Help Me Here - What Exactly Has To Happen To Overturn R v W....

[global1]

I'm curious - if Roe v Wade is to be overturned - what exactly is the procedure for that to happen. Does another case have to come up through the whole judicial system or does the question come up from *Co or do the SC justices just review the issue.

How long could the process take? I'm sure that there will be plenty of opposing views expressed by various groups and women in general.

How does the whole scenario of overturning R v W play out?

[Son of California]

1. Reinquist has to die first

then bush gets another Nominee, which will of coarse be anti-abortion.
after that, there are all kinds of pending cases that could be used and yes, I believe could bring up a case himself.

[tx_dem41]

3. Rehnquist is anti-abortion (pro-life)....

so his death wouldn't tip the scales.

[tx_dem41]

2. Another case....and that case might already be somewhere in the...

judicial process currently.

[Alpharetta]

4. Here's the last time they almost overturned it -- 1992

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/04/scotus.blackmun.papers/

WASHINGTON (AP) -- As lawyers and court watchers have long suspected, the Supreme Court was ready to effectively overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion in 1992, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy got cold feet, and the vote went the other way.

Internal notes in the papers of late Justice Harry A. Blackmun reveal the secretive dealings that led to the court's ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that year.

Blackmun's extensive records from 24 years on the court were opened Thursday.

Details of the archives were first reported by National Public Radio, which got advance access.

Blackmun's notes show that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist led a five-justice majority to overrule Roe. Four other justices voting with Rehnquist were Byron White, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Kennedy. Rehnquist himself was to write the majority opinion.

Unbeknownst to him, Kennedy was having second thoughts, and agreed with Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter, to a compromise position.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/04/scotus.blackmun.papers/

So the next time they discuss abortion, they have the legal right to reverse prior relevant Supreme Court decisions.

[Strawman]

5. Usually liberties are lost bit by bit

First you'll see restrictions that were not previously allowed, like so called partial birth abortions. That is a real possibility after this nominee is seated on the Court. Then when the next liberal resigns (Stevens is pretty old) you may see a more fundamental rejection of the notion that the constitution provides a right to privacy, allowing states to outlaw abortion.

Perhaps a Republican Congress and President might even outlaw abortion federally. It would be interesting to see how these states' rights conservatives would come down on something like that. But that's probably highly unlikely. I think first it will be restrictions, and then ultimately certain states will either outlaw abortion later on or restrict abortions until it is practically impossible for women to get them.

[mandomom]

6. It would take only one more SCOTUS justice

to incrementally demolish our reproductive AND privacy right, one birth control pill at a time.

[BillZBubb]

7. It will be interesting to see the right wing whackos spin on this.

If they kill Roe because no "right to privacy" exists, then logically the Griswold decision must also be reversed. It is based on essentially the same foundation. That means access to birth control is not a right either.

I'll bet even the Bushnut favorites won't want to go that far. So, they'll have to turn logic on its head, like they did in Bush v Gore to support a position they formerly rejected. But, that won't be judicial activism!

[Totally Committed]

8. A challenge has to be brought and go up the ladder to the Supreme Court...

which will then refuse to hear the case (yeah, right!) or hear the case, and hold a vote to overturn.

TC

[Donna Zen]

9. Right to privacy as Constitutionally guaranteed.

Once Roe is overturned, the government would be free to force certain of us to have an abortion. Also, if a state or the feds make abortion illegal, then some forms of birth-control will come off of the market. What's worse, research into new forms of birth-control would be curtailed.

Bork argued that no explicit right to privacy exists in Constitution.

btw, I believe that rather than just take down Roe, they'll just chip away at it until it is meaningless. After all, without Roe, the voting base of the corporatists would certainly teeter. Have you ever thought that the reverse is true considering the corporatists relationship with the left?