Kavanaugh and Barrett seems ready to overrule Roe, based on arguments today

[David Hume]

Honestly I was quite surprised by Kavanaugh's remarks today. I thought he would take a middle ground and appear moderate. But he basically says Constitution is neutral to abortion, so let Congress and states decide. This means overrule Roe. What about the promise he made to Collins, and his decays long attempt to appear moderate?

I wonder how the majority opinion could avoid the language that Roe/Casey are overruled. I don't think Roberts would sign that. In the initial vote of whether to uphold the MS abortion law, it will be 6-3, and Roberts gets to assign the authorship, and he will likely assign to himself. But he may not be able to convince Kavanaugh to avoid directly overrule Roe. And if that's the case, the other five conservatives will write a concurrence overruling Roe, which becomes controlling opinion. I am curious who that author would be.

I guess if they hold a vote about whether to overrule Roe, it would be 5-4, and Thomas would assign. In 1973 Burger assigned it to Blackmun. Defending his Roe opinion played a significant role in his evolving left. I am not sure if Thomas would assign it to himself, who never got opportunities to write landmark opinions. Or he would assign it to Kavanaugh, hoping that Kavanaugh defending it would avoid him evolve liberal.

[All Along The Watchtower]

All six of the Court’s conservatives are in favor of overturning Roe.

[TheFonz]

Yes, it appears that Roe and Casey are dead, and good riddance.

It's clear after oral arguments today that the Mississippi law is here to stay. That will be 6-3. As for whether it's 6-3 to overturn Roe and Casey, I somewhat expect it to be. Roberts knows they're bad law with no constitutional foundation. Either way, Thomas will write the 6-3 opinion overturning Roe and Casey, or the concurrence doing so which will be joined by Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett.

[R.P. McM]

Yes, it appears that Roe and Casey are dead, and good riddance.

It's clear after oral arguments today that the Mississippi law is here to stay. That will be 6-3. As for whether it's 6-3 to overturn Roe and Casey, I somewhat expect it to be. Roberts knows they're bad law with no constitutional foundation. Either way, Thomas will write the 6-3 opinion overturning Roe and Casey, or the concurrence doing so which will be joined by Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett.

Agreed. It's clear that the SC is a purely partisan institution, and I will never ever support a centrist/corporate Democrat, or live in a Red state. The disintegration of this country has been accelerated, as has the radicalization of the Democratic base, and for that, I'm immensely grateful.

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

Yes, it appears that Roe and Casey are dead, and good riddance.

It's clear after oral arguments today that the Mississippi law is here to stay. That will be 6-3. As for whether it's 6-3 to overturn Roe and Casey, I somewhat expect it to be. Roberts knows they're bad law with no constitutional foundation. Either way, Thomas will write the 6-3 opinion overturning Roe and Casey, or the concurrence doing so which will be joined by Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett.

Agreed. It's clear that the SC is a purely partisan institution, and I will never ever support a centrist/corporate Democrat, or live in a Red state. The disintegration of this country has been accelerated, as has the radicalization of the Democratic base, and for that, I'm immensely grateful.

You should be on some sort of watch list.

[If my soul was made of stone]

Yes, it appears that Roe and Casey are dead, and good riddance.

It's clear after oral arguments today that the Mississippi law is here to stay. That will be 6-3. As for whether it's 6-3 to overturn Roe and Casey, I somewhat expect it to be. Roberts knows they're bad law with no constitutional foundation. Either way, Thomas will write the 6-3 opinion overturning Roe and Casey, or the concurrence doing so which will be joined by Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett.

Agreed. It's clear that the SC is a purely partisan institution, and I will never ever support a centrist/corporate Democrat, or live in a Red state. The disintegration of this country has been accelerated, as has the radicalization of the Democratic base, and for that, I'm immensely grateful.

What is it with Minnesota avatars on this site? What creates this perverse, masochistic obsession with destructive cultural accelerationism, or the belief that inhabiting a space within an arbitrary line that votes a certain way is a judgment of one's beliefs or moral character?

[TJ in Oregon]

I listened to the oral arguments today and I can't imagine Roberts overturning Roe or Casey. It's transparently obvious that he is trying to strike a grand bargain where Casey's standard is altered from viability to something like the end of the first trimester. He spent his speaking portion of the oral argument running around trying to convince everyone that a 15 week ban wasn't an undue burden. No one seemed particularly interested in what he had to say.

As for the other justices, the votes of Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan are relatively predictable and nothing was said to alter the conventional wisdom about how they would rule. Some people think Kagan may be interested in a grand bargain, but if she does there is zero chance her vote is decisive. Some people also think Thomas or Alito may argue that allowing abortion at all is a 14th Amendment violation, but even if they do it has no chance of getting 5 votes and a miniscule chance of getting 3.

So that leaves Kavanaugh and Barrett. Coming into this the smart money was clearly on Kavanaugh as the median justice on abortion. But he was rather blunt in the arguments and spoke at length about how the court should be neither pro-life or pro-choice and return the question to Congress and the states. From what he said, it's difficult to see how he could wind himself back around to not strike down Roe and Casey.

On the other hand, Barrett seemed unexpectedly open to a possible compromise ruling. At one point when asking a question about stare decisis, she opined that stare decisis was clearly what this case was about. I read it to indicate two things (a) she doesn't take the notion that Roe and Casey were decided correctly on the merits to even be worth considering, and (b) she does think the stare decisis concerns are worth considering. In addition, one topic she kept on circling back to was the passage of safe haven laws since Roe as a possible reason she suggests could justify it being revisited. This could be her pretext to overrule it, but it could also be a justification for reinterpreting the undue burden standards from Casey.

Still, it's a little hard to believe that Amy Coney Barrett is going to be the deciding vote to save Roe. Something about that hypothetical viscerally makes no sense. But I'm also conditioned by seeing decades of backstabs, last second deals, and about faces to expect as a starting point one or two completely unforeseen defections on any ruling that could seriously open the door to abortion bans in the US. It has been a well known talking point for my entire adult life from liberals that Republicans will never actually overturn Roe, they will just promise it to get my vote. Then at the last minute Lucy always yanks the football away. Still logically after hearing the arguments it really does seem like the Court might actually do it. Two days ago I didn't take that possibility seriously and was more intrigued by whatever might happen in the bizarre legal dumpster fire that is the Texas case. I know I shouldn't get my hopes up, but something really does feel different this time.

[David Hume]

I listened to the oral arguments today and I can't imagine Roberts overturning Roe or Casey. It's transparently obvious that he is trying to strike a grand bargain where Casey's standard is altered from viability to something like the end of the first trimester. He spent his speaking portion of the oral argument running around trying to convince everyone that a 15 week ban wasn't an undue burden. No one seemed particularly interested in what he had to say.

As for the other justices, the votes of Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan are relatively predictable and nothing was said to alter the conventional wisdom about how they would rule. Some people think Kagan may be interested in a grand bargain, but if she does there is zero chance her vote is decisive. Some people also think Thomas or Alito may argue that allowing abortion at all is a 14th Amendment violation, but even if they do it has no chance of getting 5 votes and a miniscule chance of getting 3.

So that leaves Kavanaugh and Barrett. Coming into this the smart money was clearly on Kavanaugh as the median justice on abortion. But he was rather blunt in the arguments and spoke at length about how the court should be neither pro-life or pro-choice and return the question to Congress and the states. From what he said, it's difficult to see how he could wind himself back around to not strike down Roe and Casey.

On the other hand, Barrett seemed unexpectedly open to a possible compromise ruling. At one point when asking a question about stare decisis, she opined that stare decisis was clearly what this case was about. I read it to indicate two things (a) she doesn't take the notion that Roe and Casey were decided correctly on the merits to even be worth considering, and (b) she does think the stare decisis concerns are worth considering. In addition, one topic she kept on circling back to was the passage of safe haven laws since Roe as a possible reason she suggests could justify it being revisited. This could be her pretext to overrule it, but it could also be a justification for reinterpreting the undue burden standards from Casey.

Still, it's a little hard to believe that Amy Coney Barrett is going to be the deciding vote to save Roe. Something about that hypothetical viscerally makes no sense. But I'm also conditioned by seeing decades of backstabs, last second deals, and about faces to expect as a starting point one or two completely unforeseen defections on any ruling that could seriously open the door to abortion bans in the US. It has been a well known talking point for my entire adult life from liberals that Republicans will never actually overturn Roe, they will just promise it to get my vote. Then at the last minute Lucy always yanks the football away. Still logically after hearing the arguments it really does seem like the Court might actually do it. Two days ago I didn't take that possibility seriously and was more intrigued by whatever might happen in the bizarre legal dumpster fire that is the Texas case. I know I shouldn't get my hopes up, but something really does feel different this time.

I fully agree with your points.

I am quite surprised by Kavanaugh's altitude. I even wonder if he was just trying to sound tough to avoid being seen as the fifth vote to overrule Roe, and give that title to Barrett.

[Person Man]

Yes, it appears that Roe and Casey are dead, and good riddance.

It's clear after oral arguments today that the Mississippi law is here to stay. That will be 6-3. As for whether it's 6-3 to overturn Roe and Casey, I somewhat expect it to be. Roberts knows they're bad law with no constitutional foundation. Either way, Thomas will write the 6-3 opinion overturning Roe and Casey, or the concurrence doing so which will be joined by Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett.

Agreed. It's clear that the SC is a purely partisan institution, and I will never ever support a centrist/corporate Democrat, or live in a Red state. The disintegration of this country has been accelerated, as has the radicalization of the Democratic base, and for that, I'm immensely grateful.

What is it with Minnesota avatars on this site? What creates this perverse, masochistic obsession with destructive cultural accelerationism, or the belief that inhabiting a space within an arbitrary line that votes a certain way is a judgment of one's beliefs or moral character?

A part of me agrees with him and I am moving to Richmond next month. On the other hand, what if both parties then have to deal with heavily armed rabble doing stupid sh**t? Doesn’t the risk of collision  concern you? What if people get the idea the pro-life movement eventually was successful because of what they did to abortion clinics? Aren’t you a little concerned about what could happen to police stations and churches?

Ending Roe is on one hand good because in theory nobody should have to live in a place that they hate so much to the point they believe people get killed or raped by the government  all of the time there for no reason. On the other hand, will the two sides be able to coexist or are we just creating the pretext to turn the US into some sort of Northern Ireland or Palestine situation?

[I’m not Stu]

Kavanaugh will write the decision and make Susan Collins look like a fool.

[politicallefty]

I listened to the oral arguments today and I can't imagine Roberts overturning Roe or Casey. It's transparently obvious that he is trying to strike a grand bargain where Casey's standard is altered from viability to something like the end of the first trimester. He spent his speaking portion of the oral argument running around trying to convince everyone that a 15 week ban wasn't an undue burden. No one seemed particularly interested in what he had to say.

As for the other justices, the votes of Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan are relatively predictable and nothing was said to alter the conventional wisdom about how they would rule. Some people think Kagan may be interested in a grand bargain, but if she does there is zero chance her vote is decisive. Some people also think Thomas or Alito may argue that allowing abortion at all is a 14th Amendment violation, but even if they do it has no chance of getting 5 votes and a miniscule chance of getting 3.

So that leaves Kavanaugh and Barrett. Coming into this the smart money was clearly on Kavanaugh as the median justice on abortion. But he was rather blunt in the arguments and spoke at length about how the court should be neither pro-life or pro-choice and return the question to Congress and the states. From what he said, it's difficult to see how he could wind himself back around to not strike down Roe and Casey.

On the other hand, Barrett seemed unexpectedly open to a possible compromise ruling. At one point when asking a question about stare decisis, she opined that stare decisis was clearly what this case was about. I read it to indicate two things (a) she doesn't take the notion that Roe and Casey were decided correctly on the merits to even be worth considering, and (b) she does think the stare decisis concerns are worth considering. In addition, one topic she kept on circling back to was the passage of safe haven laws since Roe as a possible reason she suggests could justify it being revisited. This could be her pretext to overrule it, but it could also be a justification for reinterpreting the undue burden standards from Casey.

I pretty much agree with all of this, except that I'm not 100% as to Justice Gorsuch. I think he and/or Barrett are the ones to that will ultimately decided whether Roe/Casey stands or is simply gutted. I think they're both more likely to overrule than not, but it wouldn't surprise me to see one of them join whatever Roberts is thinking.

I was listening live and I was quite surprised to hear Kavanaugh say what he did in oral arguments. I did not expect him to tip his hand like that. Based simply on oral arguments, he's right there with Thomas and Alito.

Ultimately, there are definitely six votes to uphold the Mississippi law. It's just a matter as to how far the Court will go.

[Ferguson97]

Yes, it appears that Roe and Casey are dead, and good riddance.

It's clear after oral arguments today that the Mississippi law is here to stay. That will be 6-3. As for whether it's 6-3 to overturn Roe and Casey, I somewhat expect it to be. Roberts knows they're bad law with no constitutional foundation. Either way, Thomas will write the 6-3 opinion overturning Roe and Casey, or the concurrence doing so which will be joined by Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett.

Agreed. It's clear that the SC is a purely partisan institution, and I will never ever support a centrist/corporate Democrat, or live in a Red state. The disintegration of this country has been accelerated, as has the radicalization of the Democratic base, and for that, I'm immensely grateful.

What is it with Minnesota avatars on this site? What creates this perverse, masochistic obsession with destructive cultural accelerationism, or the belief that inhabiting a space within an arbitrary line that votes a certain way is a judgment of one's beliefs or moral character?

I'm sure if New Jersey or Maryland were the one state to not vote for Reagan in 1984, we'd let it go to our heads too.