The Roe Countdown

[Babbylonian]

It doesn't have to be a criminal matter. One can sue the government to overturn a law because it is an undue burden.

This is where you get into "legitimate public interest" and "least restrictive means to achieve" kinds of arguments.

Nobody got arrested under Prop 8 in order to make marriage equality a thing, for example.

Indeed. The bottom line is that the Alabama law, under the current system, is unconstitutional on its face.

 

[AnonyMoose]

Yup, I think Roe v Wade is going to be toast.

I never once thought that could be a possibility in the 21st century, until recently.

As for the timeline, I think it depends on when Ruth Bader Ginsburg can no longer fill her seat. The hope is that she'll outlast Trump, but taking her age and health into consideration, that's not likely if he gets another term.

I think there's another middle-ground supreme court justice that's coming up for retirement soon too, besides RBG?

If that happens during Trump's time, American women haven't got a hope in hell.

Expect all hell to break loose soon after.

 

[Trebuchet]

Indeed. The bottom line is that the Alabama law, under the current system, is unconstitutional on its face.

At least until SCROTUS* get their hands on it....

*Supreme Court Republicans of the USA.

 

[cosmicaug]

When does Roe v Wade get thrown out?

Never. It would require the overturning of many decades old precedent and this cannot happen (as Sen. Susan Collins would be happy to remind you).

 

[Puppycow]

Anyone with evidence Trump paid for an abortion needs to step right up, because I'd see that as the only chance left to prevent the absurd attacks on women's rights by white men.

Why would that sort of thing change Kavanaugh's mind?

It wouldn't matter to Trump supporters. Nor would it matter to the Kavanaughs and Republican politicians of the world. It would be news fodder for a few days and then everyone would move on to the next thing.

 

[Robin]

Certainly Roe vs Wade will be overturned sometime soon.

At the time of the election I said that it was the issue that put Trump over the line. You only need to look at the margins in the swing states compared to the evangelical populations in those states. Add that there was a SCOTUS vacancy and at least one more likely in the next presidential term and given that the SCOTUS balance is something of an obsession with evangelicals, then it seems very likely that this played a big part.

I can't believe that the appointees don't know what is expected of them.

I am expecting a few anti LGBT measures too

This will probably be a factor in 2020 too, so the US will have a Trump flavoured SCOTUS for the next generation at least.

 

[William Parcher]

The people of Alabama are going to be overbreeding. They will spill out into the rest of the country like multiplying hamsters.

 

[Robin]

As for the timeline, I think it depends on when Ruth Bader Ginsburg can no longer fill her seat. The hope is that she'll outlast Trump, but taking her age and health into consideration, that's not likely if he gets another term.

And that fact alone will deliver Trump a new term. The margin in Wisconsin was around the size of the weekly attendance of a mega church in that state and there are a lot of mega churches there. And they aren't even the majority of evangelicals.

And then there are the Catholics.

 

[Bob001]

The people of Alabama are going to be overbreeding. They will spill out into the rest of the country like multiplying hamsters.

Build the Wall!

 

[Bob001]

Drugs are illegal, people seek illegal drugs.
Abortion is illegal, costly and discrete abortions will forever go unreported.

Changing a law won't change what people desire.

It should be noted that overturning Roe v. Wade will not make abortion illegal. It will simply return the matter to the states. Before 1973, abortion was basically legal in several states, and that was the general direction law and public opinion were heading. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion will remain legal in the states that make it so -- the Northeast, the West Coast, etc. -- and will be punishable to different degrees under state laws in the South. The consequence is that women with enough money will be able to take a little trip to get the services they need, and the poor will either have babies they don't want and can't care for, or they will head for the back-alley butchers.

What a mess.

 

[William Parcher]

We could egg the people of Alabama.

 

[Cavemonster]

I don't think you really get it. Until the law is overturned, it's the law and people violating that law will go to prison or be otherwise punished.Leaving it unchallenged doesn't make the law go away, nor does it make it ineffective. The only potential positive would be that other states might be reluctant to do their own bans, but we can already see that this isn't true.

I'll break it down further:
1. Dr. <X> is convicted of performing an abortion.
2. Dr. <X> is sentenced to <Y> years in prison.

Now, right here, with no appeals, Dr. <X> is spending time in prison. Dr. <X> will for good reason find that situation unacceptable and will therefore instruct their attorney(s) to file an appeal on constitutional grounds citing RvW and move on to step 3.

3. The state appeals court will uphold or overturn the conviction.
4a. If upheld, Dr. <X> will appeal to the federal level.
4b. If overturned, the state will appeal to the federal level.

5. The federal district court will affirm or overturn the previous court's decision.
5a/b. Same as above, but the appeal will be to the Supreme Court.

Bottom line: The law has to be fought, not only on principle but because as of this moment the law is unconstitutional as determined in Roe v. Wade.

The law has to be fought, but it doesn't seem to me that fighting it via a process that leads to the supreme court is a productive way to fight it if doing so leads to an overturning of precedent.

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, just because the state would plan to appeal any court finding that overturned their law, does not mean that the appeal would be granted. There's a reason that not every case makes it to the supreme court.

 

[dudalb]

You guys are really reading a lot into the OP that's not there.

All I see in TA's post is acknowledgement of the stark reality that the arch-conservative scum are close to a win on the issue of abortion, a win that will bring misery to millions of women in this country.

A lot of this is based on TA's past history; he has done a LOT of USA bashing in the past.
And, yeah, I think that repealing RvW would be a disaster;but it would be a political disaster for the GOP. They finally got what they wanted;and will find out it isnot what a lot of Amereicans want.

 

[Babbylonian]

The law has to be fought, but it doesn't seem to me that fighting it via a process that leads to the supreme court is a productive way to fight it if doing so leads to an overturning of precedent.

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, just because the state would plan to appeal any court finding that overturned their law, does not mean that the appeal would be granted. There's a reason that not every case makes it to the supreme court.

It's pretty obvious that you're not a lawyer because there are generally three ways to overturn a state law in the US:

1. Appeal to the state legislature to repeal the law. That would clearly be ineffective here.
2. In states where available, ballot initiatives can be used. If the majority of the state supports the law, then that's going nowhere.
3. Appeal through the established court system, which ends at the Supreme Court.

If none of these are tried, then the state law is just the law and that's an unacceptable alternative.

But, again, you don't seem to understand that if the law isn't appealed through the system up to and in this case certainly including the Supreme Court, then Roe v. Wade might as well not even exist as precedent. States will ban abortion as they see fit and state-by-state misery ensues.

 

[Babbylonian]

A lot of this is based on TA's past history; he has done a LOT of USA bashing in the past.
And, yeah, I think that repealing RvW would be a disaster;but it would be a political disaster for the GOP. They finally got what they wanted;and will find out it isnot what a lot of Amereicans want.

That's what they got with Trump, too. They don't seem to give a single **** what most Americans want.

 

[Cavemonster]

It's pretty obvious that you're not a lawyer because there are generally three ways to overturn a state law in the US:

1. Appeal to the state legislature to repeal the law. That would clearly be ineffective here.
2. In states where available, ballot initiatives can be used. If the majority of the state supports the law, then that's going nowhere.
3. Appeal through the established court system, which ends at the Supreme Court.

If none of these are tried, then the state law is just the law and that's an unacceptable alternative.

But, again, you don't seem to understand that if the law isn't appealed through the system up to and in this case certainly including the Supreme Court, then Roe v. Wade might as well not even exist as precedent. States will ban abortion as they see fit and state-by-state misery ensues.

The whole idea of supreme court precedent is that it can be used by the court system below the SC to overturn laws without each and every law going all the way to the top.

If that weren't the case, there would be no value in precedent anyhow. The supreme court would then have no teeth because any time a law was overturned there, the state would just make a new law that effectively did the same thing.

 

[Babbylonian]

The whole idea of supreme court precedent is that it can be used by the court system below the SC to overturn laws without each and every law going all the way to the top.

If that weren't the case, there would be no value in precedent anyhow. The supreme court would then have no teeth because any time a law was overturned there, the state would just make a new law that effectively did the same thing.

Yeah. In an ideal world (or at least a slightly better one), the lower courts would strike down the law and Alabama would say "Well, we lost that one, maybe next time." What makes you think that would happen?

 

[Cavemonster]

Yeah. In an ideal world (or at least a slightly better one), the lower courts would strike down the law and Alabama would say "Well, we lost that one, maybe next time." What makes you think that would happen?

I don't believe that the state's tenacity by itself is the final word in whether an appeal is granted.

 

[Babbylonian]

I don't believe that the state's tenacity by itself is the final word in whether an appeal is granted.

Their lawyers will have their briefs ready to file. Of course they can and should be dismissed, but the premise of this thread is that a majority of justices on the Supreme Court are willing to trash Roe v. Wade as precedent.

If you don't accept that premise, fine, I hope you're right, but this is the journey upon which we in the US seem to be embarking. That the end looks inevitable is why the scum in Alabama felt emboldened to pass their **** law. If it turns out they were wrong (or misinformed), I will cheer the justices who slap them down.

The implication that there's some alternative to this process seems misguided. If you have an actual alternative, I'm sure everyone would love to know what that is.

 

[Cavemonster]

Their lawyers will have their briefs ready to file. Of course they can and should be dismissed, but the premise of this thread is that a majority of justices on the Supreme Court are willing to trash Roe v. Wade as precedent.

It's my understanding that several appeals need to be granted by lower courts first.