# The argument "Republicans dangle Roe in front of their base but don't want to overturn" doesn't make sense **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 3, 2021, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-argument-republicans-dangle-roe-in-front-of-their-base-but-dont-want-to-overturn-doesnt-make-sense/950040 "2021-09-03T07:38:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2021, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-argument-republicans-dangle-roe-in-front-of-their-base-but-dont-want-to-overturn-doesnt-make-sense/950040/61 "2021-12-13T21:50:21Z")
Not a pretty picture: > **[During Arguments Over Roe’s Fate, Justice Breyer Played Right Into the...](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/12/supreme-court-abortion-breyer-barrett-roberts.html)** > > The most senior liberal justice showed why it’s time for him to retire. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2021, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-argument-republicans-dangle-roe-in-front-of-their-base-but-dont-want-to-overturn-doesnt-make-sense/950040/62 "2021-12-14T16:30:57Z")
Yeah, that was a pretty bad angle for Breyer to take. The argument of Casey was basically, _“Since public opinion wants Roe overturned, we must therefore **uphold** Roe in order to give the middle finger to public opinion.”_ That means the Court is _still_ being influenced by public opinion - just in the opposite way (you could call it “Joey Crawford Logic” - the NBA referee who was notorious for being extra biased against the _home_ teams, as a way of showing how un-intimidated he was, as a ref, by home crowds.) Breyer definitely was bolstering his opponents, intentionally or unintentionally so. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2021, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-argument-republicans-dangle-roe-in-front-of-their-base-but-dont-want-to-overturn-doesnt-make-sense/950040/63 "2021-12-14T16:32:01Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > The argument of Casey was basically, _“Since public opinion wants Roe overturned, we must therefore **uphold** Roe in order to give the middle finger to public opinion.”_ That’s not even close to an accurate assessment. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2021, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-argument-republicans-dangle-roe-in-front-of-their-base-but-dont-want-to-overturn-doesnt-make-sense/950040/64 "2021-12-14T16:34:28Z")
Check out the Scalia quote in the Slate article linked. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2021, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-argument-republicans-dangle-roe-in-front-of-their-base-but-dont-want-to-overturn-doesnt-make-sense/950040/65 "2021-12-14T17:12:48Z")
A sneering line about Cossacks from a dissenting judge famous for sneering at liberals in dissent isn’t exactly a top-line summary of a case’s rationale. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2021, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-argument-republicans-dangle-roe-in-front-of-their-base-but-dont-want-to-overturn-doesnt-make-sense/950040/66 "2021-12-14T17:17:23Z")
Okay… Re-read it… Still doesn’t say that. At _most_ you could say that that was Scalia’s opinion as to what _he_ thought of the ruling, though I think that you added a bit more snark than even he did. But in any case, that was not the reason given by the majority who actually made the ruling. To say that it was “basically” as you said, is not a legitimate place from which to make an actual argument. Much less to extrapolate as you have. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2021, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-argument-republicans-dangle-roe-in-front-of-their-base-but-dont-want-to-overturn-doesnt-make-sense/950040/67 "2021-12-14T23:50:21Z")
What do you believe it says, because I read it that way as well? That’s “basically” what Casey said.: Hey, a bunch of people want us to overrule Roe. If we overrule Roe, it will look like we are responding to political pressure. If it looks like we are responding to political pressure, that will make the Court look bad. We don’t want to look bad. Therefore, we should not overrule Roe. I know of no other case in history that has used political opinion, against a prior decision no less, as a reason for keeping a prior decision that a majority won’t even say was correct in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2021, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-argument-republicans-dangle-roe-in-front-of-their-base-but-dont-want-to-overturn-doesnt-make-sense/950040/68 "2021-12-15T00:29:24Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > > [@BigT](#): > > > > No one mentioned any sort of cabal. All it takes is not taking advantage of opportunities. > > It would take one. What if Souter, or Kennedy, or O’Connor had turned out to be a conservative? Roe would have been overruled since 1992. If Republicans (as a group) have planned this strategy to keep dangling abortion in front of their base, all it would have taken was a simple screw up here or there. What if Bush I gets reelected and there is no Ginsburg or Breyer? > > The statement is one of conspiracy and planning and too many random events happened for it to be plausible. No, it really doesn’t. If people share the same goals, they don’t actually have to work together in some secret behind-the-scenes way. All it takes is for there to be sufficient people who decide on their own that they shouldn’t pull the trigger when it comes down to the wire. All you need are enough Republicans who were willing to pretend to run on abortion but not actually perform any actions to stop it. And that’s not a farfetched idea at all. The issue is when pro-choicers start thinking of this as a reason to be relieved. That’s stupid. There’s a basic principle that, the more you advocate for something, the more you actually believe it. There’s also the principle that, the more the base starts to see through the deception, the further you have to go. And then there’s just the fact that the Republicans are on a path of competing to see who is the most extreme. Just because there arguably was a point where a majority of Republicans would claim they were working to overturn Roe. v Wade while having no real priority in doing so doesn’t mean that remains true today. But people thinking it might do not have to be conspiracy theorists, as your sneering language presupposed. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2021, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-argument-republicans-dangle-roe-in-front-of-their-base-but-dont-want-to-overturn-doesnt-make-sense/950040/69 "2021-12-15T00:52:54Z")
Whence comes this idea that the Supreme Court shouldn’t be listening to the public? They aren’t supposed to be _partisan_, but as a part of a democratic government, they are still beholden to the people. They are supposed to make decisions that they believe We the People would support, based on both the principles they have enshrined in law, as well as how people understand terms and concepts. For example, when the court decided that marriage was a right, they did so based on how the people see it. When they decided that it was sexual discrimination to not allow two people get married if they both were the same gender, they were relying on how we understand the concept of sexism. Sure, the public’s opinion isn’t the _only_ thing they have to pay attention to, but it’s clearly always been part of the process. If it wasn’t, then why would we get different rulings in different eras, all of which happen to align with prevailing public sentiment? The Justices can’t just wall themselves off from society. Precedent gets overturned when something from outside those walls changes how those decisions are interpreted. Again, that’s not to say that anything partisan should affect decisions. It should never be about supporting one party over another. But knowing where the public stands on the issue is useful information for preserving the integrity of the Court. If, as in this case, the majority of the public wants Roe kept, and they overturn it because a loud minority say it should be so, then they look partisan. None of their reasoning now would be any different than was presented back then, so none of it can be a compelling reason to overturn. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2021, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-argument-republicans-dangle-roe-in-front-of-their-base-but-dont-want-to-overturn-doesnt-make-sense/950040/70 "2021-12-15T14:28:44Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > What do you believe it says, because I read it that way as well? Define the “it” that you are talking about. Are you talking about the actual ruling, or about the opinion of one of the dissenters? > [@UltraVires](#): > > That’s “basically” what Casey said.: Hey, a bunch of people want us to overrule Roe. If we overrule Roe, it will look like we are responding to political pressure. If it looks like we are responding to political pressure, that will make t Can we do that with any bill or ruling? We just make up our own take on it, and say, “it ‘basically’ says this”? At _most_ you can say that that is an interpretation that one of the writers of the dissent had. To claim that that was the actual motivation of the majority opinion is to just make stuff up out of whole cloth. If I were to presume the motives of the court, then I would say that they wanted to be consistent in their rulings, and uphold the precedent set by Roe v Wade, rather than demonstrate that the court was as easily swayed by political pressure as you seem to want them to be. > [@UltraVires](#): > > I know of no other case in history that has used political opinion, against a prior decision no less, I’m sure if you were not so motivated to find this one to be such an outlier, we could probably find some other cases that people felt were just as politically motivated. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2021, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-argument-republicans-dangle-roe-in-front-of-their-base-but-dont-want-to-overturn-doesnt-make-sense/950040/71 "2021-12-15T20:36:52Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > a majority won’t even say was correct in the first place. Is this a semantic game, based on the plurality nature of the ruling? Because there is strong support for Roe in Casey: > [@](#): > > Justice O’CONNOR, Justice KENNEDY, and Justice SOUTER announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III, V-A, V-C, and VI, an opinion with respect to Part V-E, in which Justice STEVENS joins, and an opinion with respect to Parts IV, V-B, and V-D.… > > It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter. We have vindicated this principle before.… > > It is settled now, as it was when the Court heard arguments in _Roe v. Wade,_ that the Constitution places limits on a State’s right to interfere with a person’s most basic decisions about family and parenthood… as well as bodily integrity… > > These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment… > > These considerations begin our analysis of the woman’s interest in terminating her pregnancy but cannot end it, for this reason: though the abortion decision may originate within the zone of conscience and belief, it is more than a philosophic exercise. Abortion is a unique act… > > Though abortion is conduct, it does not follow that the State is entitled to proscribe it in all instances. That is because the liberty of the woman is at stake in a sense unique to the human condition and so unique to the law… > > It should be recognized, moreover, that in some critical respects the abortion decision is of the same character as the decision to use contraception… > > It was this dimension of personal liberty that _Roe_ sought to protect, and its holding invoked the reasoning and the tradition of the precedents we have discussed, granting protection to substantive liberties of the person.… > > the reservations any of us may have in reaffirming the central holding of _Roe_ are outweighed by the explication of individual liberty we have given combined with the force of _stare decisis._” (My emphasis) So, yeah, an important part of Casey is showing respect for precedent (e.g. stare decisis; based in part, by the way, on the idea that people had relied upon Roe for a generation in making family planning decisions, and so it would render a harm to revoke that holding), but not before the court favorably reiterates the legal basis by which Roe was decided. > **[PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Petitioners, v....](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/505/833)** [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-argument-republicans-dangle-roe-in-front-of-their-base-but-dont-want-to-overturn-doesnt-make-sense/950040.md?page=3)