Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade

[RZehr]

It’s not clear to me why I’m reading the ruling today was 5-4. Why isn’t it 6-3?

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by four other conservatives. The three liberal justices opposed the decision. Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the majority to uphold the Mississippi abortion restrictions but did not approve of tossing out Roe altogether.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/06/24/roe ... ights.html

I didn’t know there was rulings 5-1-3 as an option. If that’s the case, then why not a 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1?

[Sliceitup]

What are the chances Congress could legislatively make abortion legal on the federal level?

I haven't read the decision carefully, but I think the introduction implies this is up to the states:

For the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each State was permitted to address this issue in accordance with the views of its citizens. Then, in 1973, this Court decided Roe v. Wade. Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one.

But the actual decision does not exclude that possibility:

It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. “The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.” Casey, 505 U.S., at 979 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand.

Regardless, I think the votes just aren't there for a federal ban:

The Pew Research Center recently reported that 61 percent of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances — though many are open to restrictions — while 37 percent believe it should be illegal in all or most circumstances.

I’m worried about this country. Like more than I’ve ever worried about it before. I don’t think that we should necessarily have laws according to the majority’s opinion, but this ruling strikes me as something that will bring about a lot of turmoil. The Republicans have a clear majority in the Supreme Court, and most states have legislative districts that give far more power to Republicans, in comparison to the percentage of people actually voting Republican. (See PA as an example. Dems will never have a majority in the state legislative bodies, yet half the time they vote for a Democrat governor and president. Even with redistricting Republicans still have an outsize advantage.)

So how is this going to work to have the Supreme Court continually roll back rulings that are overwhelmingly favored by the majority of people? People participate in the democracy because they believe it is more or less fair. They believe that the voice of the people matters. What we saw on Jan 6 is what happens when people no longer believe that things are fair and that all voices are being heard.

I’m not thinking there will be riots, but just general societal upheaval. It just seems like a tinder box.

[RZehr]

Maybe having a republic functioning as a republic, instead of a republic masquerading as a simple democracy, is the best answer.

[HondurasKeiser]

Reconsider Griswold??? Has Amy Coney Barret convinced Clarence Thomas to return to his Catholic roots?

One need not be Catholic to see that a ‘a right to privacy’ rooted in “penumbras and emanations” is legal argle bargle nonsense and ought to be brought down.

Do you feel the state should interfere with your sexual relationship with your wife?

With respect, you’re putting the cart before the horse. That’s not how constitutional questions are decided…at least from a conservative perspective. One doesn’t simply decide which results one likes or dislikes and then invents constitutional rationales to get there. That’s exactly how Griswold, Roe, Casey, Lawrence and by degrees, Obergefell were decided. When you find rights in the penumbras and emanations of the constitution or on shaky constitutional grounds it makes it incredibly easy to overturn those decisions. Because, as it turns out, nothing in our constitution or the Common Law protects the right to abort a fetus, marry a person of the same sex or have sex with whomever or in whichever way one desires. If one really believes it’s important to disallow a state or locality to ban forms of contraception then there is a method for creating a constitutional right to this or that, which doesn’t involve inventing rights whole cloth. But inasmuch as progressives have always known that the democratic process is inimical to creating a progressive utopia where sex is free and unencumbered - they preferred to use the more expeditious route of foisting their ideas on the populace via judicial fiat. Well, now they’re reaping what they’ve sown.

[Ken]

What are the chances Congress could legislatively make abortion legal on the federal level?

Close to zero.

They could have done so at any point in the past 40 years and chose not to. There is next to zero chance of something like that getting 60 votes in the Senate which is what it would take. They probably don't even have 45 votes frankly.

[Bootstrap]

Regardless, I think the votes just aren't there for a federal ban:

The Pew Research Center recently reported that 61 percent of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances — though many are open to restrictions — while 37 percent believe it should be illegal in all or most circumstances.

Yes, I am sure they aren't, but my question was whether there would be enough votes there for a federal legalization of abortion. If it is true that the majority of the public wants abortion to be legal, then it stands to reason that the a similar percentage of the people's elected representatives would feel the same way. If not, why not?

Oh, I read that backwards. Oops!

Complicated question. Suppose I were pro-life and wanted to craft a law most likely to satisfy most Americans. I would create a law that makes abortion legal up to, say, 15 weeks, mirroring the Mississippi law that was just upheld:

Before us now is one such state law. The State of Mississippi asks us to uphold the constitutionality of a law that generally prohibits an abortion after the 15th week of pregnancy—several weeks before the point at which a fetus is now regarded as “viable” outside the womb. In defending this law, the State’s primary argument is that we should reconsider and overrule Roe and Casey and once again allow each State to regulate abortion as its citizens wish.

15 weeks is not out of keeping with laws in other countries like France (allowed up to 14 weeks) or Germany (allowed up to 12 weeks).

But gerrymandering and the structure of primaries usually ensures that Congress is a fight between views more extreme than the views most Americans hold. A Republican who voted for the above law might face a primary opponent who wants to ban abortion altogether, and in the primary, the more extreme view tends to win. A Democrat who voted for the above law might face a primary opponent who wants to make abortion legal in all cases. If Democrats try to pass any law related to abortion, I can practically guarantee that some Republicans would filibuster.

Would Republicans then lose seats in upcoming elections? Maybe. And maybe Democrats will embrace this as an issue they think they can win on - but probably with a law that allows abortions later than most Americans consider OK. At which point it might not be a winning issue.

But who knows. I'm no politician. And even politicians frequently turn out to be wrong on this kind of calculation.

[mike]

What are the chances Congress could legislatively make abortion legal on the federal level?

Close to zero.

They could have done so at any point in the past 40 years and chose not to. There is next to zero chance of something like that getting 60 votes in the Senate which is what it would take. They probably don't even have 45 votes frankly.

I want to know why not. If the majority of Americans support abortion being legal, why exactly aren't the votes there in Congress? Any issue that has majority support among the electorate really ought to be a winning political issue.

Or maybe abortion rights really isn't the winning electoral issue that the President seems to hope it is.

[Ken]

It’s not clear to me why I’m reading the ruling today was 5-4. Why isn’t it 6-3?

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by four other conservatives. The three liberal justices opposed the decision. Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the majority to uphold the Mississippi abortion restrictions but did not approve of tossing out Roe altogether.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/06/24/roe ... ights.html

I didn’t know there was rulings 5-1-3 as an option. If that’s the case, then why not a 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1?

It was exactly like the quote you cited.

They voted 6-3 to uphold the Mississippi law which restricted (but did not completely outlaw) abortions. The question in front of the court was the Mississippi law and not Roe v. Wade.

However only 5 of the 6 conservative Justices signed onto the more expansive opinion to completely overturn Roe, which was not actually something that was in front of the Court.

In other words, Justice Roberts was in favor of a narrow opinion upholding the Mississippi law but not addressing the larger question of Roe. The other 5 justices wanted to throw out Roe all together even though that question wasn't really in front of the court.

[Ken]

What are the chances Congress could legislatively make abortion legal on the federal level?

Close to zero.

They could have done so at any point in the past 40 years and chose not to. There is next to zero chance of something like that getting 60 votes in the Senate which is what it would take. They probably don't even have 45 votes frankly.

I want to know why not. If the majority of Americans support abortion being legal, why exactly aren't the votes there in Congress? Any issue that has majority support among the electorate really ought to be a winning political issue.

Or maybe abortion rights really isn't the winning electoral issue that the President seems to hope it is.

Because Congress doesn't operate by majority rule.

If they did then firearms regulations would be easily passed in Congress as gun control is actually MUCH more popular than abortion rights. For example:



Raising taxes on the wealthy is also extremely popular. Over 66% of Americans also support raising taxes on the 1% and corporations.

Lots of things are popular that stand little chance of passing in Congress.

[RZehr]

It’s not clear to me why I’m reading the ruling today was 5-4. Why isn’t it 6-3?

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by four other conservatives. The three liberal justices opposed the decision. Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the majority to uphold the Mississippi abortion restrictions but did not approve of tossing out Roe altogether.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/06/24/roe ... ights.html

I didn’t know there was rulings 5-1-3 as an option. If that’s the case, then why not a 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1?

It was exactly like the quote you cited.

They voted 6-3 to uphold the Mississippi law which restricted (but did not completely outlaw) abortions. The question in front of the court was the Mississippi law and not Roe v. Wade.

However only 5 of the 6 conservative Justices signed onto the more expansive opinion to completely overturn Roe, which was not actually something that was in front of the Court.

In other words, Justice Roberts was in favor of a narrow opinion upholding the Mississippi law but not addressing the larger question of Roe. The other 5 justices wanted to throw out Roe all together even though that question wasn't really in front of the court.

Okay I understand that. Would it be disingenuous for the media to call the ruling 6-3? I suppose the best way, is to say the ruling at hand was 6-3, but when discussing overturning Roe, that ruling was 5-4?