• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Roe Countdown

When will Roe v Wade be overturned

  • Before 31 December 2020

    Votes: 20 18.3%

  • Before 31 December 2022

    Votes: 27 24.8%

  • Before 31 December 2024

    Votes: 9 8.3%

  • SCOTUS will not pick a case up

    Votes: 16 14.7%

  • SCOTUS will pick it up and decline to overturn

    Votes: 37 33.9%
  • Total voters
    109
Status
Not open for further replies.
Armitage72 said:
As the article notes, that was passed with the specific intention of it eventually reaching the Supreme Court, with the expectation that the current Court will then overturn Roe v. Wade.
Click to expand...

Yep, which is completely in line with my OP.

Now SCOTUS has a 6-3 religious conservative majority, I wouldn't be taking bets, and if they do allow a law like this, you can bet every red state will do the same thing.
 
The Atheist said:
They're not letting a little thing like Trump losing the White House stop them from trying to ban abortion in states:
Click to expand...

Understandable, since in the US system of government the person in the White House is completely irrelevant to state legislation and its adjudication in the federal court system. They'd be complete idiots and ignoramuses if they thought Trump leaving office was in any way an obstacle to their plan.
 
Well I guess we'll finally find out one way or the other.

My guess is that Roberts would vote to uphold Roe because of stare decisis, but there might be 5 votes to overturn Roe.

Just to remind everyone, last summer there was a case that narrowly threw out a Louisiana anti-abortion law on a 5-4 vote, with Roberts siding with the Liberals. But that was with Ginsburg on the court. She has since been replaced by Amy Coney Barrett.

That case was not the same as an outright abortion ban, so I don't know whether all of the justices who voted to uphold that law are certain to uphold this one, but it seems likely. You never know with these things though until it happens. But a 5-4 decision to overturn Roe certainly appears to be a real possibility.
 
theprestige said:
Understandable, since in the US system of government the person in the White House is completely irrelevant to state legislation and its adjudication in the federal court system.
Click to expand...

Obviously, but when you want to challenge the status quo, there's nothing like having a President and VP who are both wildly publicly anti-abortion. The more people want change, the harder states push, and sooner or later, one of them will worm its way to SCOTUS.
 
If SCOTUS overturns Roe, the Republicans will lose a lot of single issue voters.
 
The law would charge doctors with a felony crime and take away their medical license if they know that the patient’s reason for the abortion was even partly related to a Down syndrome diagnosis. This Ohio law, and others like it, have been condemned by disability rights and justice advocates and organizations as an unjustified attack on bodily autonomy, which does nothing to address ableism and systemic discrimination against people with disabilities.
Click to expand...

https://www.acluohio.org/archives/press-releases/federal-court-overturns-lower-court-ruling-allows-ohio-lawmakers-to-punish-doctors-for-providing-abortion-care-based-on-patients-reason
 
Supreme Court to weigh rollback of abortion rights

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider a major rollback of abortion rights, saying it will decide whether states can ban abortions before a fetus can survive outside the womb.

The court’s order sets up a showdown over abortion, probably in the fall, with a more conservative court seemingly ready to dramatically alter nearly 50 years of rulings on abortion rights.
. . .

The case involves a Mississippi law that would prohibit abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy.
Click to expand...

So this particular law would not be a complete reversal of Roe, as it would allow abortions until the 15th week.

In the United States, according to data reported by the Centers for Disease Control, 92% of abortions are performed by the 13th week.

The majority of abortions in 2018 took place early in gestation: 92.2% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.9%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation.
Click to expand...

So, presumably, if the Supreme Court were to allow this particular law to stand, it would not affect the majority of abortions.

The other news seems to be that they did not take up the Arkansas abortion ban, or other more restrictive laws like fetal heartbeat laws. Does that mean that they plan to take an incrementalist approach? Rather than overturning Roe in one fell swoop, chip away at it?
 
Me in 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2020: Just vote for the mainstream candidates most likely to actually defeat the Republicans or we're gonna lose the Supreme Court.

Reponses; Oh you're an evil centrist Democrats are part of the same system I'm voting for an outside the box neo-socialist-greenparty-progressive with sprinkles because they aren't a compromise!
 
The Great Zaganza said:
If SCOTUS overturns Roe, the Republicans will lose a lot of single issue voters.
Click to expand...
Why?

The Heller decision didn't affect the 2nd Amendment single voting issue.
Click to expand...
True... I'm sure the evangelicals will want to keep supporting anti-Abortion republicans because "We must continue protecting the unborn children. Otherwise women will actually start to think of themselves as real people".

There is another risk to Republicans though...

A 2018 poll shows the majority of Republicans actually support Roe v. Wade. (See: Wikipedia

Now, I suspect many of these people continue to support the Republicans for other reasons, and they probably figure that overturning Roe v. Wade is just some sort of theoretical idea that would never happen in real life (i.e. not something to be concerned about). But if the Supreme court DOES severely curtail abortion rights, maybe some of these pro-choice republicans might start to think that perhaps the GOP isn't the best fit for them.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Me in 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2020: Just vote for the mainstream candidates most likely to actually defeat the Republicans or we're gonna lose the Supreme Court.

Reponses; Oh you're an evil centrist Democrats are part of the same system I'm voting for an outside the box neo-socialist-greenparty-progressive with sprinkles because they aren't a compromise!
Click to expand...

Strange choice to peg responsibility for our current court this way.

Probably the single greatest reason for our current court being comprised this way is the refusal by RGB to retire when Obama and the Dems had the ability to select and confirm her replacement. It doesn't matter if you win elections if liberal justices refuse to think strategically.

Even now it's an open question whether Breyer is going to retire in time to be replaced before an election risks losing Senate control. Can't blame the Greens for that one.

Republicans are playing hardball when it comes to the SCOTUS and liberal justices are still waffling on whether or not they should die on the bench because their ego demands it.
 
I think Republicans would trade all power over the Judiciary, States and Congress in return for control of the mainstream media and what goes for "Hollywood" nowadays: they think they can win the Culture War by gaining power, not realizing that that's never going to work.
Abortion is the clearest showcase of Conservatives thinking they can force the Zeitgeist to conform to their ideals by decree.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Me in 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2020: Just vote for the mainstream candidates most likely to actually defeat the Republicans or we're gonna lose the Supreme Court.

Reponses; Oh you're an evil centrist Democrats are part of the same system I'm voting for an outside the box neo-socialist-greenparty-progressive with sprinkles because they aren't a compromise!
Click to expand...
Strange choice to peg responsibility for our current court this way.
Click to expand...
It is true that the majority of blame for the current political landscape (and the supreme court) falls on the Republicans.

But that doesn't mean that we can't point out the foolishness of "progressives" taking a course of action that may have been a symbolic victory, but leads to real harm in the real world.
Probably the single greatest reason for our current court being comprised this way is the refusal by RGB to retire when Obama and the Dems had the ability to select and confirm her replacement.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. However, you can't rule out the scenario is that Moscow Mitch would have just blocked the confirmation (unless she retired in the first couple of years of Obama's term, but that would have drastically shortened her career). End result is that you'd still end up with a republican majority, you just would have had several years with an 8 member supreme court.
Even now it's an open question whether Breyer is going to retire in time to be replaced before an election risks losing Senate control. Can't blame the Greens for that one.

Republicans are playing hardball when it comes to the SCOTUS and liberal justices are still waffling on whether or not they should die on the bench because their ego demands it.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Democrats have to do a better job at playing 'hardball' (both regarding the supreme court, and with politics in general).

However, keep in mind that the longest serving justice right now is... Right-wing judge Clarence Thomas. He is younger than Breyer, but he's still in his 70s, and if the Democrats manage to hold the White House in 2024, its possible that the Democrats will be able to nominate his successor.
 
Segnosaur said:
It is true that the majority of blame for the current political landscape (and the supreme court) falls on the Republicans.

But that doesn't mean that we can't point out the foolishness of "progressives" taking a course of action that may have been a symbolic victory, but leads to real harm in the real world.

Perhaps. However, you can't rule out the scenario is that Moscow Mitch would have just blocked the confirmation (unless she retired in the first couple of years of Obama's term, but that would have drastically shortened her career). End result is that you'd still end up with a republican majority, you just would have had several years with an 8 member supreme court.

Yes, the Democrats have to do a better job at playing 'hardball' (both regarding the supreme court, and with politics in general).

However, keep in mind that the longest serving justice right now is... Right-wing judge Clarence Thomas. He is younger than Breyer, but he's still in his 70s, and if the Democrats manage to hold the White House in 2024, its possible that the Democrats will be able to nominate his successor.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what people were calling for at the time, which was dismissed by RBG and other fools as a presumptuous request. The exact doom-scenario we are in now was gamed out at the time, and RBG decided to roll the dice and we all lost. Barring a miracle, we'll be living with the consequences of that foolishness for a generation. Longer if Breyer repeats the error.

A bit ironic, a strong feminist icon's refusal to strategically play the game will be the indirect cause of women's rights being largely defanged in this country. It's going to be a speedrun to see how fast the conservative ghouls can reverse a lifetime legacy.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom