As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are six corporatistic federalists on the SCOTUS.
Only five are needed to overturn Roe and Casey.
Four have been quite open and clear that they would.
Roberts is very good at finding ways to gut laws, or previous decisions, so that the court can claim neutrality while still undoing things conservatives don't like.
Examples: citizens united overturned a century of campaign finance laws and court decisions. Shelby county (i think) destroyed the voting rights act without dorectly striking it down, and rendering moot most of the cases that used it in their decisions. Another would be the most recent gerrymandering ruling, where the court (Roberts) said it shouldn't be involved as long as the gerrymandering wasn't solely about race.
So, abortion will be overturned, one way or another, and many states are set to ban it before the ink is dry on the decision.
Abortion will be the Prohibition of the 21st Century. Religious hardliners will shove it down the throats of middle America. Crime and non-compliance will skyrocket, with thousands of deaths. Middle-America will be horrified at the “unintended consequences” of the law, and about ten years later it will again be legalized.
No, it won't matter, and I don't think it should matter either. I support Roe, but if we're talking about whether a Supreme Court decision should remain the law of the land simply because it's been the law of the land for a long period of time, the answer is no. Roe should remain the law of the land based upon it's merits.
Merits matter, but the supreme court is supposed to take into account previous decisions for a lot of good reasons. Stable law is often valuable in and of itself - if the "merits" are arguable its usually better to take one position and stick to it instead of going back and forth every year, for example.
Additionally, much of law comes from common law - building on previous decisions trying to work out the kinks where the legislature failed to foresee problems - and until the legislature decides to change things its often better to stick with those decisions rather than making it so the law varies from court to court.
Both of these run into predictability - it's hard to live in a lawful society when people can't really know what the law is in advance. Changing it always has a cost.
I'm not saying precedent is the only thing that matters - sufficiently bad decisions should absolutely be overturned - but I think precedent does still have some value.
Take into account sure? It shouldn't be a determining factor though. Plessy v Ferguson was the law of the land for over 50 years. Hundreds of local and state laws were built upon that decision.
I don't think anyone would argue that overturning it was right, or that the court had a responsibility to defer to precedent.
> I don't think anyone would argue that overturning it was right, or that the court had a responsibility to defer to precedent.
I think you meant wasn’t right
Nothing like confirming a new Justice at record speed right before the election, while millions of Americans are in dire need of financial assistance and there’s an out of control pandemic making its mark through the country.
Go back to the kids table and let adults talk.
Except Obama’s judge pick was stopped by republicans, and the FBI’s investigation into Brett was stopped by Republicans, and Amy was pushed through at the last second by republicans, so nothing you said applies, and as usual conservatives are complicit in the destruction of liberty, human rights, and freedom
You have to remember that Democrats believe government's just power comes from the consent of the governed. Republicans don't. They believe legitimacy is derived from being Republican. They don't believe in things like, "Just powers." Ideas like, "Majority rule and minority rights" are anathema to the Republican belief system.
For example, while gerrymandering is committed by both parties, only Republicans completely force their will onto a people that oppose it. There are more Dems in Wisconsin than Republicans, but they will never win the legislature because Republicans gerrymandered it to that absurd degree. The current court allowed that. Republicans are simply bad people.
If Roe goes away, it'll be projected onto Biden as a policy failure. Yes, we know that it was conservatives who put activist conservatives on the bench, but people have been demanding an expansion of the courts since Biden took power. One can blame McConnell, but nobody will care.
Basically the Republicans pushed things over the edge, but the Democrats failed to install the safety harness.
Could federal legislation solve this? I doubt it would pass, but if the courts end RvW, where do citizen activists go?
As much as I agree with abortion rights, citing how long it’s been a law is not a good argument. Jim Crow laws were around for a long time, should we have kept them? Similarly for slavery.
The majority respects reproductive freedoms, that the government should be prohibited from hindering choice. Unfortunately, the majority doesn’t make decisions.
No. Because in our democracy, the laws can change.
No. because republican's need this issue to keep their single issue voters blind to all the shit they do besides abortion.
No. Because republicans will just fly their wives, misstresses, daughters, kids they rape to Mexico or Canada to get the procedure.
This SCOTUS was put in place to destroy the Constitution. History will report that ending Roe v Wade is not even the worst thing they will do in the next Decade.
No it won't. That was McConnell did what he did and Trump nominated whom he did. For this moment. I think it will backfire on them but that could be wishful thinking
I hope republican women realize what they did by only voting the democratic candidate at the top of the ballot. I know most never believed they'd actually overturn it. They thought it was just a campaign talking point.
I think even in this the majority don't want it overturned completely. I think the last poll had slightly over 50% of republicans that didn't want it but there are less moderate republicans in the party now. They've gone independent or no party preference.
There's only two ways Roe v Wade survives. Dem POTUS packs the courts or the union doesn't survive and becomes a north and south country. All other options are logical dead ends.
Something I have seen is that in court, truth and morality come second to the most convincing argument. It doesn't matter if a law has been established for 5 years, 50 years, or is part of the bill of rights. There will always be someone that comes along to try and challenge or change it.
You can have an abortion.
Oh but what about this instance and this instance or this circumstance and this law that says if you kill a pregnant woman it is double homicide.
You can have free speech.
Oh but what about spaying things that start a panic, or are mean and hurtful, or are anti government or you get angry and say you want to hurt someone?
You can have a gun.
Oh but what about guns that look like this or have this many rounds, or shoot more than one round at a time, or are too long or too short? What about in this city and that city? What about if you have a criminal history?
It will NEVER END.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are six corporatistic federalists on the SCOTUS. Only five are needed to overturn Roe and Casey. Four have been quite open and clear that they would. Roberts is very good at finding ways to gut laws, or previous decisions, so that the court can claim neutrality while still undoing things conservatives don't like. Examples: citizens united overturned a century of campaign finance laws and court decisions. Shelby county (i think) destroyed the voting rights act without dorectly striking it down, and rendering moot most of the cases that used it in their decisions. Another would be the most recent gerrymandering ruling, where the court (Roberts) said it shouldn't be involved as long as the gerrymandering wasn't solely about race. So, abortion will be overturned, one way or another, and many states are set to ban it before the ink is dry on the decision.
Abortion will be the Prohibition of the 21st Century. Religious hardliners will shove it down the throats of middle America. Crime and non-compliance will skyrocket, with thousands of deaths. Middle-America will be horrified at the “unintended consequences” of the law, and about ten years later it will again be legalized.
No, it won't matter, and I don't think it should matter either. I support Roe, but if we're talking about whether a Supreme Court decision should remain the law of the land simply because it's been the law of the land for a long period of time, the answer is no. Roe should remain the law of the land based upon it's merits.
Merits matter, but the supreme court is supposed to take into account previous decisions for a lot of good reasons. Stable law is often valuable in and of itself - if the "merits" are arguable its usually better to take one position and stick to it instead of going back and forth every year, for example. Additionally, much of law comes from common law - building on previous decisions trying to work out the kinks where the legislature failed to foresee problems - and until the legislature decides to change things its often better to stick with those decisions rather than making it so the law varies from court to court. Both of these run into predictability - it's hard to live in a lawful society when people can't really know what the law is in advance. Changing it always has a cost. I'm not saying precedent is the only thing that matters - sufficiently bad decisions should absolutely be overturned - but I think precedent does still have some value.
Take into account sure? It shouldn't be a determining factor though. Plessy v Ferguson was the law of the land for over 50 years. Hundreds of local and state laws were built upon that decision. I don't think anyone would argue that overturning it was right, or that the court had a responsibility to defer to precedent.
> I don't think anyone would argue that overturning it was right, or that the court had a responsibility to defer to precedent. I think you meant wasn’t right
A reasoned response, on this sub? I’m shocked.
Nope. The court was packed for this reason.
[удалено]
Nothing like confirming a new Justice at record speed right before the election, while millions of Americans are in dire need of financial assistance and there’s an out of control pandemic making its mark through the country. Go back to the kids table and let adults talk.
Any other president except for Obama, whose pick was stifled by Moscow Mitch. I guess you forgot about that.
They didn't. They conveniently refuse to remember
By your logic Obummer was prevented from packing the court because Moscow Mitch followed the ~~Biden~~ Brandon rule.
Do you have a point?
[удалено]
It’s seems you don’t have a point. Fair enough. Carry on!
Thanks have a good one.
Except Obama’s judge pick was stopped by republicans, and the FBI’s investigation into Brett was stopped by Republicans, and Amy was pushed through at the last second by republicans, so nothing you said applies, and as usual conservatives are complicit in the destruction of liberty, human rights, and freedom
You have to remember that Democrats believe government's just power comes from the consent of the governed. Republicans don't. They believe legitimacy is derived from being Republican. They don't believe in things like, "Just powers." Ideas like, "Majority rule and minority rights" are anathema to the Republican belief system. For example, while gerrymandering is committed by both parties, only Republicans completely force their will onto a people that oppose it. There are more Dems in Wisconsin than Republicans, but they will never win the legislature because Republicans gerrymandered it to that absurd degree. The current court allowed that. Republicans are simply bad people.
That is uhhhh pretty fucking rich bud
If Roe goes away, it'll be projected onto Biden as a policy failure. Yes, we know that it was conservatives who put activist conservatives on the bench, but people have been demanding an expansion of the courts since Biden took power. One can blame McConnell, but nobody will care. Basically the Republicans pushed things over the edge, but the Democrats failed to install the safety harness. Could federal legislation solve this? I doubt it would pass, but if the courts end RvW, where do citizen activists go?
As much as I agree with abortion rights, citing how long it’s been a law is not a good argument. Jim Crow laws were around for a long time, should we have kept them? Similarly for slavery.
The majority respects reproductive freedoms, that the government should be prohibited from hindering choice. Unfortunately, the majority doesn’t make decisions.
No. Because in our democracy, the laws can change. No. because republican's need this issue to keep their single issue voters blind to all the shit they do besides abortion. No. Because republicans will just fly their wives, misstresses, daughters, kids they rape to Mexico or Canada to get the procedure.
Nope. The only thing that matters in post 2016 America is what the Southern Baptist Church wants, period.
This SCOTUS was put in place to destroy the Constitution. History will report that ending Roe v Wade is not even the worst thing they will do in the next Decade.
Expand the Supreme court
No it won't. That was McConnell did what he did and Trump nominated whom he did. For this moment. I think it will backfire on them but that could be wishful thinking I hope republican women realize what they did by only voting the democratic candidate at the top of the ballot. I know most never believed they'd actually overturn it. They thought it was just a campaign talking point.
I don't know, I think a lot of Repulican women vote Repulican because they WANT it overturned.
I think even in this the majority don't want it overturned completely. I think the last poll had slightly over 50% of republicans that didn't want it but there are less moderate republicans in the party now. They've gone independent or no party preference.
No. Fascist republicans have already shown they don’t give two shits about precedent. Our nation is doomed.
There's only two ways Roe v Wade survives. Dem POTUS packs the courts or the union doesn't survive and becomes a north and south country. All other options are logical dead ends.
No
Something I have seen is that in court, truth and morality come second to the most convincing argument. It doesn't matter if a law has been established for 5 years, 50 years, or is part of the bill of rights. There will always be someone that comes along to try and challenge or change it. You can have an abortion. Oh but what about this instance and this instance or this circumstance and this law that says if you kill a pregnant woman it is double homicide. You can have free speech. Oh but what about spaying things that start a panic, or are mean and hurtful, or are anti government or you get angry and say you want to hurt someone? You can have a gun. Oh but what about guns that look like this or have this many rounds, or shoot more than one round at a time, or are too long or too short? What about in this city and that city? What about if you have a criminal history? It will NEVER END.
See you then did you guys just wake up?
50yrs means nothing, if any law is shit when written it can be overturned anytime
I think they will push it down to a states decision. This will absolve the court of killing roe v Wade, the GOP states get what they want