Trump has said unequivocally that he plans to install several pro-life justices on the SC. How much longer will it take until it inevitably gets overturned and abortions are categorically outlawed?
I’ll go with…early 2018. 
I doubt it; he is pro-choice at heart and the states that have made him POTUS-elect, like MI, PA, WI went Dem for 20 years; ie they’re not evangelical conservatives on abortion, which is actually a consensus issue in polling.
Overturning Roe v. Wade and implementing a federal ban are two somewhat different things, though.
It depends on how long Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, and Stephen Breyer last. Trump is only guaranteed one appointment (that bet by Mitch McConnell sure paid off), and that wouldn’t be enough to overturn Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which was decided by five justices on the post-Scalia court.
Won’t be tough with our 100% Republican, no-resistance legislative/judicial/executive juggernaut that we’ve just installed.
I pick never.
How not though? That’s the agenda. Trump hasn’t made a whole lot of campaign promises besides The Wall and repealing Obamacare and getting pro-life justices on the SC in order to overturn Roe v. Wade, specifically. And I don’t think The Wall will happen, but this seems like it will.
Keep in mind, conservatives have been saving one vacancy for negative one year, plus they get probably 8 more years at least (yeah, unfortunately he will get 2 terms; we can cut out the delusional liberal idealism now and face the reality of the country we live in) to install as many as they want.
It’s a horrible decision and should be overturned.
Then to the other part of the OP’s question, would you then advocate a federal law criminalizing abortion? It’s the next logical step, after all, and the end goal of the vast majority of those who oppose the decision. I doubt they’d REALLY be satisfied with “leaving it up to the states.”
People asked the same question in 1980.
No.
Regulating abortion is not a federal power. (Or more accurately, “Should not…”)
I grant that from a policy standpoint I would like the effects of such a law, but I would oppose it as an overreach of federal power.
Kennedy wouldn’t go for it, so they need 2 new SCJs. Day after they get the 2nd one, if they still have both houses they’ll do it. You think Trump would veto it? There’s no political reason whatsoever for him to veto it.
The Republicans had the presidency, House, Senate and Supreme Court during George W Bush’s reign and the case wasn’t overturned.
I’m a Canadian, so I’m probably missing something obvious about the American system. I didn’t think the Supreme Court would “overturn” Roe vs Wade. I thought the House and Senate could pass an anti-abortion law, and that would be challenged at the Supreme Court, which would then either decide for or against the new law (or perhaps modify it). I presumed that the House and Senate c. 2003 could have passed such a law, with the Republican Supreme Court not standing in its way.
I honestly don’t trust anything whatsoever that Trump has said.
It should be overturned, but as Leaper points out, that is not the same as a ban on abortion.
Roe v. Wade should be overturned because the power to regulate abortion/privacy/penumbrae/emanations isn’t granted to the federal government. Thus the power to do so belongs to the states or the people. Overturning Roe would, or should, return the power to the states so that each state could regulate it as they see fit.
It won’t be overturned - it has been too long. It may suffer the death of a thousand cuts under a more responsible Supreme Court, who would uphold various state-level laws on the topic. That is one of the (I rather desperately hope) be one of the upsides of GOP control of the White House and Congress, to appoint Justices who refrain from judicial activism. But a simple “Reversed” is highly unlikely. Said the guy who has been wrong on every political prediction for, oh, the last ten years or so.
Regards,
Shodan
Hopefully those 3 justices have updated their advance directives to specify extraordinary means are to used to keep them technically alive at all costs.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
And after that happens, raping and beating your wife (or any other woman) can be made legal again.
Another example of absurd hyperbole.
I have no idea when it was legal to rape and beat any woman, but it certainly was not legal as far back as the beginnings of common law. Nor does any mainstream political movement advocate, openly or secretly, for such a position today.
If you remain baffled at Mrs. Clinton’s loss, perhaps you might reexamine the tendency of her supporters to offer up claims like this in advocacy of their preferred outcomes.
Thomas wouldn’t go for it. As a consistent originalist, he certainly would not support such federal legislation.