# If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade ... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 7, 2006, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349 "2006-03-07T06:26:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/21 "2006-03-07T21:35:21Z")
Several have. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/22 "2006-03-07T21:35:43Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > Several have. Which ones are the lawyers? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/23 "2006-03-07T21:50:37Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You misinterpret that, Hamlet. One’s judicial philosophy is irrelevant if it’s overridden by one’s religious beliefs. \*That’s \* the worry, and it would be the same worry if the case were about warfare and the court were being packed with Quakers. I’m glad I misinterpreted, because he only mentioned that the judges were socially conscious Catholics, and left out the part about that overriding their judicial responsibilities. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/24 "2006-03-07T21:55:58Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > I wonder if an actual lawyer will show up to answer the question. BTW, I dit not mean to belittle the answers given so far (thanks to **John Mace** , **Marley23** , and **Martin Hyde** for their answers). I was just curious what a lawyer like **Bricker** might say about this. Apologies if any of the above are lawyers. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/25 "2006-03-07T21:56:56Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Please expound, because it seems you are saying that being Catholic is somehow relevant to a discussion of a person’s judicial philosophy. It seems that you are suggesting that being Catholic can have no impact on a person’s judicial philosophy. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/26 "2006-03-07T22:01:39Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > It seems that you are suggesting that being Catholic can have no impact on a person’s judicial philosophy. Can you guys please start a separate thread debating whether “Being Catholic can have an impact on a person’s judicial philosophy”? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/27 "2006-03-07T22:15:20Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Can you guys please start a separate thread debating whether “Being Catholic can have an impact on a person’s judicial philosophy”? It’s been done before. And no shocker that it was **Evil Captor** who started that thread… ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/28 "2006-03-07T22:20:37Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > I was just curious what a lawyer like **Bricker** might say about this. Apologies if any of the above are lawyers. Since we’re talking about mechanics and not philosophy, I doubt \*\*Bricker \*\*would disagree with \*\*Hamlet \*\*or **Gadarene**. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/29 "2006-03-07T22:31:54Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Since we’re talking about mechanics and not philosophy, I doubt \*\*Bricker \*\*would disagree with \*\*Hamlet \*\*or **Gadarene**. Unfortunately, neither **Hamlet** nor **Gadarene** have answered the questions in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/30 "2006-03-07T22:52:09Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Unfortunately, neither **Hamlet** nor **Gadarene** have answered the questions in the OP. I think most of the questions in the OPhave been answered above, but I’m happy to take another run at them. > [@](#): > > From a practical point of view, if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, how will it do it? That is, what legalistic machanisms can it use to overturn it? They will need to wait until a case reaches them that deals with the issue. That is, they cannot simply call a press conference and declare, “We’ve been kicking this around over lunch the past couple of days, and we’ve decided _Roe_ sucks.” So they’d need some state supreme court or one of the federal circuits to rule on a case that hinged on the _Roe_ or _Casey_ decision, and they’d need the losing side in that case to ask for cert. They’d grant cert, hear the case, and announce an opinion that said, “_Roe v. Wade_, to the extent that it’s inconsistent with what we announce today, is hereby overturned.” > [@](#): > > Are there any legal maneuvers that enable the court to overturn Roe, without, in essence, saying that the 1973 decision was wrong? Sure. They could re-interpret issues having to do with viability, point to the changing technology, and say in effect that _Roe_ was right for the facts that existed in the 1970s, but now new medical technology compels the following conclusions: blah, blah, blah. > [@](#): > > Has the Supreme Court ever admitted that a past decision was wrong? Every time a decision is explicitly overturned, I suppose they are “admitting” it was wrong. They do not say, “Boy, the jokers that sat on the bench when this case was decided were a bunch of idiots,” though, if that’s the level of admission you’re looking for. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/31 "2006-03-07T23:03:11Z")
> [@](#): > > They do not say, “Boy, the jokers that sat on the bench when this case was decided were a bunch of idiots,” though, if that’s the level of admission you’re looking for. Unless Scalia’s writing for the majority, of course. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/32 "2006-03-07T23:13:45Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > Unless Scalia’s writing for the majority, of course. 😉 Damn, you beat me to that! ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/33 "2006-03-07T23:15:34Z")
> [@](#): > > Damn, you beat me to that! 😛 Ah, Justice Scalia…the only man alive who can write a scathing concurrence. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/34 "2006-03-07T23:16:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > They could re-interpret issues having to do with viability, point to the changing technology, and say in effect that _Roe_ was right for the facts that existed in the 1970s, but now new medical technology compels the following conclusions: blah, blah, blah. OK, so the “new technology” or “new scientific facts” angle might be used, but I assume that there are other angles. For example, when _Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka_ overturned _Plessy v Ferguson_, I don’t think they used the argument of “new facts not existing during the previous decision” (or did they?) What justification did they use in that case? And, is it true that if you don’t cite new facts not existing during the previous decision, then you are, de facto, saying that the previous decision was simply wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/35 "2006-03-07T23:51:30Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > For example, when _Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka_ overturned _Plessy v Ferguson_, I don’t think they used the argument of “new facts not existing during the previous decision” (or did they?) They did, actually. Plessy had said that states could have seperate facilities for whites and non-whites, so long as those facilities were otherwise equal. In Brown, Warren’s decision talked about how modern psychology has shown that nonwhite students in segregated schools feel inferior and don’t learn as well, so modern psychology has shown that segregated schools can never be equal. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/36 "2006-03-08T00:16:24Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > They did, actually. Plessy had said that states could have seperate facilities for whites and non-whites, so long as those facilities were otherwise equal. In Brown, Warren’s decision talked about how modern psychology has shown that nonwhite students in segregated schools feel inferior and don’t learn as well, so modern psychology has shown that segregated schools can never be equal. That’s interesting. So, are there any examples of overturning Supreme Court decisions without using the “new facts” argument? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/37 "2006-03-08T00:17:16Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Please expound, because it seems you are saying that being Catholic is somehow relevant to a discussion of a person’s judicial philosophy. Being a socially conservative Catholic JUST MIGHT have some relevance to one’s opinion on abortion cases. Or has PC started to demand that our brains not function? ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/38 "2006-03-08T00:22:56Z")
If you are curious how the Supreme Court might word an opinion overturning a previous Supreme Court decision, here is how they did it in _[Lawrence v. Texas](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v_Texas)_ (2003), which overturned _[Bowers v. Hardwick](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick)_ (1986): > [@](#): > > The doctrine of _stare decisis_ [“it stands decided”] is essential to the respect accorded to the judgments of the Court and to the stability of the law. It is not, however, an inexorable command. . . . The rationale of _Bowers_ does not withstand careful analysis. . . . _Bowers_ was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. _Bowers v. Hardwick_ should be and now is overruled. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/39 "2006-03-08T00:40:06Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I’m glad I misinterpreted, because he only mentioned that the judges were socially conscious Catholics, and left out the part about that overriding their judicial responsibilities. Well, I just figured that, being such briliant jurists and all, they could easily find a way to allow their prejudices to override their judicial responsibilities without it being too screamingly obvious. I mean, there’s a REASON they value judicial ability on the court, right? ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/40 "2006-03-08T01:08:25Z")
So, if they reaffirm _Roe v. Wade_, they are exercising their “judicial responsibilities”. But if they overturn it, they are allowing their “prejudices” to override. 'Cause people who want to retain _Roe v. Wade_ don’t have prejudices on the issue. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349.md?page=3)