And bound to end up reaffirming Roe, btw. If one more pro-*Roe *justice retires, the Dems will fillibuster any nominee who isn’t clearly respectful of *Roe *as precedent, and the Gang of 14 will not stop them.
Respectfully, John, I believe Roberts and Alito especially change the landscape in respect to Roe.
How? There’s still a 5-4 majority to uphold even if we assume both would overturn (which is not a given).
With their ruling on the Hobbs Act, I’m not optimistic that the 5-4 majority would be in favor to uphold.
HuH? That was a unanimous decision. There was a GD thread on this that explained the details. It was pretty much a no-brainer.
We can’t predict what’s going to happen with certainty, of course, but I think the SD law is much more likely do harm to the pro-life cause than to the pro-choice cause. YMMV.
Right, and I read it. But that unanimous ruling made it fairly clear that the landscape of the SCOTUS has been changed IRT Roe. It’s fairly certain that Alito, Scalia, & Thomas would vote to overturn and probable that Kennedy and Roberts would as well.
I hope your prediction is right, but you know what they say; hope for the best, prepare for the worst…
Without getting into Roberts and Alito, how do you get Kennedy? He’s on record as supporting *Roe *thru earlier rulings. Do you think Roberts and Alito will lure him over to the “dark side”?
I’d be willing to put money on the SCOTUS not even agreeing to rule on whatever case comes up thru the courts concerning the SD law. They won’t waster their time on a case that has a pre-determined majority and they’ll just the lower court ruling stand (ie, the SD law is overturned).
Kennedy’s opinion opened the door to allow state restrictions. I’d consider him a swing vote, but probably a vote to overturn in favor of allowing the individual states to decide.
It probably will get tossed in some lower court, letting the Supremes stay out of it. That would be a good thing for some, and a defeat for others. I think SD politicians were hoping they could make this a Supreme Court issue. Imagine their surprise if it fails. According to the rumor mill, some Republicans, and conservative types at that, are not too thrilled with the whole “in your face” nature of this. They were not too happy with the posibility that it might spill over and effect their own re-election bids and such. Also, other states might try making the same move as SD. Politicians will have to openly choose sides, and they don’t like the idea that they could choose the losing one. The Democrats are pretty much keeping quiet on it. They see a fight coming, and will probably wait until they know which side is winning. Sound bites and votes. That’s all that matters to either side. Hell of a system.
How?
Isn’t that the same thing?
Yes, and SD will appeal. They want this to go the SCOTUS. Why they would want that, I can’t for the life of me figure out.
In PP v. Casey, he originally voted with Scalia et al to overturn Roe. He only changed his mind at the last minute, when the state restrictions were upheld.
That depends; are we still just talking about overturning Roe? If so, then yes.
What would make him change his mind? Why do you place more emphasis on a preliminary vote than on a final, binding vote?
John, I apologize for not answering sooner; for some reason the Pit thread page is still showing my reply (#52) as the last one posted.
I have no cite to corroborate this, but an article I read in the Chron several years ago said he changed his mind because Justices Souter and O’Connor agreed to vote to uphold PA’s regulations regarding parental consent and 24 hour waiting period if he agreed to uphold Roe.
I don’t place more emphasis on his preliminary vote, but I certainly think it’s important to note that he felt strongly enough about deferring to states’ decisions to consider voting to overturn.
:rolleyes:
Let me guess, you were the weird kid in the back of the class who dissected frogs trying to find the hop…
It’s in the legs, along with the french-translation parts.