So what if Roe v. Wade is overturned?

Hopefully. I wouldn’t mind making life as difficult as possible for Greg Abbott.

If it is overturned it will show that recent Republican nominated supreme court candidates have no problem at all flat out lying to the US senate. A good quality in a judge, eh?

Sadly, republican supporters consider this a feature (but only for conservative nominees…there’d be hell to pay if a liberal did it).

Why is everyone acting like this is a confirmation that Roe will be overturned? Alito is just one justice. It takes five to make precedent. I know that’s what they were put on the bench for, but are we sure a majority of the court feels the same way as Alito?

A more realistic expectation for me is that they don’t overturn Roe, but just gut it enough to allow the current slate of unconstitutional abortion bans to stand. Sort of like they did for the Voting Rights Act and Obamacare.

I figured the justices all had a few different drafts prepared for different scenarios, and one of them got out. But that isn’t a guarantee or even convincing evidence that the whole court will rule the same way. I don’t claim to be an expert though. What am I missing? Why is everyone so sure this is they way they will rule?

A person familiar with the court’s deliberations said that four of the other Republican-appointed justices — Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — had voted with Alito in the conference held among the justices after hearing oral arguments in December, and that line-up remains unchanged as of this week.

Because the draft opinion reads like a majority opinion and says “Opinion of the Court” on it? Alito wouldn’t be doing that for fun, but only get to work on it if at least 5 justices indicated in conference that they were in favor of this argument.

Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett. Which one do you think is going to vote against overturning Roe v. Wade if it comes to to a decision?

There isn’t really much latitude to ‘gut it enough’ that isn’t already covered with Planned Parenthood v. Casey which has allowed states to enact laws onerous restrictions on women seeking abortions. Overturning Roe v. Wade is the sine qua non of the the point of packing the court with conservative justices, and any of those justices who don’t support it are going to face a lot of criticism from their own side.

Stranger

I agree Alito probably has the votes, but he’d write it that way regardless. Hoping four other justices sign on. If he can’t get them to (a small but non-zero possibility) then he modifies the language as necessary. He was apparently assigned to write the majority opinion, but we don’t know if he has five votes to overturn Roe, only that he has five votes upholding the Mississippi law. He might have circulated this draft that goes all the way, just to see who signs on.

(he might have also leaked it to show that the country wouldn’t explode if his colleagues sign on)

If he was assigned the opinion to just to leave the Mississippi 15 week ban, but they didn’t discuss whether to keep Roe (which, they definitely would have discussed in conference), he would have written the draft opinion far more suspect. It reads like someone who got the go ahead to overturn Roe because of how strong the language is.

My understanding (not first hand of course) is that they write the opinion they want to write and try to get others to join it. In this case, probably, they discussed whether to overturn Roe or not in conference. He might have the votes, or someone might have said, “write it up, and we’ll see how it looks.” This is why the process takes months. There are often many revisions.

Sorry if this has been covered somewhere but tl:dr for the multiple threads about the leaked opinion. My question is, how can a federal law like the one that failed to pass in the senate today overrule state laws forbidding abortion? In the absence of a recognized constitutional right, what is the federal government’s authority?

I think the federal government would say the commerce clause is what gives them the right. That has been used extremely broadly for ages by the federal government to allow all sorts of laws.

And, of course, federal law pre-empts state law. That is in the constitution.

I’ve glanced at the draft of the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022. As far as I can tell it simply asserts that the Federal government has the full authority to regulate health care, including abortion, in the United States; any state law to the contrary or even the Ninth or Tenth Amendments be damned. When did that happen?

Read the text of the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and determine how the Federal government had the authority to pass that. Once you have done so, you will have your answer.

Healthcare is about one-sixth of the U.S. economy IIRC and, as a business, it clearly crosses state lines. The Commerce Clause seems to fit the bill. And, if the U.S. Constitution protects the right to privacy and the right to make decisions about one’s healthcare without state interference, as the Roe Court believed and as I still believe, then Congress may constitutionally pass a law enshrining Roe in Federal law.

This is not Roe but I think we can see Alito is on a roll now and feels he can roll back a lot of rights he does not like:

Alito Calls Landmark Supreme Court Decision Expanding LGBTQ Worker Rights ‘Indefensible’

Justice Samuel Alito is evidentially toting around an old grudge.

At a Thursday night event at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, he had harsh words for the two conservative justices who joined the majority in Bostock v. Clayton County .

The 2020 opinion said that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex-based discrimination, extends to gay and transgender workers. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, in which he was joined by the liberals and Chief Justice John Roberts.

Speaking via a video feed Thursday, Alito called Gorsuch a “colleague and friend,” but said that grounding the decision in the text of the 1964 law was “in my view indefensible,” according to the Washington Post.

SOURCE