1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What makes anyone think Roe v. Wade will be overturned?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Piotr Rasputin, May 12, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Piotr Rasputin

    Piotr Rasputin New Member

    This is a question I have had for a while, and since we're not supposed to respond on the election thread:

    I didn't get this "Roe v. Wade will be overturned!!!" doom and gloom from Al Gore's campaign, and I don't get it now. Since Roe V. Wade passed, we have had more than 20 years of Republican presidents. And if they ever put forth a SCOTUS candidate who gave even an inkling of wanting to overturn Roe V, Wade, Congress jumped on it.

    20 years of GOP presidents. Roe V. Wade is still there. The GOP has to know that would be political suicide for them; they would lose moderates for at least a decade if not more. Especially considering how many liberties the Bush administration has taken with individuals' rights, the fact there hasn't been a big noise toward this gives me pause.

    I understand why the SCOTUS appointments have everyone worried. It's just that I've heard way too much from Democrats about how "That GOP guys is gonna appoint justices who will overturn Roe v Wade!!!!" and yet I haven't seen it get stricken from the books.

    It's very easy to assume a GOP president would appoint those evil judges, but the process is set up so that getting such a judge past Congress would be impossible.

    I'm not voting McCain, and I'm not voting GOP for president any time soon. But they have to know that overturning Roe v. Wade would be the thing that would finish them, except among the hardcord religious people.
     
  2. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    What in the constitution made abortion a constitutional issue and not a legislative one in the first place?

    And after that gets answered (and it never will, so don't bother), what in the constitution has changed since 1973, that means the ruling should be reversed?
     
  3. forever_town

    forever_town Active Member

    It wouldn't be the Constitution that changes; it would be the Justices' interpretation of the Constitution.

    Having said that, for better or worse, Roe v. Wade is part of our nation's legal precedents. IMO, the SCOTUS is loathe to go against precedents no matter which ideology dominates the Justices.
     
  4. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    There have been times in our history when either side could have pushed it to settle the issue, but the truth is, it is too much of a money raiser for the Dems and the GOP to make it worthwhile to do so. If the GOP loses the interest of the Right to Lifers or the Dems lose NARAL, where do they go from there? There probably isn't another issue that has affected politics more in the last 35 years.
     
  5. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

    The Rovian types love to wave this bloody shirt, well-knowing it's more valuable as a red cape to wave in the eyes of wingnut base GOPers, than as an actual game plan for action.
     
  6. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    And of course, blue-blood Republicans have paid for thousands of abortions over the years when Little Muffy gets knocked up on spring break.
     
  7. EStreetJoe

    EStreetJoe Well-Known Member

    The four staunch conservatives on the court - Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito - have all stated for the record that Roe v. Wade was wrong and should be overturned. These four are originalists/texualists who will say they believe in the rule of precedent to get approved for the court, but will overturn any precedent they don't agree with once on the court when the case presents itself. One more originist/texualist like that on the court and given the right case, Roe v. Wade can be overturned.
    When the Republicans controlled Congress during the Roberts and Alito hearings they threatened the "nuclear option" (eliminating all filibusters) if the Democrats tried to filibuster against the Roberts or Alito nomination on the grounds of a single issue (as opposed to overall serious concerns). So the Dems were powerless to block the nominations.
     
  8. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    If Roe v. Wade is overturned, the states will set their individual limitations, and probably 40 will retain regulations similar to the present.
     
  9. Habeas Corpus

    Habeas Corpus Member

    As forever town pointed out, it's the judicial interpretation. The 14th Amendment states, " nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." "Liberty" has been construed to cover personal liberties, such as the right to marry, the right to work and the right to have the freedom to make private reproductive choices.

    Scalia and Thomas flatly reject this argument. O'Connor was the swing voite in Stenberg v. Carhart to strike down a partial birth abortion ban in Nebraska without a mother's health exception. After she was replaced by Alito, a similar federal law, also without a women's health exception, was upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart 5-4. The majority was Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts and Alito. Kennedy dissented in the former, as well. Although Kennedy did vote against striking down Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, so an outright reversal of Roe is unlikely with the current court.

    However, if Stevens -- who at 88 is most likely to be the next Justice replaced -- is replaced by a "moderate conservative" like Roberts, as he was sold during his confirmation, it is distinctly possible that Roe could potentially be overturned. Say some super red state like Utah or Idaho passed a state law banning abortion a la South Dakota a few years ago but with a women's health exception, it could very easily reach the Supreme Court.

    With the Dems controlling the Senate, there is pretty much no chance a total wingnut like Alito would survive confirmation, but someone in the Roberts mold just might. Say, for example, McCain intentionally nominated a couple wackjobs with no chance, they get voted down by the senate, and then a "moderate" doesn't look so bad by comparision. The Republicans would go to the media and complain about the Democrats being out of touch liberals and blocking anyone that isn't a flaming leftist to the Court.
     
  10. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    At the risk of cliche, so was Dred Scott.
    I haven't seen that. Where?
     
  11. Cadet

    Cadet Guest

    On Inauguration Day, two-thirds of the Court will be 70 or older. If half that number (3) die or retire in the next eight years, which is not a stretch, the next president could be appointing three (or more!) justices.

    The last four presidents have only gotten to appoint two justices each. The next president could have the biggest influence over the makeup of the court since the Nixon administration.

    I don't want that person to be a Republican.
     
  12. EStreetJoe

    EStreetJoe Well-Known Member

    In various interviews or legal briefs they've each written over the years.
    Most of it is spelled out throughout the great book "The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court" by Jeffrey Toobin.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page