Is Roe vs. Wade in trouble?

[vileplume]

With Trump being able to fill the vacant supreme court seat with a younger version of Scalia and if he either gets to replace one or more of the more elderly justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy) with similarly right wing justices could the historic Roe vs. Wade ruling be in serious jeopardy? Republicans seem to have made it their mission to undermine abortion rights recently so I can't see any nominee who is not solidly pro it's repeal getting confirmed. I'm not American so maybe I'm looking at this wrong but to me this ruling does look shaky whereas if Clinton had won and filled Scalia's seat it probably would have been cemented forever. What do people think?

[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.

[Person Man]

It would be at least be in the short and mid term, political suicide. It is never a good idea to be constitutionally entitled to your party's policies. Overturning Roe v. Wade would basically make states like Colorado, Nevada and Virginia solid D where they would be a shuffle to protect abortion rights.
 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Somewhat, but significantly less so than a raft of significantly sounder SCOTUS milestones.

[Confused Democrat]

If he manages to stack the court with conservative pro-life justices, there's a serious possibility that it could be overturned.

It would be political suicide, yes, but when has the Republican party ever cared about that? Especially now that Donald Trump is the leader of it.

[Person Man]

If he manages to stack the court with conservative pro-life justices, there's a serious possibility that it could be overturned.

It would be political suicide, yes, but when has the Republican party ever cared about that? Especially now that Donald Trump is the leader of it.

The election after Roe is overturned

http://www.270towin.com/maps/36o36

TNVolunteer's near loss will be avenged!

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

If he manages to stack the court with conservative pro-life justices, there's a serious possibility that it could be overturned.

It would be political suicide, yes, but when has the Republican party ever cared about that? Especially now that Donald Trump is the leader of it.

The election after Roe is overturned

http://www.270towin.com/maps/36o36

TNVolunteer's near loss will be avenged!

Completely laughable. America will be 70-75% pro-life by the end Trump's magnificent reign.

[Person Man]

If he manages to stack the court with conservative pro-life justices, there's a serious possibility that it could be overturned.

It would be political suicide, yes, but when has the Republican party ever cared about that? Especially now that Donald Trump is the leader of it.

The election after Roe is overturned

http://www.270towin.com/maps/36o36

TNVolunteer's near loss will be avenged!

Completely laughable. America will be 70-75% pro-life by the end Trump's magnificent reign.

They said that about Bush. If that is the case, we won't even have election anymore because what the worse that could happen with one party rule?

[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.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

If he manages to stack the court with conservative pro-life justices, there's a serious possibility that it could be overturned.

It would be political suicide, yes, but when has the Republican party ever cared about that? Especially now that Donald Trump is the leader of it.

The election after Roe is overturned

http://www.270towin.com/maps/36o36

TNVolunteer's near loss will be avenged!

Completely laughable. America will be 70-75% pro-life by the end Trump's magnificent reign.

They said that about Bush. If that is the case, we won't even have election anymore because what the worse that could happen with one party rule?

Bush was objectively terrible. As a Democrat, I hope someone rises for our party, but clearly we have no one as quality as Trump and as optimistic as Trump that can win a primary.

[Person Man]

If he manages to stack the court with conservative pro-life justices, there's a serious possibility that it could be overturned.

It would be political suicide, yes, but when has the Republican party ever cared about that? Especially now that Donald Trump is the leader of it.

The election after Roe is overturned

http://www.270towin.com/maps/36o36

TNVolunteer's near loss will be avenged!

Completely laughable. America will be 70-75% pro-life by the end Trump's magnificent reign.

They said that about Bush. If that is the case, we won't even have election anymore because what the worse that could happen with one party rule?

Bush was objectively terrible. As a Democrat, I hope someone rises for our party, but clearly we have no one as quality as Trump and as optimistic as Trump that can win a primary.

"optimistic"?

[Confused Democrat]

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.

[Person Man]

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.

[Confused Democrat]

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.

[Person Man]

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.

I understand that you don't want gridlock and that the country is the reason people are in to this sort of thing but what good does it do if you can't get out of the minority?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Donald Trump supports abortion, of course Roe v. Wade is safe.

[Confused Democrat]

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.

I understand that you don't want gridlock and that the country is the reason people are in to this sort of thing but what good does it do if you can't get out of the minority?

What would be keeping us in the minority?

Being a good opposition party doesn't preclude the Democrats from taking control of the executive branch and congress in the future.

The Republicans can still be a terrible governing party without there being gridlock, no?

What is the argument in favor of gridlock besides the obvious "payback answer?"

[Person Man]

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.

I understand that you don't want gridlock and that the country is the reason people are in to this sort of thing but what good does it do if you can't get out of the minority?

What would be keeping us in the minority?

Being a good opposition party doesn't preclude the Democrats from taking control of the executive branch and congress in the future.

The Republicans can still be a terrible governing party without there being gridlock, no?

What is the argument in favor of gridlock besides the obvious "payback answer?"

People don't get deported, lose their credit, or go to jail.

[angus]

What do people think?

Nothing is "cemented forever."  Courts reverse earlier court decisions once in a while, especially when moral fashions change.  The Brown versus Board decision replaced Plessy versus Fergusson, for example, and like Roe versus Wade was it informed by arguments surrounding the 14th amendment of the US Constitution.

Trump will have at least one, and possibly as many as four, chances to appoint a Supreme Court justice.  It is likely that they will have to have a history of conservative jurisprudence in order to be confirmed.  How any future jurist might interpret the 14th amendment is anyone's guess--David Souter, for example, must have surprised the Republicans that nominated him--but Roe versus Wade, like all court decisions, is potentially subject to reversal by some future court.

[Orser67]

It's not that unlikely that Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kennedy could all outlive a Trump presidency. Or at least live until 2020 when the McConnell rule is in effect.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It's not that unlikely that Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kennedy could all outlive a Trump presidency. Or at least live until 2020 when the McConnell rule
is in effect.

You think republicans will care about that? They have a basically 100% chance of holding the Senate in 2018.

[Person Man]

It's not that unlikely that Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kennedy could all outlive a Trump presidency. Or at least live until 2020 when the McConnell rule
is in effect.

You think republicans will care about that? They have a basically 100% chance of holding the Senate in 2018.

They is, of course, the filibuster. Not much of a leg to stand on but more than they would have now because of the McConnell rule.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It's not that unlikely that Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kennedy could all outlive a Trump presidency. Or at least live until 2020 when the McConnell rule
is in effect.

You think republicans will care about that? They have a basically 100% chance of holding the Senate in 2018.

They is, of course, the filibuster. Not much of a leg to stand on but more than they would have now because of the McConnell rule.

Yes, but the filibuster could be abolished for SCOTUS.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

No.

Roberts has stated the Court has no interest in even hearing it or any portions of it.  It's DOA at the door-step, which is a good thing to be honest.

[RINO Tom]

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.