Mississippi Abortion Ban Case to be Heard December 1 by Supreme Court

[NewYorkExpress]

End roe v wade NOW

BAN abortion

Ending - overturning - Roe v. Wade will not result in banning abortion nationwide. Overturning it will result in returning control of the issue to the states. Most, if not all, (Atlas) red states will still allow abortion to be legal, and many (Atlas) blue states will ban abortion. Women who are in the latter states who need to get an abortion will be able to travel to the former states to get one.

I worry about what else the Supreme Court majority will say if they do overturn Roe. Roe was a misinterpretation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the Court does overturn Roe, will they also provide the country with a correct explanation of what the Due Process Clause means? If the Court explains the DP Clause in a manner similar to the way the plurality opinion in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) explained it, then that will mean the Court will continue to give this country an erroneous interpretation of the Clause and that the only reason the Court is upholding state laws that ban abortion is because the Justices politically agree with anti-abortion laws. It will mean that the Court's ruling will still be politically motivated, and the Court will then come under political pressure to reinstate Roe.

Attempts to overturn Roe will continue as long as the Court adheres to it. And, so long as the decision remains, the Court will be perceived, correctly, as political and will continue to be the target of demonstrations, marches, television advertisements, mass mailings, and the like. Roe, as the greatest example and symbol of judicial usurpation of democratic prerogatives in this century, should be overturned. The Court's integrity requires that. But even if the case is relegated to the dustbin of history where Dred Scott and Lochner lie, the right of privacy and the judicial techniques and attitudes it represents are likely to remain. A more fundamental rethinking of legitimate judicial power than the mere demise of Roe would signify is required. (Robert Bork, "The Tempting of America," (1990), page 116.)

The Supreme Court is going to go for a full overturn (as in Fetal Personhood, as in, states can't legalize abortion either) if they do overturn Roe v. Wade.

The Court may decide to overturn Roe, but it won't have any basis for requiring States to criminalize all abortions. Even under an extreme pro-life interpretation of originalism, they could only go as far as banning post-quickening abortions (i.e., second and third trimester abortions) as that was the standard under common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. There was no statutory law in 1788 in either the UK or the US that banned abortion, only common law which used the quickening standard.

Other than John Roberts, I'm willing to bet none of the conservatives on the court will care about any legal basis for making such a decision.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

End roe v wade NOW

BAN abortion

Ending - overturning - Roe v. Wade will not result in banning abortion nationwide. Overturning it will result in returning control of the issue to the states. Most, if not all, (Atlas) red states will still allow abortion to be legal, and many (Atlas) blue states will ban abortion. Women who are in the latter states who need to get an abortion will be able to travel to the former states to get one.

I worry about what else the Supreme Court majority will say if they do overturn Roe. Roe was a misinterpretation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the Court does overturn Roe, will they also provide the country with a correct explanation of what the Due Process Clause means? If the Court explains the DP Clause in a manner similar to the way the plurality opinion in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) explained it, then that will mean the Court will continue to give this country an erroneous interpretation of the Clause and that the only reason the Court is upholding state laws that ban abortion is because the Justices politically agree with anti-abortion laws. It will mean that the Court's ruling will still be politically motivated, and the Court will then come under political pressure to reinstate Roe.

Attempts to overturn Roe will continue as long as the Court adheres to it. And, so long as the decision remains, the Court will be perceived, correctly, as political and will continue to be the target of demonstrations, marches, television advertisements, mass mailings, and the like. Roe, as the greatest example and symbol of judicial usurpation of democratic prerogatives in this century, should be overturned. The Court's integrity requires that. But even if the case is relegated to the dustbin of history where Dred Scott and Lochner lie, the right of privacy and the judicial techniques and attitudes it represents are likely to remain. A more fundamental rethinking of legitimate judicial power than the mere demise of Roe would signify is required. (Robert Bork, "The Tempting of America," (1990), page 116.)

The Supreme Court is going to go for a full overturn (as in Fetal Personhood, as in, states can't legalize abortion either) if they do overturn Roe v. Wade.

The Court may decide to overturn Roe, but it won't have any basis for requiring States to criminalize all abortions. Even under an extreme pro-life interpretation of originalism, they could only go as far as banning post-quickening abortions (i.e., second and third trimester abortions) as that was the standard under common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. There was no statutory law in 1788 in either the UK or the US that banned abortion, only common law which used the quickening standard.

Other than John Roberts, I'm willing to bet none of the conservatives on the court will care about any legal basis for making such a decision.

Even if that were so, there's no justiciable point in this case for them to make such a ruling. It literally would require someone suing to prevent an abortion in a State where it was legal for them to even have a basis for such a ruling.

[brucejoel99]

End roe v wade NOW

BAN abortion

Ending - overturning - Roe v. Wade will not result in banning abortion nationwide. Overturning it will result in returning control of the issue to the states. Most, if not all, (Atlas) red states will still allow abortion to be legal, and many (Atlas) blue states will ban abortion. Women who are in the latter states who need to get an abortion will be able to travel to the former states to get one.

I worry about what else the Supreme Court majority will say if they do overturn Roe. Roe was a misinterpretation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the Court does overturn Roe, will they also provide the country with a correct explanation of what the Due Process Clause means? If the Court explains the DP Clause in a manner similar to the way the plurality opinion in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) explained it, then that will mean the Court will continue to give this country an erroneous interpretation of the Clause and that the only reason the Court is upholding state laws that ban abortion is because the Justices politically agree with anti-abortion laws. It will mean that the Court's ruling will still be politically motivated, and the Court will then come under political pressure to reinstate Roe.

Attempts to overturn Roe will continue as long as the Court adheres to it. And, so long as the decision remains, the Court will be perceived, correctly, as political and will continue to be the target of demonstrations, marches, television advertisements, mass mailings, and the like. Roe, as the greatest example and symbol of judicial usurpation of democratic prerogatives in this century, should be overturned. The Court's integrity requires that. But even if the case is relegated to the dustbin of history where Dred Scott and Lochner lie, the right of privacy and the judicial techniques and attitudes it represents are likely to remain. A more fundamental rethinking of legitimate judicial power than the mere demise of Roe would signify is required. (Robert Bork, "The Tempting of America," (1990), page 116.)

The Supreme Court is going to go for a full overturn (as in Fetal Personhood, as in, states can't legalize abortion either) if they do overturn Roe v. Wade.

The Court may decide to overturn Roe, but it won't have any basis for requiring States to criminalize all abortions. Even under an extreme pro-life interpretation of originalism, they could only go as far as banning post-quickening abortions (i.e., second and third trimester abortions) as that was the standard under common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. There was no statutory law in 1788 in either the UK or the US that banned abortion, only common law which used the quickening standard.

Other than John Roberts, I'm willing to bet none of the conservatives on the court will care about any legal basis for making such a decision.

Even if that were so, there's no justiciable point in this case for them to make such a ruling. It literally would require someone suing to prevent an abortion in a State where it was legal for them to even have a basis for such a ruling.

Stop wasting your time trying to explain how the law actually works to NYE. He's simply nothing more than a concern troll.

[libertpaulian]

I think SCOTUS will weaken Roe but not outright overturn it.

They'll probably save the gunpowder for when the Arkansas ban on gender-affirming treatment for kids comes there.

[(no subject)]

Will they uphold gender affirmation?

[Person Man]

I think SCOTUS will weaken Roe but not outright overturn it.

They'll probably save the gunpowder for when the Arkansas ban on gender-affirming treatment for kids comes there.

Why would they do that? You think its a better case to overturn Griswold or something?

[MarkD]

End roe v wade NOW

BAN abortion

Ending - overturning - Roe v. Wade will not result in banning abortion nationwide. Overturning it will result in returning control of the issue to the states. Most, if not all, (Atlas) red states will still allow abortion to be legal, and many (Atlas) blue states will ban abortion. Women who are in the latter states who need to get an abortion will be able to travel to the former states to get one.

I worry about what else the Supreme Court majority will say if they do overturn Roe. Roe was a misinterpretation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the Court does overturn Roe, will they also provide the country with a correct explanation of what the Due Process Clause means? If the Court explains the DP Clause in a manner similar to the way the plurality opinion in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) explained it, then that will mean the Court will continue to give this country an erroneous interpretation of the Clause and that the only reason the Court is upholding state laws that ban abortion is because the Justices politically agree with anti-abortion laws. It will mean that the Court's ruling will still be politically motivated, and the Court will then come under political pressure to reinstate Roe.

Attempts to overturn Roe will continue as long as the Court adheres to it. And, so long as the decision remains, the Court will be perceived, correctly, as political and will continue to be the target of demonstrations, marches, television advertisements, mass mailings, and the like. Roe, as the greatest example and symbol of judicial usurpation of democratic prerogatives in this century, should be overturned. The Court's integrity requires that. But even if the case is relegated to the dustbin of history where Dred Scott and Lochner lie, the right of privacy and the judicial techniques and attitudes it represents are likely to remain. A more fundamental rethinking of legitimate judicial power than the mere demise of Roe would signify is required. (Robert Bork, "The Tempting of America," (1990), page 116.)

The Supreme Court is going to go for a full overturn (as in Fetal Personhood, as in, states can't legalize abortion either) if they do overturn Roe v. Wade.

The Court may decide to overturn Roe, but it won't have any basis for requiring States to criminalize all abortions. Even under an extreme pro-life interpretation of originalism, they could only go as far as banning post-quickening abortions (i.e., second and third trimester abortions) as that was the standard under common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. There was no statutory law in 1788 in either the UK or the US that banned abortion, only common law which used the quickening standard.

Other than John Roberts, I'm willing to bet none of the conservatives on the court will care about any legal basis for making such a decision.

Even if that were so, there's no justiciable point in this case for them to make such a ruling. It literally would require someone suing to prevent an abortion in a State where it was legal for them to even have a basis for such a ruling.

While the Court does lack the power to issue a ruling that conclusively bans abortion nationwide until the circumstance that you describe, there is still the possibility that a 5 or 6 person majority on the Court, if they really want to, could include a non-binding statement -- in any abortion-related ruling, such as the upcoming Dobbs case -- that hints at the prospect that it is unconstitutional to allow abortion to be legal. Surely you've heard of obiter dictum. I can foresee a ruling by the Court, in Dobbs, upholding the Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks in which the opinion states the law should be upheld because it serves a legitimate governmental purpose, and it might even be constitutionally necessary to ban abortion after 15 weeks. It's just obiter dictum, so it isn't binding on future court decisions, but it can be cited in a future case that does challenge the constitutionality of laws that allow abortion to be legal -- and obiter dictum has certainly made its way into majority decisions before.

[SteveRogers]

End roe v wade NOW

BAN abortion

Ending - overturning - Roe v. Wade will not result in banning abortion nationwide. Overturning it will result in returning control of the issue to the states. Most, if not all, (Atlas) red states will still allow abortion to be legal, and many (Atlas) blue states will ban abortion. Women who are in the latter states who need to get an abortion will be able to travel to the former states to get one.

I worry about what else the Supreme Court majority will say if they do overturn Roe. Roe was a misinterpretation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the Court does overturn Roe, will they also provide the country with a correct explanation of what the Due Process Clause means? If the Court explains the DP Clause in a manner similar to the way the plurality opinion in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) explained it, then that will mean the Court will continue to give this country an erroneous interpretation of the Clause and that the only reason the Court is upholding state laws that ban abortion is because the Justices politically agree with anti-abortion laws. It will mean that the Court's ruling will still be politically motivated, and the Court will then come under political pressure to reinstate Roe.

Attempts to overturn Roe will continue as long as the Court adheres to it. And, so long as the decision remains, the Court will be perceived, correctly, as political and will continue to be the target of demonstrations, marches, television advertisements, mass mailings, and the like. Roe, as the greatest example and symbol of judicial usurpation of democratic prerogatives in this century, should be overturned. The Court's integrity requires that. But even if the case is relegated to the dustbin of history where Dred Scott and Lochner lie, the right of privacy and the judicial techniques and attitudes it represents are likely to remain. A more fundamental rethinking of legitimate judicial power than the mere demise of Roe would signify is required. (Robert Bork, "The Tempting of America," (1990), page 116.)

The Supreme Court is going to go for a full overturn (as in Fetal Personhood, as in, states can't legalize abortion either) if they do overturn Roe v. Wade.

The Court may decide to overturn Roe, but it won't have any basis for requiring States to criminalize all abortions. Even under an extreme pro-life interpretation of originalism, they could only go as far as banning post-quickening abortions (i.e., second and third trimester abortions) as that was the standard under common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. There was no statutory law in 1788 in either the UK or the US that banned abortion, only common law which used the quickening standard.

Other than John Roberts, I'm willing to bet none of the conservatives on the court will care about any legal basis for making such a decision.

Even if that were so, there's no justiciable point in this case for them to make such a ruling. It literally would require someone suing to prevent an abortion in a State where it was legal for them to even have a basis for such a ruling.

While the Court does lack the power to issue a ruling that conclusively bans abortion nationwide until the circumstance that you describe, there is still the possibility that a 5 or 6 person majority on the Court, if they really want to, could include a non-binding statement -- in any abortion-related ruling, such as the upcoming Dobbs case -- that hints at the prospect that it is unconstitutional to allow abortion to be legal. Surely you've heard of obiter dictum. I can foresee a ruling by the Court, in Dobbs, upholding the Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks in which the opinion states the law should be upheld because it serves a legitimate governmental purpose, and it might even be constitutionally necessary to ban abortion after 15 weeks. It's just obiter dictum, so it isn't binding on future court decisions, but it can be cited in a future case that does challenge the constitutionality of laws that allow abortion to be legal -- and obiter dictum has certainly made its way into majority decisions before.

None of this would be a very good plan for the conservative justices though. It’s easy for a court to strike down a law. It’s easy for a court to uphold a law. It would be very difficult for the U.S. Supreme Court to create a new crime. I suppose under this “fetal personhood” doctrine the Court could enjoin the government from supporting abortions. But how would such a ruling ban doctors (i.e. private citizens) from a particular practice? They can’t order the state legislatures to pass legislation criminalizing abortion or impose a sentence for said crime. They cannot order state officials to prosecute said crime. So how would this “fetal personhood” thing work, exactly?

[Bojack Horseman]

End roe v wade NOW

BAN abortion

Abortion is a good thing, is morally justified in all cases, and should be encouraged by society for all unplanned/unwanted pregnancies.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

End roe v wade NOW

BAN abortion

Ending - overturning - Roe v. Wade will not result in banning abortion nationwide. Overturning it will result in returning control of the issue to the states. Most, if not all, (Atlas) red states will still allow abortion to be legal, and many (Atlas) blue states will ban abortion. Women who are in the latter states who need to get an abortion will be able to travel to the former states to get one.

I worry about what else the Supreme Court majority will say if they do overturn Roe. Roe was a misinterpretation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the Court does overturn Roe, will they also provide the country with a correct explanation of what the Due Process Clause means? If the Court explains the DP Clause in a manner similar to the way the plurality opinion in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) explained it, then that will mean the Court will continue to give this country an erroneous interpretation of the Clause and that the only reason the Court is upholding state laws that ban abortion is because the Justices politically agree with anti-abortion laws. It will mean that the Court's ruling will still be politically motivated, and the Court will then come under political pressure to reinstate Roe.

Attempts to overturn Roe will continue as long as the Court adheres to it. And, so long as the decision remains, the Court will be perceived, correctly, as political and will continue to be the target of demonstrations, marches, television advertisements, mass mailings, and the like. Roe, as the greatest example and symbol of judicial usurpation of democratic prerogatives in this century, should be overturned. The Court's integrity requires that. But even if the case is relegated to the dustbin of history where Dred Scott and Lochner lie, the right of privacy and the judicial techniques and attitudes it represents are likely to remain. A more fundamental rethinking of legitimate judicial power than the mere demise of Roe would signify is required. (Robert Bork, "The Tempting of America," (1990), page 116.)

The Supreme Court is going to go for a full overturn (as in Fetal Personhood, as in, states can't legalize abortion either) if they do overturn Roe v. Wade.

The Court may decide to overturn Roe, but it won't have any basis for requiring States to criminalize all abortions. Even under an extreme pro-life interpretation of originalism, they could only go as far as banning post-quickening abortions (i.e., second and third trimester abortions) as that was the standard under common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. There was no statutory law in 1788 in either the UK or the US that banned abortion, only common law which used the quickening standard.

Other than John Roberts, I'm willing to bet none of the conservatives on the court will care about any legal basis for making such a decision.

Even if that were so, there's no justiciable point in this case for them to make such a ruling. It literally would require someone suing to prevent an abortion in a State where it was legal for them to even have a basis for such a ruling.

While the Court does lack the power to issue a ruling that conclusively bans abortion nationwide until the circumstance that you describe, there is still the possibility that a 5 or 6 person majority on the Court, if they really want to, could include a non-binding statement -- in any abortion-related ruling, such as the upcoming Dobbs case -- that hints at the prospect that it is unconstitutional to allow abortion to be legal. Surely you've heard of obiter dictum. I can foresee a ruling by the Court, in Dobbs, upholding the Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks in which the opinion states the law should be upheld because it serves a legitimate governmental purpose, and it might even be constitutionally necessary to ban abortion after 15 weeks. It's just obiter dictum, so it isn't binding on future court decisions, but it can be cited in a future case that does challenge the constitutionality of laws that allow abortion to be legal -- and obiter dictum has certainly made its way into majority decisions before.

None of this would be a very good plan for the conservative justices though. It’s easy for a court to strike down a law. It’s easy for a court to uphold a law. It would be very difficult for the U.S. Supreme Court to create a new crime. I suppose under this “fetal personhood” doctrine the Court could enjoin the government from supporting abortions. But how would such a ruling ban doctors (i.e. private citizens) from a particular practice? They can’t order the state legislatures to pass legislation criminalizing abortion or impose a sentence for said crime. They cannot order state officials to prosecute said crime. So how would this “fetal personhood” thing work, exactly?

Simple. Someone files for a writ of mandamus to require a prosecutor to prosecute an abortionist under an existing manslaughter or murder statute for performing an abortion. The mechanism is fairly straightforward if SCOTUS ever rules that the Federal constitution requires State recognition of fetal personhood. Frankly, I don't see any possible justification for such a ruling, but then the court has a history of making rulings with little justification, such as Dred Scott, Plessy, Roe, and pretty much all of its Eighth Amendment jurisprudence.

[SteveRogers]

End roe v wade NOW

BAN abortion

Ending - overturning - Roe v. Wade will not result in banning abortion nationwide. Overturning it will result in returning control of the issue to the states. Most, if not all, (Atlas) red states will still allow abortion to be legal, and many (Atlas) blue states will ban abortion. Women who are in the latter states who need to get an abortion will be able to travel to the former states to get one.

I worry about what else the Supreme Court majority will say if they do overturn Roe. Roe was a misinterpretation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the Court does overturn Roe, will they also provide the country with a correct explanation of what the Due Process Clause means? If the Court explains the DP Clause in a manner similar to the way the plurality opinion in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) explained it, then that will mean the Court will continue to give this country an erroneous interpretation of the Clause and that the only reason the Court is upholding state laws that ban abortion is because the Justices politically agree with anti-abortion laws. It will mean that the Court's ruling will still be politically motivated, and the Court will then come under political pressure to reinstate Roe.

Attempts to overturn Roe will continue as long as the Court adheres to it. And, so long as the decision remains, the Court will be perceived, correctly, as political and will continue to be the target of demonstrations, marches, television advertisements, mass mailings, and the like. Roe, as the greatest example and symbol of judicial usurpation of democratic prerogatives in this century, should be overturned. The Court's integrity requires that. But even if the case is relegated to the dustbin of history where Dred Scott and Lochner lie, the right of privacy and the judicial techniques and attitudes it represents are likely to remain. A more fundamental rethinking of legitimate judicial power than the mere demise of Roe would signify is required. (Robert Bork, "The Tempting of America," (1990), page 116.)

The Supreme Court is going to go for a full overturn (as in Fetal Personhood, as in, states can't legalize abortion either) if they do overturn Roe v. Wade.

The Court may decide to overturn Roe, but it won't have any basis for requiring States to criminalize all abortions. Even under an extreme pro-life interpretation of originalism, they could only go as far as banning post-quickening abortions (i.e., second and third trimester abortions) as that was the standard under common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. There was no statutory law in 1788 in either the UK or the US that banned abortion, only common law which used the quickening standard.

Other than John Roberts, I'm willing to bet none of the conservatives on the court will care about any legal basis for making such a decision.

Even if that were so, there's no justiciable point in this case for them to make such a ruling. It literally would require someone suing to prevent an abortion in a State where it was legal for them to even have a basis for such a ruling.

While the Court does lack the power to issue a ruling that conclusively bans abortion nationwide until the circumstance that you describe, there is still the possibility that a 5 or 6 person majority on the Court, if they really want to, could include a non-binding statement -- in any abortion-related ruling, such as the upcoming Dobbs case -- that hints at the prospect that it is unconstitutional to allow abortion to be legal. Surely you've heard of obiter dictum. I can foresee a ruling by the Court, in Dobbs, upholding the Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks in which the opinion states the law should be upheld because it serves a legitimate governmental purpose, and it might even be constitutionally necessary to ban abortion after 15 weeks. It's just obiter dictum, so it isn't binding on future court decisions, but it can be cited in a future case that does challenge the constitutionality of laws that allow abortion to be legal -- and obiter dictum has certainly made its way into majority decisions before.

None of this would be a very good plan for the conservative justices though. It’s easy for a court to strike down a law. It’s easy for a court to uphold a law. It would be very difficult for the U.S. Supreme Court to create a new crime. I suppose under this “fetal personhood” doctrine the Court could enjoin the government from supporting abortions. But how would such a ruling ban doctors (i.e. private citizens) from a particular practice? They can’t order the state legislatures to pass legislation criminalizing abortion or impose a sentence for said crime. They cannot order state officials to prosecute said crime. So how would this “fetal personhood” thing work, exactly?

Simple. Someone files for a writ of mandamus to require a prosecutor to prosecute an abortionist under an existing manslaughter or murder statute for performing an abortion. The mechanism is fairly straightforward if SCOTUS ever rules that the Federal constitution requires State recognition of fetal personhood. Frankly, I don't see any possible justification for such a ruling, but then the court has a history of making rulings with little justification, such as Dred Scott, Plessy, Roe, and pretty much all of its Eighth Amendment jurisprudence.

That’s not a thing though. You can’t mandamus a prosecutor into prosecuting a case. Prosecutorial discretion FTW. Nor could the Court order a grand jury to indict such a case.

[Person Man]

End roe v wade NOW

BAN abortion

Ending - overturning - Roe v. Wade will not result in banning abortion nationwide. Overturning it will result in returning control of the issue to the states. Most, if not all, (Atlas) red states will still allow abortion to be legal, and many (Atlas) blue states will ban abortion. Women who are in the latter states who need to get an abortion will be able to travel to the former states to get one.

I worry about what else the Supreme Court majority will say if they do overturn Roe. Roe was a misinterpretation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the Court does overturn Roe, will they also provide the country with a correct explanation of what the Due Process Clause means? If the Court explains the DP Clause in a manner similar to the way the plurality opinion in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) explained it, then that will mean the Court will continue to give this country an erroneous interpretation of the Clause and that the only reason the Court is upholding state laws that ban abortion is because the Justices politically agree with anti-abortion laws. It will mean that the Court's ruling will still be politically motivated, and the Court will then come under political pressure to reinstate Roe.

Attempts to overturn Roe will continue as long as the Court adheres to it. And, so long as the decision remains, the Court will be perceived, correctly, as political and will continue to be the target of demonstrations, marches, television advertisements, mass mailings, and the like. Roe, as the greatest example and symbol of judicial usurpation of democratic prerogatives in this century, should be overturned. The Court's integrity requires that. But even if the case is relegated to the dustbin of history where Dred Scott and Lochner lie, the right of privacy and the judicial techniques and attitudes it represents are likely to remain. A more fundamental rethinking of legitimate judicial power than the mere demise of Roe would signify is required. (Robert Bork, "The Tempting of America," (1990), page 116.)

The Supreme Court is going to go for a full overturn (as in Fetal Personhood, as in, states can't legalize abortion either) if they do overturn Roe v. Wade.

The Court may decide to overturn Roe, but it won't have any basis for requiring States to criminalize all abortions. Even under an extreme pro-life interpretation of originalism, they could only go as far as banning post-quickening abortions (i.e., second and third trimester abortions) as that was the standard under common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. There was no statutory law in 1788 in either the UK or the US that banned abortion, only common law which used the quickening standard.

Other than John Roberts, I'm willing to bet none of the conservatives on the court will care about any legal basis for making such a decision.

Even if that were so, there's no justiciable point in this case for them to make such a ruling. It literally would require someone suing to prevent an abortion in a State where it was legal for them to even have a basis for such a ruling.

While the Court does lack the power to issue a ruling that conclusively bans abortion nationwide until the circumstance that you describe, there is still the possibility that a 5 or 6 person majority on the Court, if they really want to, could include a non-binding statement -- in any abortion-related ruling, such as the upcoming Dobbs case -- that hints at the prospect that it is unconstitutional to allow abortion to be legal. Surely you've heard of obiter dictum. I can foresee a ruling by the Court, in Dobbs, upholding the Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks in which the opinion states the law should be upheld because it serves a legitimate governmental purpose, and it might even be constitutionally necessary to ban abortion after 15 weeks. It's just obiter dictum, so it isn't binding on future court decisions, but it can be cited in a future case that does challenge the constitutionality of laws that allow abortion to be legal -- and obiter dictum has certainly made its way into majority decisions before.

None of this would be a very good plan for the conservative justices though. It’s easy for a court to strike down a law. It’s easy for a court to uphold a law. It would be very difficult for the U.S. Supreme Court to create a new crime. I suppose under this “fetal personhood” doctrine the Court could enjoin the government from supporting abortions. But how would such a ruling ban doctors (i.e. private citizens) from a particular practice? They can’t order the state legislatures to pass legislation criminalizing abortion or impose a sentence for said crime. They cannot order state officials to prosecute said crime. So how would this “fetal personhood” thing work, exactly?

If they couldn't sue prosecutors to prosecute abortionists for murder, they could just sue the abortionist or the state legislatures that tolerate it for a Federal Violation of Civil Rights. My guess is that would be how a Constitutional Right to Be Born would be "implemented" by the courts. Basically a national S.B. 8 by estoppel.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

End roe v wade NOW

BAN abortion

Ending - overturning - Roe v. Wade will not result in banning abortion nationwide. Overturning it will result in returning control of the issue to the states. Most, if not all, (Atlas) red states will still allow abortion to be legal, and many (Atlas) blue states will ban abortion. Women who are in the latter states who need to get an abortion will be able to travel to the former states to get one.

I worry about what else the Supreme Court majority will say if they do overturn Roe. Roe was a misinterpretation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the Court does overturn Roe, will they also provide the country with a correct explanation of what the Due Process Clause means? If the Court explains the DP Clause in a manner similar to the way the plurality opinion in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) explained it, then that will mean the Court will continue to give this country an erroneous interpretation of the Clause and that the only reason the Court is upholding state laws that ban abortion is because the Justices politically agree with anti-abortion laws. It will mean that the Court's ruling will still be politically motivated, and the Court will then come under political pressure to reinstate Roe.

Attempts to overturn Roe will continue as long as the Court adheres to it. And, so long as the decision remains, the Court will be perceived, correctly, as political and will continue to be the target of demonstrations, marches, television advertisements, mass mailings, and the like. Roe, as the greatest example and symbol of judicial usurpation of democratic prerogatives in this century, should be overturned. The Court's integrity requires that. But even if the case is relegated to the dustbin of history where Dred Scott and Lochner lie, the right of privacy and the judicial techniques and attitudes it represents are likely to remain. A more fundamental rethinking of legitimate judicial power than the mere demise of Roe would signify is required. (Robert Bork, "The Tempting of America," (1990), page 116.)

The Supreme Court is going to go for a full overturn (as in Fetal Personhood, as in, states can't legalize abortion either) if they do overturn Roe v. Wade.

The Court may decide to overturn Roe, but it won't have any basis for requiring States to criminalize all abortions. Even under an extreme pro-life interpretation of originalism, they could only go as far as banning post-quickening abortions (i.e., second and third trimester abortions) as that was the standard under common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. There was no statutory law in 1788 in either the UK or the US that banned abortion, only common law which used the quickening standard.

Other than John Roberts, I'm willing to bet none of the conservatives on the court will care about any legal basis for making such a decision.

Even if that were so, there's no justiciable point in this case for them to make such a ruling. It literally would require someone suing to prevent an abortion in a State where it was legal for them to even have a basis for such a ruling.

While the Court does lack the power to issue a ruling that conclusively bans abortion nationwide until the circumstance that you describe, there is still the possibility that a 5 or 6 person majority on the Court, if they really want to, could include a non-binding statement -- in any abortion-related ruling, such as the upcoming Dobbs case -- that hints at the prospect that it is unconstitutional to allow abortion to be legal. Surely you've heard of obiter dictum. I can foresee a ruling by the Court, in Dobbs, upholding the Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks in which the opinion states the law should be upheld because it serves a legitimate governmental purpose, and it might even be constitutionally necessary to ban abortion after 15 weeks. It's just obiter dictum, so it isn't binding on future court decisions, but it can be cited in a future case that does challenge the constitutionality of laws that allow abortion to be legal -- and obiter dictum has certainly made its way into majority decisions before.

None of this would be a very good plan for the conservative justices though. It’s easy for a court to strike down a law. It’s easy for a court to uphold a law. It would be very difficult for the U.S. Supreme Court to create a new crime. I suppose under this “fetal personhood” doctrine the Court could enjoin the government from supporting abortions. But how would such a ruling ban doctors (i.e. private citizens) from a particular practice? They can’t order the state legislatures to pass legislation criminalizing abortion or impose a sentence for said crime. They cannot order state officials to prosecute said crime. So how would this “fetal personhood” thing work, exactly?

They could say that abortion violated the Equal Protection Clause, and require that unborn children be covered under existing murder laws.

[SteveRogers]

End roe v wade NOW

BAN abortion

Ending - overturning - Roe v. Wade will not result in banning abortion nationwide. Overturning it will result in returning control of the issue to the states. Most, if not all, (Atlas) red states will still allow abortion to be legal, and many (Atlas) blue states will ban abortion. Women who are in the latter states who need to get an abortion will be able to travel to the former states to get one.

I worry about what else the Supreme Court majority will say if they do overturn Roe. Roe was a misinterpretation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the Court does overturn Roe, will they also provide the country with a correct explanation of what the Due Process Clause means? If the Court explains the DP Clause in a manner similar to the way the plurality opinion in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) explained it, then that will mean the Court will continue to give this country an erroneous interpretation of the Clause and that the only reason the Court is upholding state laws that ban abortion is because the Justices politically agree with anti-abortion laws. It will mean that the Court's ruling will still be politically motivated, and the Court will then come under political pressure to reinstate Roe.

Attempts to overturn Roe will continue as long as the Court adheres to it. And, so long as the decision remains, the Court will be perceived, correctly, as political and will continue to be the target of demonstrations, marches, television advertisements, mass mailings, and the like. Roe, as the greatest example and symbol of judicial usurpation of democratic prerogatives in this century, should be overturned. The Court's integrity requires that. But even if the case is relegated to the dustbin of history where Dred Scott and Lochner lie, the right of privacy and the judicial techniques and attitudes it represents are likely to remain. A more fundamental rethinking of legitimate judicial power than the mere demise of Roe would signify is required. (Robert Bork, "The Tempting of America," (1990), page 116.)

The Supreme Court is going to go for a full overturn (as in Fetal Personhood, as in, states can't legalize abortion either) if they do overturn Roe v. Wade.

The Court may decide to overturn Roe, but it won't have any basis for requiring States to criminalize all abortions. Even under an extreme pro-life interpretation of originalism, they could only go as far as banning post-quickening abortions (i.e., second and third trimester abortions) as that was the standard under common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. There was no statutory law in 1788 in either the UK or the US that banned abortion, only common law which used the quickening standard.

Other than John Roberts, I'm willing to bet none of the conservatives on the court will care about any legal basis for making such a decision.

Even if that were so, there's no justiciable point in this case for them to make such a ruling. It literally would require someone suing to prevent an abortion in a State where it was legal for them to even have a basis for such a ruling.

While the Court does lack the power to issue a ruling that conclusively bans abortion nationwide until the circumstance that you describe, there is still the possibility that a 5 or 6 person majority on the Court, if they really want to, could include a non-binding statement -- in any abortion-related ruling, such as the upcoming Dobbs case -- that hints at the prospect that it is unconstitutional to allow abortion to be legal. Surely you've heard of obiter dictum. I can foresee a ruling by the Court, in Dobbs, upholding the Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks in which the opinion states the law should be upheld because it serves a legitimate governmental purpose, and it might even be constitutionally necessary to ban abortion after 15 weeks. It's just obiter dictum, so it isn't binding on future court decisions, but it can be cited in a future case that does challenge the constitutionality of laws that allow abortion to be legal -- and obiter dictum has certainly made its way into majority decisions before.

None of this would be a very good plan for the conservative justices though. It’s easy for a court to strike down a law. It’s easy for a court to uphold a law. It would be very difficult for the U.S. Supreme Court to create a new crime. I suppose under this “fetal personhood” doctrine the Court could enjoin the government from supporting abortions. But how would such a ruling ban doctors (i.e. private citizens) from a particular practice? They can’t order the state legislatures to pass legislation criminalizing abortion or impose a sentence for said crime. They cannot order state officials to prosecute said crime. So how would this “fetal personhood” thing work, exactly?

They could say that abortion violated the Equal Protection Clause, and require that unborn children be covered under existing murder laws.

Sure, and then Texas could start prosecuting abortion providers under existing murder statutes. But they couldn’t make a prosecutor in, say, California take a specific murder case to the grand jury.

[SteveRogers]

End roe v wade NOW

BAN abortion

Ending - overturning - Roe v. Wade will not result in banning abortion nationwide. Overturning it will result in returning control of the issue to the states. Most, if not all, (Atlas) red states will still allow abortion to be legal, and many (Atlas) blue states will ban abortion. Women who are in the latter states who need to get an abortion will be able to travel to the former states to get one.

I worry about what else the Supreme Court majority will say if they do overturn Roe. Roe was a misinterpretation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the Court does overturn Roe, will they also provide the country with a correct explanation of what the Due Process Clause means? If the Court explains the DP Clause in a manner similar to the way the plurality opinion in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) explained it, then that will mean the Court will continue to give this country an erroneous interpretation of the Clause and that the only reason the Court is upholding state laws that ban abortion is because the Justices politically agree with anti-abortion laws. It will mean that the Court's ruling will still be politically motivated, and the Court will then come under political pressure to reinstate Roe.

Attempts to overturn Roe will continue as long as the Court adheres to it. And, so long as the decision remains, the Court will be perceived, correctly, as political and will continue to be the target of demonstrations, marches, television advertisements, mass mailings, and the like. Roe, as the greatest example and symbol of judicial usurpation of democratic prerogatives in this century, should be overturned. The Court's integrity requires that. But even if the case is relegated to the dustbin of history where Dred Scott and Lochner lie, the right of privacy and the judicial techniques and attitudes it represents are likely to remain. A more fundamental rethinking of legitimate judicial power than the mere demise of Roe would signify is required. (Robert Bork, "The Tempting of America," (1990), page 116.)

The Supreme Court is going to go for a full overturn (as in Fetal Personhood, as in, states can't legalize abortion either) if they do overturn Roe v. Wade.

The Court may decide to overturn Roe, but it won't have any basis for requiring States to criminalize all abortions. Even under an extreme pro-life interpretation of originalism, they could only go as far as banning post-quickening abortions (i.e., second and third trimester abortions) as that was the standard under common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. There was no statutory law in 1788 in either the UK or the US that banned abortion, only common law which used the quickening standard.

Other than John Roberts, I'm willing to bet none of the conservatives on the court will care about any legal basis for making such a decision.

Even if that were so, there's no justiciable point in this case for them to make such a ruling. It literally would require someone suing to prevent an abortion in a State where it was legal for them to even have a basis for such a ruling.

While the Court does lack the power to issue a ruling that conclusively bans abortion nationwide until the circumstance that you describe, there is still the possibility that a 5 or 6 person majority on the Court, if they really want to, could include a non-binding statement -- in any abortion-related ruling, such as the upcoming Dobbs case -- that hints at the prospect that it is unconstitutional to allow abortion to be legal. Surely you've heard of obiter dictum. I can foresee a ruling by the Court, in Dobbs, upholding the Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks in which the opinion states the law should be upheld because it serves a legitimate governmental purpose, and it might even be constitutionally necessary to ban abortion after 15 weeks. It's just obiter dictum, so it isn't binding on future court decisions, but it can be cited in a future case that does challenge the constitutionality of laws that allow abortion to be legal -- and obiter dictum has certainly made its way into majority decisions before.

None of this would be a very good plan for the conservative justices though. It’s easy for a court to strike down a law. It’s easy for a court to uphold a law. It would be very difficult for the U.S. Supreme Court to create a new crime. I suppose under this “fetal personhood” doctrine the Court could enjoin the government from supporting abortions. But how would such a ruling ban doctors (i.e. private citizens) from a particular practice? They can’t order the state legislatures to pass legislation criminalizing abortion or impose a sentence for said crime. They cannot order state officials to prosecute said crime. So how would this “fetal personhood” thing work, exactly?

If they couldn't sue prosecutors to prosecute abortionists for murder, they could just sue the abortionist or the state legislatures that tolerate it for a Federal Violation of Civil Rights. My guess is that would be how a Constitutional Right to Be Born would be "implemented" by the courts. Basically a national S.B. 8 by estoppel.

You can’t sue a private doctor for a violation of constitutional rights. And you can’t sue the state legislature to make them pass a law.

[Person Man]

End roe v wade NOW

BAN abortion

Ending - overturning - Roe v. Wade will not result in banning abortion nationwide. Overturning it will result in returning control of the issue to the states. Most, if not all, (Atlas) red states will still allow abortion to be legal, and many (Atlas) blue states will ban abortion. Women who are in the latter states who need to get an abortion will be able to travel to the former states to get one.

I worry about what else the Supreme Court majority will say if they do overturn Roe. Roe was a misinterpretation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the Court does overturn Roe, will they also provide the country with a correct explanation of what the Due Process Clause means? If the Court explains the DP Clause in a manner similar to the way the plurality opinion in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) explained it, then that will mean the Court will continue to give this country an erroneous interpretation of the Clause and that the only reason the Court is upholding state laws that ban abortion is because the Justices politically agree with anti-abortion laws. It will mean that the Court's ruling will still be politically motivated, and the Court will then come under political pressure to reinstate Roe.

Attempts to overturn Roe will continue as long as the Court adheres to it. And, so long as the decision remains, the Court will be perceived, correctly, as political and will continue to be the target of demonstrations, marches, television advertisements, mass mailings, and the like. Roe, as the greatest example and symbol of judicial usurpation of democratic prerogatives in this century, should be overturned. The Court's integrity requires that. But even if the case is relegated to the dustbin of history where Dred Scott and Lochner lie, the right of privacy and the judicial techniques and attitudes it represents are likely to remain. A more fundamental rethinking of legitimate judicial power than the mere demise of Roe would signify is required. (Robert Bork, "The Tempting of America," (1990), page 116.)

The Supreme Court is going to go for a full overturn (as in Fetal Personhood, as in, states can't legalize abortion either) if they do overturn Roe v. Wade.

The Court may decide to overturn Roe, but it won't have any basis for requiring States to criminalize all abortions. Even under an extreme pro-life interpretation of originalism, they could only go as far as banning post-quickening abortions (i.e., second and third trimester abortions) as that was the standard under common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. There was no statutory law in 1788 in either the UK or the US that banned abortion, only common law which used the quickening standard.

Other than John Roberts, I'm willing to bet none of the conservatives on the court will care about any legal basis for making such a decision.

Even if that were so, there's no justiciable point in this case for them to make such a ruling. It literally would require someone suing to prevent an abortion in a State where it was legal for them to even have a basis for such a ruling.

While the Court does lack the power to issue a ruling that conclusively bans abortion nationwide until the circumstance that you describe, there is still the possibility that a 5 or 6 person majority on the Court, if they really want to, could include a non-binding statement -- in any abortion-related ruling, such as the upcoming Dobbs case -- that hints at the prospect that it is unconstitutional to allow abortion to be legal. Surely you've heard of obiter dictum. I can foresee a ruling by the Court, in Dobbs, upholding the Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks in which the opinion states the law should be upheld because it serves a legitimate governmental purpose, and it might even be constitutionally necessary to ban abortion after 15 weeks. It's just obiter dictum, so it isn't binding on future court decisions, but it can be cited in a future case that does challenge the constitutionality of laws that allow abortion to be legal -- and obiter dictum has certainly made its way into majority decisions before.

None of this would be a very good plan for the conservative justices though. It’s easy for a court to strike down a law. It’s easy for a court to uphold a law. It would be very difficult for the U.S. Supreme Court to create a new crime. I suppose under this “fetal personhood” doctrine the Court could enjoin the government from supporting abortions. But how would such a ruling ban doctors (i.e. private citizens) from a particular practice? They can’t order the state legislatures to pass legislation criminalizing abortion or impose a sentence for said crime. They cannot order state officials to prosecute said crime. So how would this “fetal personhood” thing work, exactly?

If they couldn't sue prosecutors to prosecute abortionists for murder, they could just sue the abortionist or the state legislatures that tolerate it for a Federal Violation of Civil Rights. My guess is that would be how a Constitutional Right to Be Born would be "implemented" by the courts. Basically a national S.B. 8 by estoppel.

You can’t sue a private doctor for a violation of constitutional rights. And you can’t sue the state legislature to make them pass a law.

I’m not talking about forcing states to make laws but there’s ton of civil rights laws that they could use to sue providers based on interpreting fetuses as a suspect class. So, they couldn’t just say that a fetus  has a right to not be aborted, but also that because they have a right to not be aborted that is systematically violated in society that fetuses are covered under various Civil Rights Laws.

[Non Swing Voter]

The perpetual hope upon hope of the right to end abortion is one of the saddest displays in politics. 

[Southern Reactionary Dem]

I'm honestly starting to almost hope for the overturn. I just want judges to stop being the obsession in every election. I want the issue to go away. I'm so tired.

I agree with you. I'm against abortion myself, but I do wish it would go away as a wedge issue so we can focus on how the elites of this country are robbing us blind.

[Non Swing Voter]

If abortion went away as an issue right wing cultists would just focus on something else the court decides: guns, CRT, gays, the list goes on and on.  They try to win every cultural issue through the courts because most of society doesn't agree with them and they can't win these issues at the ballot box.

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

If abortion went away as an issue right wing cultists would just focus on something else the court decides: guns, CRT, gays, the list goes on and on.  They try to win every cultural issue through the courts because most of society doesn't agree with them and they can't win these issues at the ballot box.

And they of course make the exact same allegation about liberal sociocultural policies. The truth is that on a lot of this stuff we just don't know what positions would hypothetically win at the ballot box because the US's current government system and political culture--including, yes, previous arrogations of power by the judiciary--have made resolving them democratically structurally impossible.

[lfromnj]

If abortion went away as an issue right wing cultists would just focus on something else the court decides: guns, CRT, gays, the list goes on and on.  They try to win every cultural issue through the courts because most of society doesn't agree with them and they can't win these issues at the ballot box.

The biggest cultural supreme court cases in the past say 50 years have gone in the left favor. If anything it is actually the right's economic agenda which goes through the courts than social issues. Maybe gun control and a few religious freedom issues but both of these have very strong arguments for being within the constitution.(1st and 2nd amendment.) Issues like gay marriage/abortions etc were all decided in the lefts favor. Maybe now the social issues will start to be right leaning but not overwhelmingly so.

Meanwhile abortion's argument is built on the more flimsy Roe V Wade. Even if it was overturned the social right would still have to win at the ballot box to enact abortion bans.

[Frodo]

And now we have the identity of the lawyer who will argue Mississippi's case to the Supreme Court:

Former DOJ attorney under Trump will argue Mississippi’s case to Supreme Court to reverse Roe v. Wade

Scott Stewart, a former U.S. Department of Justice attorney who defended some of President Trump's most controversial immigration policies in court, will argue Mississippi's case to the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse Roe v. Wade.

[Ferguson97]

I'm honestly starting to almost hope for the overturn. I just want judges to stop being the obsession in every election. I want the issue to go away. I'm so tired.

You want it to be overturned because the discussion annoys you?

That sort of apathy is honest to god worse than any conservative who opposes it on moral grounds.

God forbid we consider the implications of one of the biggest political issues in the country because the discussion personally irritates you.

[Person Man]

I'm honestly starting to almost hope for the overturn. I just want judges to stop being the obsession in every election. I want the issue to go away. I'm so tired.

You want it to be overturned because the discussion annoys you?

That sort of apathy is honest to god worse than any conservative who opposes it on moral grounds.

God forbid we consider the implications of one of the biggest political issues in the country because the discussion personally irritates you.

Overturning it doesn't "settle" the issue any more than Roe "settled" the issue or for that matter any more than Dred Scott "settled" the issue.

They could just come back and say "we can allow 2nd trimester abortions to be banned so long as there are reasonably accessible safe guards", say "we're totally ignoring Roe and looking at this solely as just another local public health or order program", or even say "were upholding this law because we don't think it violates Roe".

If the justices are smart, they'll be able to get their law passed without actually having to repeal the laws already in place. This way, they can just rubber stamp every law that separately comes in. This way, abortion jurisprudence gets moved to the circuits. I say this because they haven't taken any cases where the circuit court upholds it. That should be a sign that this is what they want. This approach would be good and bad for various reasons, but would possible avoid they legal and cultural anarchy that would result from SCOTUS taking, perhaps for the first time,  a right from the people and making it a power of the states.

Even just going that far would open up how states would settle how abortion would then work. I think 15 states now have legalized it, 13 intend to make it illegal (will what SCOTUS do actually do this?) and there's probably a handful of states that are either trying to avoid talking about abortion or have it legalized by their own courts and don't want it to be. What will happen in those states?

Also. Name one thing that is completely or mostly tolerated in one place but is considered a heinous crime in another. How will we deal with that? Will people get scared and try to move? Who will move? What about the people who don't move?

If you are looking to "punt" on abortion, you are pretty much inviting a situation where we are all going to be talking about it for the rest of the decade whether we end up just agreeing to disagree like with unions, banning it but then having no respect for the law like we have done with drugs, or going full fledged War on Abortion remains to be seen.

[pppolitics]

If abortion ban is upheld, all the Bernie Bros who couldn't stomach Hillary own this.