Will Roe v. Wade by overturned?

[tarheel-leftist85]

I think it will.  It won't affect me directly, though.  It'll be fun seeing if the slippery slope argument also applies to abortion, in which case it might affect me.  Let's just see, I guess

[??????????]

Overturning it would make good constitutional sense. Lets' hope that happens.

[Moooooo]

I don't see it happending.  However, I have no problem with leaving this issue up to the states.

[tarheel-leftist85]

I don't see it happending.  However, I have no problem with leaving this issue up to the states.

Ditto...I don't see how it relates to the Constitution.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It'll happen if there are 2 more total wingnuts on the court. For instance if O' Connor and Stevens are both replaced by fundies.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I hope so; it was a terrible decision. Abortion is the sort of issue that should be decided by the legislature. A compromise could have and should have been found...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I hope so; it was a terrible decision. Abortion is the sort of issue that should be decided by the legislature. A compromise could have and should have been found...

So you'd like abortion banned?

[TeePee4Prez]

I don't see it happending.  However, I have no problem with leaving this issue up to the states.

Thankfully you live in Maryland.  Talk to someone in Pennsylvania!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So you'd like abortion banned?

In an ideal world, yes. This is not an ideal world though, and as I have said before the only people to benifit from a ban on abortion are the manufacturers of wire coat-hangers.
I personally favour it being illegal after 18 weeks, but that's just my opinion.
I think when abortion should or should not be legal should be legislated by the legislature NOT the courts.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So you'd like abortion banned?

In an ideal world, yes. This is not an ideal world though, and as I have said before the only people to benifit from a ban on abortion are the manufacturers of wire coat-hangers.
I personally favour it being illegal after 18 weeks, but that's just my opinion.
I think when abortion should or should not be legal should be legislated by the legislature NOT the courts.

So you'd like it banned after 18 weeks even in cases to save the woman's life or rape?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So you'd like it banned after 18 weeks even in cases to save the woman's life or rape?

If the only options are between both dying and only the baby dying then you have to save as many lives as possible. It's better to see that as an emergency medical procedure rather than as an abortion as such though; the issue is quite different.
As for rape, I don't support the death penalty.

[Ebowed]

Hopefully it's overturned.  Will it be?  All depends on who Bush appoints.

[Sam Spade]

Unfortunately, no, or at least not by this appointment.

The last major case that I can think of where Roe was in question was Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. 

I heard a number of columnists wrongly claiming that it was O'Connor who was the swing vote in this case.  In actuality, it was Kennedy.  Originally, he supported the dissenters' side here, which would have, in the end, overturned Roe v. Wade, but changed his mind somewhere along the process.

The vote was 5-4.  Concurring were Souter, O'Connor, Thurgood Marshall, Stevens, and Kennedy.  Dissenting were Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and the oft-forgotten Byron White.

White was replaced by Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993.  Marshall was replaced by Stephen Breyer in 1994.  I have no doubt that both of these nominees would have sided with the majority on this one, making it 6-3.

So, even if O'Connor was replaced by a Justice who wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade, nothing would change.  The change would happen if someone like Ginsburg or Stevens stepped down from the bench and was replaced by someone against Roe v. Wade.

[migrendel]

Regardless of who is nominated, the fundamental aspects of Roe will continue to remain the law of the land. In fact, many conservatives have essentially accepted the precedent, and now they seem to be focusing on various legislative attempts to curtail the accessibility of abortion. However, this does not mean that Justice O'Connor's successor won't cause the Supreme Court to move to the right on abortion.

It is almost inevitable that the Supreme Court will consider the ban on dilation and extraction. In 2000, the Supreme Court struck down an almost identical Nebraska law, with Sandra Day O'Connor's vote deciding (Stenberg v. Carhart). Obviously, George Bush will not appoint someone with a similar inclination, and we might be forced to live with the ban. Also, the Supreme Court has announced it will hear a case on parental notification next term. This was an opportunity for the Supreme Court to reconsider the rigid requirements it allowed in Hodgson v. Minnesota, with the distinct chance that Sandra Day O'Connor's diffidence would lead to a far more liberal precedent. You can rest assured that if anything, the states will be allowed to place more barriers in the way of a girl seeking an abortion.

[TheresNoMoney]

I personally favour it being illegal after 18 weeks, but that's just my opinion.

I pretty much agree with you. But it's not something I worry about, since only something like .3% of abortions are performed after the 4th month.

I think overturning Roe v. Wade would be a disaster for this country. Any poor girl in the south is going to be out of luck and there will be a big increase in families living in poverty and/or unsafe abortions.

It is definitely possible it is overturned. If O'Connor and Justice Stevens both retire and are replaced by fundies Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

[A18]

Roe is based on the same legal logic as Dred Scott: substantive due process (i.e. whatever I feel should be unconstitutional, is unconstitutional).

[tarheel-leftist85]

I personally favour it being illegal after 18 weeks, but that's just my opinion.

I pretty much agree with you. But it's not something I worry about, since only something like .3% of abortions are performed after the 4th month.

I think overturning Roe v. Wade would be a disaster for this country. Any poor girl in the south is going to be out of luck and there will be a big increase in families living in poverty and/or unsafe abortions.

It is definitely possible it is overturned. If O'Connor and Justice Stevens both retire and are replaced by fundies Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

Yep...and it's kind of scary.  Don't some people consider contraception murder?  I see the cliched slippery slope.

[MODU]

I hope so.  It needs to be redefined, and the current ruling is too restictive.

[Schmitz in 1972]

It will only be overturned if Stevens dies and the Republicans go nuclear during the impending blow up when Bush nominates a conservative to replace him.

[MasterJedi]

Will it be overturned? Yes, and I hope it is too. When will that happen? Who knows about that, it could be soon. (All we need are more justices resigning and conservatives getting appointed).

[MaC]

I don't see it happending.  However, I have no problem with leaving this issue up to the states.

^^

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Roe will need at least one more and more likely two more vacancies among its current supporters to be overturned.  Given the significance of the case, and the legal framework that both supports it and has been built on it, a framework that extends far beyond the issue of abortion,  I doubt if the court is going to want to overturn Roe with a simple 5-4 majority.  I don't see that many vacancies before the 2008 elections.  If Roe v. Wade is to be overturned before the Dems get the White House again then at a minimum they will have to lose again in 2008.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Roe will need at least one more and more likely two more vacancies among its current supporters to be overturned.  Given the significance of the case, and the legal framework that both supports it and has been built on it, a framework that extends far beyond the issue of abortion,  I doubt if the court is going to want to overturn Roe with a simple 5-4 majority.  I don't see that many vacancies before the 2008 elections.  If Roe v. Wade is to be overturned before the Dems get the White House again then at a minimum they will have to lose again in 2008.

Stevens is 85. If he and O "Connor both get replaced by wingnuts, the weaker Planned Parenthood vs. Casey ruling that replaced Roe vs. Wade will be completely struck down.

[PADem]

I don't see it happending.  However, I have no problem with leaving this issue up to the states.

Thankfully you live in Maryland.  Talk to someone in Pennsylvania!

Why you think that we'd outlaw it completely? I'd say that a motion to ban completely or restrict abortion heavily would be swiftly vetoed by Rendell and the legislature wouldn't override.

[TeePee4Prez]

I don't see it happending.  However, I have no problem with leaving this issue up to the states.

Thankfully you live in Maryland.  Talk to someone in Pennsylvania!

Why you think that we'd outlaw it completely? I'd say that a motion to ban completely or restrict abortion heavily would be swiftly vetoed by Rendell and the legislature wouldn't override.

You have a precedent from the 1970s that should NEVER be overturned.  This "leave it up to the states" is total bullcrap.