vengeance.

In this case, the baby will be the punishment. It's so gross...

 

[sayak83]

AHA!

You see -- this is not "politics," this is the Supreme Court. And if SCOTUS comes to be seen as just another branch of politics, I suspect that it's luster will fade away.

It's clearly a branch of politics from what I have seen. Judges are politically appointed, even district and state level judges are appointed by politicians correct? So it's just another arm of the politics.
Frankly these constitutional judgements are personal subjective opinions put in the garb of logic. If it were objective there would not be majority and minority opinions.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't buy into originalism because that would mean no rights for blacks, nor women to vote.

That's not how originalism works.
The Constitution is indeed read based upon intent,
but then this intent applies to amendments that
supersede affected portions of the Constitution.
After all...original intent was the ability to amend
it by due process. It's not the Bible.

It's better than the living document approach (IMO), which
is whatever the justices want it to mean, ie, amendment
by fiat rather than constitutional process. This has
reduced our right to jury trial (petty offense doctrine),
reduced our property rights (Kelo v New London), etc.

It's better than strict constructionism (IMO), which would
limit press freedom to the printed word on paper, etc.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Right now on some issues I do indeed see it as another branch of politics. That relates to who is chosen and why they are chosen. Politics A-Z.

And in particular because of the vast and brazen duplicity of one Mitch McConnell, who engaged in quite literal court stuffing based on political leaning.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That's the open question I have. Do the new trump appointed have enough respect for the institution and the precedent to offset their own personal attitudes and motives?

I most sincerely doubt it.

 

[F1fan]

That's not how originalism works.
The Constitution is indeed read based upon intent,
but then this intent applies to amendments that
supersede affected portions of the Constitution.
After all...original intent was the ability to amend
it by due process. It's not the Bible.

It's better than the living document approach (IMO), which
is whatever the justices want it to mean, ie, amendment
by fiat rather than constitutional process. This has
reduced our right to jury trial (petty offense doctrine),
reduced our property rights (Kelo v New London), etc.

It's better than strict constructionism (IMO), which would
limit press freedom to the printed word on paper, etc.

I'll have to look into it further. I remember watching a 60 Minutes interview with Scalia and found his approach of originalism being still his opinion of what the opinions of the Founders was.

 

[F1fan]

And in particular because of the vast and brazen duplicity of one Mitch McConnell, who engaged in quite literal court stuffing based on political leaning.

Mitch is giving conservatives what they wanted. The question is: will the long term effects of what they wanted going to be what they really want?

Republicans seem to want a dismantling of social order.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'll have to look into it further. I remember watching a 60 Minutes interview with Scalia and found his approach of originalism being still his opinion of what the opinions of the Founders was.

I don't know his view on the subject, but he's one guy.
And again....the amendment process is originally intended.
So all amendments can turn some of the original intentions
into relics.
What do you think of this view?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

For me, a male, the question of abortion is not an easy one because I am concerned with the loss of a human fetus. I see the pregnant female having so much more emotional stress in her situation than I have thinking about a hypothetical question. I take the position, if God allows free will, why then do I have the authority to overrule those who are actually involved in the pregnancy?

I'm also no fan of abortion -- I much prefer good sex education and healthy attitudes (not fostered well by many religious believers) about sex -- but at the end of the day, it is not my place to make such an awful decision for another person. A person who, unlike me, has to live with the consequences of that decision.

 

[Wandering Monk]

And in particular because of the vast and brazen duplicity of one Mitch McConnell, who engaged in quite literal court stuffing based on political leaning.

Court packing is a great American tradition. We have been doing it since day one. It doesn't always work out the way the packer anticipates.

 

[pearl]

You see -- this is not "politics," this is the Supreme Court. And if SCOTUS comes to be seen as just another branch of politics, I suspect that it's luster will fade away.

Justice Sotomayor summed it up well;
"“Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? I don’t see how it is possible,"
"I could name any other set of rights, including the Second Amendment by the way. There are many political people who believe the court erred in seeing this is a personal right as opposed to a militia right," she said. "If people actually believe that it's all political, how will we survive? How will the court survive?"

What happens to our Republic if the Court is understood to be just another arm of political power?

 

[ecco]

We need to revitalize the rural areas.

Why? Let them die and turn them into wilderness areas.

 

[ecco]

I take the position, if God allows...

I take the position, God does not belong in our Government.

 

[Jose Fly]

I really don't understand the shock and anger from non-conservatives about this. Republicans have been running on overturning Roe v Wade for decades, and Trump specifically ran on the promise that he would appoint SCOTUS justicies who would overturn it. He won, got to appoint 3 justices, and now here we are.

All I can say is.....what did y'all think was going to happen? Did you think they were lying?

If this bothers us so much, there's really only one remedy....vote! And vote strategically too (e.g., don't vote third party or sit out because a candidate isn't exactly what you want; sometimes you actually do have to vote against someone rather than for someone).

 

[ecco]

Mississippi stand, and very likely overturn Roe v Wade altogether.

Quite possible.

The first because Roberts said fifteen weeks is long enough for a decision.

The second because Cavanaugh thinks it should be left to the States.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...gnals-openness-overturning-abortion-decision/
“As I understand it, you’re arguing that … the Constitution is neither pro-life nor pro-choice on the question of abortion, but leaves the issue for the people of the states or perhaps Congress to resolve in the democratic process. Is that accurate?” Kavanaugh asked Stewart.​

 

[Kooky]

The wealthy will always have the option to seek abortions in Canada or one of the pro-abortion states of the US.
The women who will suffer from state-induced slavery will be the poorest and those with the least support network, which is the law working as intended: It is never about actually preventing abortions, but about punishing women with "loose morals" i.e. poor and working class women.