Roe v. Wade to be overturned?

When Dobbs was ruled, one huge question to the Dems is why they didn’t codify Roe.

But to do so, Dems would have been risking the GOP saying that codifying Roe was proof that it was a bad ruling; otherwise, why the need for an actual law.

Dems are now seeing that same criticism from the GOP with their gay marriage and contraception bills. But after Dobbs, they’re not taking any chances and they finally aren’t giving a shit about GOP criticism.

 

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t a federal law stand the chance of repeal at any given time?

If so, then a federal law doesn’t do much to increase abortion access in my understanding. In states currently limiting or banning abortion, there would still be a strong chilling effect on healthcare providers (who need to train and have proper federal and local regulations to follow) if the legality of abortion is subject to which way the wind is blowing in DC. Does that reasoning hold water?

In the case of marriage equality, you can switch that light on and off, procedurally, a bit easier. (In my opinion, that should be constitutionally protected — either by current interpretation or amendment— but I can think of at least 5 or 6 crucial people who would disagree).

 

A federal law would get slapped down in five seconds by the Supreme Court. With this latest ruling, the majority ruling is that abortion is state level issue.

You can come up with all sorts of legal reasoning why a federal law would fix this. They'd be completely valid I'm sure. But this court wouldn't be listening.

 

Perhaps by making a compelling case for interstate commerce, and the need for Americans to routinely travel across state
lines for medical care. Because we do.

 

"Of course, from his point of view, Casey didn’t go far enough because the weight the court gave to fetal life was well below 100 percent. The Casey decision was five days shy of 30 years old when the court overturned it, along with Roe v. Wade, on June 24. Given that this was their goal from the start, the justices in the Dobbs majority really had only one job: to explain why. They didn’t, and given the remaining norms of a secular society, they couldn’t.

"There is another norm, too, one that has for too long restrained the rest of us from calling out the pervasive role that religion is playing on today’s Supreme Court. In recognition that it is now well past time to challenge that norm, I’ll take my own modest step and relabel Dobbs for the religion case that it is, since nothing else explains it."

This is religious writing in its own right, a blanket dismissal of the Alito reasoning for what amounts to "nah, it's not that, it's this, and I'm right." Which the author is fully entitled to write. But it takes every bit the mind-reading, I-know-what-I-know license lots of other religious opinions would. The words they wrote weren't really what they meant. OK.

 

It depends on the election. I think the SC would find a way to back federal legislation outlawing abortion while overturning federal legislation giving state’s the right to make it legal. This iteration of the court is outcome driven. Even Scalia subtly joked about it. They will do what it takes to nationally ban abortion, allow states to criminalize homosexual sex acts while allowing both the states and federal legislation and rules to refuse to recognize the validity of gay marriage.

what I’m real curious about is if they will find a way to overturn Miranda, Mapp v Ohio and Baker v Carr.

 

Roberts and the three liberals would go for something intellectually compelling. You need a fifth, though.

The only way this happens is if events are making a mockery of the court. A whole wave of state-wide ballots confirming abortion rights. Women getting pills through the mail at will. Etc. etc. Only then would one or more join in carving out some limited national rights, just so they look they're still in control.

My bet on this would be Kavanaugh. He seems sneaky enough to care about his place in history over whatever principles he has.

 

Sort of like the words they said in their confirmation hearings weren't really what they meant?

Six members of the Supreme Court are either members of or close to members of Opus Dei. Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society, who facilitated the nomination of five of them, is also a member of the powerful far right evangelical Catholic group. But no, of course that had nothing to do with their reasoning when they canned a fifty year old precedent, just as it had nothing to do with why Leo was pushing them onto the court.

 

Now it's my turn for speculation: I don't think they thought a Roberts court would ever do what it did.

And, without ACB, maybe it doesn't.

So much - too much - has been said about Kavanaugh. He's a finger-in-the-wind guy. ACB, IMO, was the wind.

 

Or perhaps make a religious liberty exception. Point to every case where they ruled in favor of religious liberty and make the argument of “do better than just saying abortion is different!”

 

I have nothing against Catholics. No prejudice. None.

If they were six hand picked members of the Moral Majority, or the Southern Baptist Convention, the Mormons, the Bahais, or the Moonies that were placed on the Supreme Court and tinkering with our Constitution, I would stand against them in exactly the same way. There are any number of people without any consideration of religion who are dead set against abortion as a moral position, and I respect their right to that position. I have no respect, none, for their jiggering the system to get the power to impose their moral code on the rest of the country.

Probably 80% of the organized opposition to abortion rights are founded either in Christian religious beliefs or political opportunism cloaked in them.