Will Roe v. Wade be next?

[DailyGrind51]

If the Supreme Court can overturn 100 years of established legal interpretation, aka stare decicis, concerning corporate "personhood", what is to prevent the highest court from revisiting and overturning Roe v. Wade? Roberts already lied about his respect for stare decicis in his confirmation hearings with one stunning decision, what makes us believe he won't give the finger to a Democratic President and Legislature concerning a woman's right to choose?

[iceman66]

1. I think they would need one more vote for that,

although I'm sure it is on the 'to do' list.

[saigon68]

3. The Base (fundie nut-jobs) will demand it

Also an organization of sodomite child molesters (Robert's Handlers) will demand it.

[KamaAina]

28. Which of the five righties would uphold it? Kennedy, I presume.

The other four are pretty much hopeless.

So we've gone from O'Connor as the swing vote to Kennedy. :scared:

[Raven]

2. I asked my son the same question. He said he thinks not because

without the abortion issue the Repubs wouldn't have any red meat to throw to their vicious base.

[Dappleganger]

5. Since Contract with America

they have based many of their campaigns to the fundies on the basis of needing a president who will pick RW court members who will overturn Roe v Wade. If that happens I am so outta here, we cannot raise our daughters in an environment like this.

[DefenseLawyer]

4. There is too much money being made off fighting abortion

Without the never ending fight against abortion just think how many "single issue" voters/contributors the Republican party would lose. The last thing the leaders of the party want is to actually win that battle.

[depakid]

9. Actually, the battle would expand exponentially- as would fundraising

because every state in the union would be engaged in battles over family planning. Some Southern and lower Midwestern states would restrict -or ban forms of birth control.

It would be an absolute bonanza for the Republican party.

[DefenseLawyer]

23. I don't see the RNC raising much money for state legislators

I agree it would become a clusterfuck in the states, but how you think that translates into a fundraising "bonanza" for Republicans in federal elections is lost on me I'm afraid.

[depakid]

25. It's a fundraising bonanza on the family planning issue- and now with the Supreme Court ruling

they won't need to divert funds to it from their general coffers. If Kennedy would go along, it would be a brilliant coup for them- as it would take tons of other issues right off of the table.

[Raven]

27. Yes.

[KharmaTrain]

6. They Need A Court Case...

I don't know of any one in the pipeline...it was tried during the booosh years and defeated 5-4 (Kennedy WITH the upholding Roe).

It's one thing to use a past precendence and cherry pick the language like was done in overturning campaign reform and going a step further and trying to overturn an entire court verdict. Sure it can be done and you know that the evil 4 would love a crack at that apple, but I don't see Kennedy on board for even having a case get onto the docket yet to try overturning "settled law".

But with this court, who knows...

[Rebubula]

7. No...

...and to be fair, the SC ruling did NOT overturn a century of legal interpretation...just the interpretation of the McCain-Feingold act.

Continuing to repeat the 100 year thingy does not make it true.

[dbt]

8. Roe V. Wade is much too useful as a recruiting tool.

It's an invaluable ingredient of Bread and Circuses for the religious right. It keeps them in their Righteous Frenzy (TM) so that they may band together to smite the Atheist Horde at the ballot box and on the talk shows.

The Republics keep saying "Vote for us and we'll overturn Roe V. Wade!" Somehow, they never seem to get around to it. Wonder why that is?

[Liberal In Texas]

10. +1

[Champion Jack]

11. same reason bush didn't catch OBL, they need a boogy man

[harun]

22. +1, it is the political gift that keeps on giving for them. They would

never actually over turn it. They just want to use it as a wedge issue to gain support from people who would otherwise find the rest of their platform and ideology atrocious.

[rucky]

24. Yep. If they were actually interested in doing it, they would've done it

when they had the chance.

[asdjrocky]

12. No, and if you think they will ever do anything serious about Roe v. Wade,

you don't know about inside politics.

The repubs have used this issue just like they use the GLBT community for years. They need the issue for election time.

[cali]

13. I completely disagree.

The stage is set for a reversal of Roe and turning it back to the states. It's been happening incrementally for years and I'm afraid that you or anyone else who can't see the distinct possibility of this happening, doesn't really understand Robert's, Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Whether they can get Kennedy to go along is another story, but I don't count it out.

[asdjrocky]

14. Then we'll disagree.

I've had this oppinion since I read the book, What's the Matter with Kansas.

[onehandle]

15. If so, I would hope that women would rise up and keep Republicans and Conservatives out of office...

...through eternity.

Or is that just the Ralph Nader fairytale redux?

[cali]

17. I don't think they would

lot's of women are against abortion. Oh, sure if the Supremes issued a decision that essentially said that life begins at conception, women would rise up, but returning it to the states? No, I don't think it would harm repukes that much. I don't think people get how closely divided this country is on the issue.

[elleng]

16. Discussed here:

"Which brings me back to the question of what’s next. I don’t believe it’s Roe v. Wade, although I suspect that four members of the court, Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., would toss the abortion case over the side in a heartbeat. But for Justice Kennedy to join them, he would have to renounce his own vote in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in 1992, which reaffirmed the right to abortion. There are few things a justice dislikes more than repudiating a prior vote. (Justice Kennedy dissented in the Austin campaign finance case, so the outcome of Citizens United was a validation and not a repudiation.)

A target that does bear watching is the heavily freighted civil rights issue that the court raised and then skirted last June in the New Haven firefighters case, Ricci v. DeStefano. The issue in that case was whether the city engaged in a prohibited act of employment discrimination when it discarded the results of a promotion exam on which no black test-taker scored high enough to win a promotion. White firefighters who believed they were entitled to promotion sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race." >

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/the-next-time/?hp

[JDPriestly]

18. If so, then the country has been taken over by radical Catholics on the Supreme Court.

I read recently that, until modern times (possibly as recently as the middle of the 19th century), even the Catholic Church believed that life did not begin at least until the quickening.
.
I believe that the Jewish law as stated in the Bible imposed a far lesser punishment (payment of damages) on one who killed a fetus as opposed to a baby after birth.

I have mentioned the fact that 6 of our 9 Supreme Court Justices were raised Catholic. The 5 conservative Justices were all raised Catholic. It is not that Catholics are necessarily more conservative than others, but these Justices were appointed because they are conservative and rigidly so.

I think that in a nation in which not even half the citizens are Catholic, it is very odd that so many of our Supreme Court Justices were raised as Catholics. Very odd indeed.

7 of the 9 are men. 6 of the 9 were raised Catholic. They do not reflect the diversity of our nation.

[Myrina]

19. ... if we enact a Constitutional Amendment saying Congress can over rule SCOTUS,

... then yes, expect Roe - along with Brown v Board, Miranda and a bunch of other civil liberty-related rulings, to be gone as soon as there's a GOP majority.

[FLDCVADem]

21. And if we do that...

...we might as well get rid of the Supreme Court.

[moondust]

20. They've been waiting for a SCOTUS majority. Let's see...

Strike down the DC gun ban (and perhaps all others) - check.

Open the flood gates for (mostly Republicant) corporate cash to buy elections - check.
(Note: Republicants have historically had one clear advantage over Democrats: money. Only problem was those pesky restrictions on how much they could employ.)

Roe v. Wade - pending.

Stay tuned...

[TexasObserver]

26. Recommend

[Unvanguard]

29. No. And the Court did not overturn a century of established law; just a few decades' worth. n/t

[Stevenmarc]

30. They don't give a shit about Roe v. Wade... you don't kill the golden goose