I realize it’s a possibility, but is this likely? I can see Renqhuist retiring, but it’s hard to picture anyone equally- or more right-wing than he replacing him without a huge Bork-level fight, (at least with the Senate the way it is). O’Connor may leave, too, but nominating a hard-right will be tricky, at the very least. In order to ensure an overturn of RvW, you’d have to get one or more liberal justices out of there, and they’re not likely to retire willingly. Barring a death or devastating illness, its the Justices themselves who decide when a replacement slot becomes open, not the President. It sounds like the best thing pro-choicers can hope for in the short-term is the good (or at least passable) health of Stevens, Kennedy, Souter and Ginsburg (and/or Breyer? I’m having trouble keeping the names straight).
The ultra-right wing of the GOP is in control - Karl Rove is a political genius - I just wish his loyalties were not where they are. I am a political junkie, and have watched the Right-Left cycle of the US political scence since '68 - the people will continue “on course” - pretty much any course (non-US Dopers: yes the spectrum in this country is very narrow - we are a hard-core Protestant, capitalistic, ‘I’ve got mine, the Hell with you’ culture - we nibble around the edges, but historically, are among the most right-wing countries of modern time) until disaster cannot be ignored - the Dems sank in '68 on the reef of Vietnam - bingo! - Nixon. The GOP became pariah with Watergate (even though the story broke before the '72 election, Nixon was re-elected handily - only MA voted against him - yes, even NY and CA went GOP that year).
The Nixon debacle made even Jimmy Carter (a honorable, decent and even religiously devout man, who was uniquely unsuited to the job - I have nothing but admiration of the man, but he simply did not know hoe the system worked, let alone knowing how to make it work). That lead to Reagan - a disaster from way back - he had, as he Nixon debacle made even Jimmy Carter (a honorable, decent and even religiously devout man, who was uniquely unsuited to the job - I have nothing but admiration of the man, but he simply did not know how the system worked, let alone knowing how to work it). That lead to Reagan - a disaster from way back - he had, as Govenor of CA, had destroyed the UC system (once among the finest Universities in the world, and was free to all CA residents), and pretty much bankrupted the state (we are still paying for that). He was so popular that there was a real, credible attempt to repeal whichever Constitutional amendment limits Presidents to two terms (passed by the GOP after Roosevelt’s unprecedented run) so he could be re-elected in '88.
Enter Bush I - the “kinder, gentler Conservative” - that didn’t really work out - and Clinton relplaced hin in '92. The rabid GOP counter -revolted in '94 or '96 “We will work with anyone, but compormise with no one” (N. Gingrich) immediately started an amazingly strong grass-roots movement to hijact the BOP into truely rabid positions. Those “Contract With America” types were pretty much out of the picture by '96, but the GOP still sought to impeach (not done in over 100 years before). But the GOP kept up “family values”, and , by 2000, had convinved the citizentry to “retyn to traditionsl” values, It took a bit of string-pulling, but BushII got appoined in 2000.
In short form: The country has been moving rightward sine 1968, and the rate has been acceration in the last 4 years.
“Yes” to ‘Bush II’; in '04, the Senate dems lost seats (IIRC), and are no longer in a position to block anything.
So - 4-5 yrs doiwn the - I was msurpridr Thome msde Gingrich
The name ‘RU-486’ is an unfortunate double entendre, and was not intentional. It is a code name used by the pharmaceutical company to refer to the drug conveniently before a generic name is assigned. The RU indicates the manufacturer; MK is Merck, LY is Eli Lilly, and RU is Roussel-UCLAF in France. The 486 is either arbitrary, sequential (i.e. the 486th drug seriously researched) or related to a chemical property. Many drugs have these code names, but they are rarely used after the generic name is assigned.
Generic names are not real chemical names, since actual chemical names are long and difficult to remember. The generic name often does tell chemists something about the drug’s structure, while the code name only indicates the manufacturer. RU-486 is probably referred to by its code name only because of the double entendre. (This was obviously unintentional, since the drug was designed in France. Quatre-vingt-six doesn’t mean ‘eighty-six’, and RU-4 isn’t est-ce que tu es pour.) Otherwise, it would be referred to by its generic name, mifeprestone, or its trade name, Mifeprex®.
Well, actually, it does. It’s just that the number “86” has no particular slang significance for death, termination, ending, etc. in French. The entendre seen by DantesTenth is mere coincidence.
It’s considered at least a possibility. Rhenquist is sick (and 80 years old), O’Connor may want to quit, Stevens is 84… the figure tossed around is that there may be anywhere from one to four available spots on the Court in the next four years.
DantesTenth, I am genuinely interested in what you’re saying, but am having problems with your last sentence:
I understand, but in order to accomplish a shift you’d have to replace left-wing or moderate justices with right-wing ones. How many left/moderate justices are likely to retire in the next four years, and will they instead deliberately hang around in hopes a Democrat succeeds Bush? Personally, I thought it was a given that Rhenquist’s vote would be to overturn RvW, so replacing him with a similarly right-wing justice wouldn’t really change anything. O’Connor has, as I recall, voted to maintain RvW, so losing her to a Bush appointee might tip the balance (although she doesn’t seem likely to jeopardize her health by staying just to outlast Bush - I remember a magazine article about the 2000 election that said she was annoyed when it looked like Gore had won, because she didn’t want to be replaced by a Dem nominee). Stevens is the oldest justice, but I understand he intends to stick around for quite a while. Frankly, with medical care steadily improving, there might even come a time when the Americans feel like slapping on a maximum term of service for justices, say 25 years.
So am I, actually :smack: - that was an incomplete sentence topeed by giiberish that I had over done, but in insert mode, not overwrite. I neglected to delete the ending pile-up of typos.
Try again: 4-5 years down the line, Roe v Wade will be overturned. and ready access to abortion (maybe contraception pills? - remember the RCC, while not liking the fundies, will make common cause - will the fundies reciprocate?) will be subject to the ‘Moral Majority’ (remember them?) types - the bible-thumpers who have hijacked the GOP at the state level.
The recent trend to treat the unborn as persons (a legal term, IIRC) is especially troublesome - the Peterson case is making news now, but there have been other cases wherein a court has found a non-viable fetus to be a person, thus ‘Abortion is Murder’ is already well on its way to being established - RvW is the last line of defense for us pro-choice advocates.
The concept of fetus=person is well on its way to become the generally-accepted public perception, so a charge of murder will be just another small step on the continuum started about 20 years ago.
It doesn’t look good folks - only those who can afford travel will be able to procude a safe abortion, and the poor will either make babies they can’t afford, or play roulette with dangerous substitutes.
Something about quinine water and a hot bath - anyone else hear of that ‘home remedy’?, or is my mind up to its usual tricks?
.
Scalia Thomas and Renquist are solidly “right” judges. If any of them go the net effect on the SCOTUS will be negligible
Justice John Paul Stevens – the oldest justice at 84, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer are solidly “left”. At first glance one of them going and being replaced would be the end of R v W.
I submit though that the swing votes are what they have been Sandra Day O’Connor or Anthony Kennedy. They have held the swing vote on virtually every major issue – abortion rights, affirmative action, separation of church and state, the death penalty etc. True there is currently a “Left” 5-4 majority with both Kennedy and O’Connor have voted to preserve some abortion rights (and both have voted to restrict some). A full out assault on Abortion even with a net of “1” needs to decide where these guys fall - and that is not at all clear.
Still I think the scenario: Renquist, Stevens, & the 72yo O’Connor retiring, in the next 4 years - that may be almost called “likely” and, were it to fall that way I would expect Abortion to be illegal in places like Al, MS, GA and partial birth abortion to be illegal everywhere. I would expect CA, NY, MA, NJ, IL, MD, MN to name a few to have no other significant change in the status quo. Iw ould expect many/most Insurance carriers to drop Abortion coverage if they think they can get away with it.
O’Connor is considered a swing vote, so replacing her with a staunch conservative would be a gain in that regard. Likewise, Stevens is solidly liberal. Replacing the right-wing justices would not tip the balance, but could ensure a conservative bloc on the Court into the future.
…the next step for them is to shut down access to birth control.
A decision or law granting local municipalities and states the authority to deny access of unmarried or childless women to birth control if they see fit, all in the name of reducing Federalism of course, would probably do it.
That and requiring a scrip for condoms.
That’s kind of far fetched. Most people who are against abortion on demand aren’t anti-birth control, they’d rather people used it and didn’t create a fetus to dispose of. How many ultra religious people are there who also have the potential to become SC judges? I can’t imagine there are many.
The Constitution. Not that that stops congress from doing an end-run from time to time. Most federal drug law only exists, IIRC, technically as part of Congress’ ability to regulate interstate traffic.
Let me second elfkin477 that there is simply no support locally or nationally for denying access to contraception for adults. This perhaps exists mainly in left-wing fantasies (and I’m guessing, fundraising letters).
Why?
There is, however, federal support for denying information about contraception to young adults.
Who will eventually, things being as they are, be adults.
I don’t think the SC would have to do anything except overturn Roe v. Wade. The rest could be handled by state legislatures or maybe Congress.
If they are young adults, why will they only “eventually” be adults? They either are, or are not, adults.
Banning abortions would only result in the poor not being able to get them. The rich could always get them, even before Roe v Wade.
“Young adults” is being used euphemistically for the term “teenagers.” Many school districts are shifting to, or feeling pressure to move towards, “abstinence-only” sexual education, which if it says anything at all about contraception, tends to paint those methods as being hopelessly failure-prone and even dangerous.