Limiting Abortion...

[Skill and Chance]

On the alternative side of things, one can quite easily question the sincerity in the Republican Party's efforts to actually ban abortion. The Republican Party had ample opportunity to overturn Roe in the 80s and early 90s if they hadn't screwed their Supreme Court nominations up. It casts a rather different perspective on say, the presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney: pay lip service to the Pro-Life movement but when the chips are down and they actually have choice between protecting life and maintaining power, what will the choice be?

But will Republican Presidents actually be allowed to make Supreme Court nominations anymore that will not align with the Religious Right (unless they are replacing a Liberal justice or Kennedy in a Senate that can come up with a coalition who will block that nomination)?

I can even see Kennedy seeing the writing on the wall and concurring or joining a decision that throws out Roe, Casey and Griswold if a personhood  law soon gets passed at the state level and a Republican Government gets elected in 2016. However, I will contend that if abortion is still legal after the next president leaves office, it probably will never be a crime.

Do you think the ideological pressure is strong enough that Republicans would kill the SCOTUS filibuster to replace Kennedy or Ginsburg with someone like Paul Clement?  Of course, that could mean Goodwin Liu replacing Alito or Thomas later on, so there could be a huge downside.  Do you imagine Scalia and Kennedy would retire in 2017-18 if Republicans had full control?  I can see why Breyer is holding out- he would be the swing vote with one more Democratic appointment.  I am quite surprised that Ginsburg isn't going to retire under Obama, though.     

[Skill and Chance]

On the alternative side of things, one can quite easily question the sincerity in the Republican Party's efforts to actually ban abortion. The Republican Party had ample opportunity to overturn Roe in the 80s and early 90s if they hadn't screwed their Supreme Court nominations up. It casts a rather different perspective on say, the presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney: pay lip service to the Pro-Life movement but when the chips are down and they actually have choice between protecting life and maintaining power, what will the choice be?

But will Republican Presidents actually be allowed to make Supreme Court nominations anymore that will not align with the Religious Right (unless they are replacing a Liberal justice or Kennedy in a Senate that can come up with a coalition who will block that nomination)?

I can even see Kennedy seeing the writing on the wall and concurring or joining a decision that throws out Roe, Casey and Griswold if a personhood  law soon gets passed at the state level and a Republican Government gets elected in 2016. However, I will contend that if abortion is still legal after the next president leaves office, it probably will never be a crime.

Do you think the ideological pressure is strong enough that Republicans would kill the SCOTUS filibuster to replace Kennedy or Ginsburg with someone like Paul Clement?  Of course, that could mean Goodwin Liu replacing Alito or Thomas later on, so there could be a huge downside.  Do you imagine Scalia and Kennedy would retire in 2017-18 if Republicans had full control?  I can see why Breyer is holding out- he would be the swing vote with one more Democratic appointment.  I am quite surprised that Ginsburg isn't going to retire under Obama, though.     

She's seems to be feeling alright and she could live and work as long as Stevens did (another 10 years) and if something were to happen to her during a time of a right-wing Government, it would be seen by many as simply speeding up what was inevitably going to happen, anyways. See Unknown Unknowns thread.

Plus, the speeding up of global warming due to more overpopulation will help Democrats.

Seriously, this is a terrible idea.

It is, but the proponents of personhood and the carbon industry do not see their policies having such negative consequences or think they are worth it.

If natural gas keeps displacing coal for power generation and particularly if this spreads to Asia, global warming becomes much less of a policy concern in the immediate future.  Any of the really bad stuff would be shunted off another 100 years if the US/Europe/China/India are only using 25-50% as much carbon as today.  While it would still be happening, it would likely slow enough that you couldn't build a political movement against it.

[Skill and Chance]

On the alternative side of things, one can quite easily question the sincerity in the Republican Party's efforts to actually ban abortion. The Republican Party had ample opportunity to overturn Roe in the 80s and early 90s if they hadn't screwed their Supreme Court nominations up. It casts a rather different perspective on say, the presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney: pay lip service to the Pro-Life movement but when the chips are down and they actually have choice between protecting life and maintaining power, what will the choice be?

But will Republican Presidents actually be allowed to make Supreme Court nominations anymore that will not align with the Religious Right (unless they are replacing a Liberal justice or Kennedy in a Senate that can come up with a coalition who will block that nomination)?

I can even see Kennedy seeing the writing on the wall and concurring or joining a decision that throws out Roe, Casey and Griswold if a personhood  law soon gets passed at the state level and a Republican Government gets elected in 2016. However, I will contend that if abortion is still legal after the next president leaves office, it probably will never be a crime.

There is absolutely no way Kennedy is going to touch Griswold - he's based a lot of his decisions on it.  He may be willing to modify Casey similar to the way that Casey modified Roe.

I'm actually more concerned about Wickard or even West Coast Hotel going down than Roe or Griswold.  Kennedy is far more likely to be persuaded by a radical economic conservative argument.  But I think a major part of the reason Roberts defected on NFIB was to signal that he wouldn't be part of any majority that went there.  But if, say, Andrew Napolitano and Paul Clement take Ginsburg's and Kennedy's seats in the near future, the New Deal could very well go down, whether Roberts likes it or not.

[Skill and Chance]

Would Roberts even vote to overturn Roe?

That's a very reasonable suspicion. 

On the alternative side of things, one can quite easily question the sincerity in the Republican Party's efforts to actually ban abortion. The Republican Party had ample opportunity to overturn Roe in the 80s and early 90s if they hadn't screwed their Supreme Court nominations up. It casts a rather different perspective on say, the presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney: pay lip service to the Pro-Life movement but when the chips are down and they actually have choice between protecting life and maintaining power, what will the choice be?

But will Republican Presidents actually be allowed to make Supreme Court nominations anymore that will not align with the Religious Right (unless they are replacing a Liberal justice or Kennedy in a Senate that can come up with a coalition who will block that nomination)?

I can even see Kennedy seeing the writing on the wall and concurring or joining a decision that throws out Roe, Casey and Griswold if a personhood  law soon gets passed at the state level and a Republican Government gets elected in 2016. However, I will contend that if abortion is still legal after the next president leaves office, it probably will never be a crime.

There is absolutely no way Kennedy is going to touch Griswold - he's based a lot of his decisions on it.  He may be willing to modify Casey similar to the way that Casey modified Roe.

I'm actually more concerned about Wickard or even West Coast Hotel going down than Roe or Griswold.  Kennedy is far more likely to be persuaded by a radical economic conservative argument.  But I think a major part of the reason Roberts defected on NFIB was to signal that he wouldn't be part of any majority that went there.  But if, say, Andrew Napolitano and Paul Clement take Ginsburg's and Kennedy's seats in the near future, the New Deal could very well go down, whether Roberts likes it or not.

So, it might not matter what Roberts might do, though I imagine to make conservatives happy, he will go along with 5  Archconservatives.
All in all, maybe if Kennedy was replaced with a Conservative, Roberts might become the new swing vote. If Ginsburg goes and gets replaced by a conservative, Kennedy and Roberts might "see the writing on the wall" and so Griswold and WCH might see the writing on the wall, effectively making the entire Democratic platform unconstitutional or at least unsupported by the constitution.

Well, I think Democrats would have no choice but to run on a 2nd Constitutional Convention in the 2020's if that actually happened.  And with the elderly vote swinging hard left, they just might get one.  The lesson is that there is a fine line that you don't cross lest the rules be rewritten against you.  Of course all the prominent instances of rewriting the rules in recent history have favored the left (New Deal, Civil Rights Movement, etc.) but progressives shouldn't interpret that as a guarantee that it will continue that way, particularly on economic issues.