Is Roe vs. Wade in trouble?

[Mercenary]

I doubt it. GOP has had chances before and nominated judges who supported it. Also even if it did managed to get overturned, I doubt many, if any, states would ban it. So in the end little would change.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Yes, this was our last chance to saves millions, if not billions, of American lives, and we won. Hopefully President Trump gets to appoint 3-4 pro-lifers to cement the new decision forever.

Just curious, but did you not see 2008 or 2012 as "last chances"?

Anyway, thankfully no, it's not in any trouble.  I'm probably one of the few naive enough to think this, but I think there are a few issues (abortion and guns, to name the top two) where the *other side* really isn't going to do anything on it without a HUGE majority.

Er, assuming you're referring to anti-gun politicians as the *other side*, depending on what you call anti-gun, they haven't been dormant. How about that bill that the democrats forced a (fruitless) vote on that would have banned people on the no-fly and terrorist watch lists from getting guns? How about Obama's proposals to reinstate the assault weapons ban or institute caps on sizes of magazines? How about Manchin-Toomey? How about the proposals on certain state ballots this year to toughen state gun laws, some of which passed?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I doubt it. GOP has had chances before and nominated judges who supported it. Also even if it did managed to get overturned, I doubt many, if any, states would ban it. So in the end little would change.

I think of a number of southern states plus some swing states with republican trifectas in state government that would probably do it.

Examples: Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Tennessee, Missouri, Oklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia, South Carolina, Arizona, Iowa, Wisconsin

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Yes, this was our last chance to saves millions, if not billions, of American lives, and we won. Hopefully President Trump gets to appoint 3-4 pro-lifers to cement the new decision forever.

Just curious, but did you not see 2008 or 2012 as "last chances"?

Anyway, thankfully no, it's not in any trouble.  I'm probably one of the few naive enough to think this, but I think there are a few issues (abortion and guns, to name the top two) where the *other side* really isn't going to do anything on it without a HUGE majority.

I must have missed the missing conservative on the court that needed replacing. Abortion is the top issue for an extraordinary number on the right and something will happen. You better believe it. Maybe in 10 years, but the impact starts now.

And no, as an Obama voter, I did not see those as last chances.

[The_Doctor]

Roe won't be ended in name; in practice, it will end. That's because the 20 week abortion ban championed by the GOP will become law. That said, no, the Supreme Court will not overturn Roe and a later Democratic majority will overturn the law.

The long and short, Prohibition is around for a few years but is tossed by the courts or a later Democratic majority.

[angus]

It's not that unlikely that Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kennedy could all outlive a Trump presidency.

Indeed.  It's also not impossible that they can still be sharp as tacks in eight years.  This is part of the reason that I voted Yes on the referendum, and am glad that 51% of my fellow keystone state residents voted yes as well.  It's also not unlikely that one or more of them will kick the bucket, or have a stroke, or become otherwise incapacitated in the near future, which is why I said that Trump will replace somewhere between 1 and 4, inclusive.

That aside, the original question is mostly academic I suppose.  I have no idea whether Roe versus Wade was a sound decision--I have never studied law--but I'm sure that there is no shortage of lawyers and law students who post here who can spell out all the sordid details of logic that gave it birth.  I do know that any supreme court decisions, especially those that rest so heavily upon interpretations of the 14th amendment, are subject to reversal as moral fashions change.  Well, except maybe Bush versus Gore.  Of course that one could be revisited, but as a practical matter it would not affect Messrs.  Bush or Gore, both of whom are enjoying the fruits of retirement from public service.

[SWE]

Any Trump nominee should be filibustered, and if Republicans nuke the filibuster, the Justice should be impeached the day Democrats take Congress for being associated with a rapist.

No, this is absolutely the wrong approach. We don't want to be hypocrites and try to block every justice Trump tries to appoint.

We have to, no matter how foreign this concept might sound, try to find some sort of compromise. If Trump tries to appoint a totally unacceptable judge, then sure, we'll fight it.

However if Trump tries to appoint a completely qualified and conservative leaning judge, then we'll have to consider him. Trump will be appointing a Supreme Court Justice, and we'll have cooperate if want to make any progress at all.

Gridlock is not the answer.

The blowback against this reasoning is that undecideds will start to think we are a better opposition party than a governing party.

At what point do we start putting country ahead of party?

I understand the blowback against my reasoning, but the gridlock in Washington is hurting a lot of people. I just don't believe more gridlock is the answer.

Putting your country ahead of party precludes working with the Rapist Nazi in any way.

[KingSweden]

I don't think Roe will be overturned but there will certainly be restrictions on access.

IMO contraception is more concerning... and ironically going after that is utterly counterproductive to lowering the number of abortions