If Dems win the White House and Senate, will they (and SHOULD they?) pack the court? — Relativist

This is kind of tangential, but I had the thought recently, looking at the history of Supreme Court nominations, that perhaps instead of only appointing new justices every time one dies, it should just be habit to always appoint a new justice for every new combination of president + congress; in other words, every two years. Give the president and congress the whole two years to decide on who to nominate and confirm, and if they still can't agree on anyone, the existing court just picks its favorite of the nominees thus far rejected.

That is approximately the rate at which new justices get appointed anyway.

I originally thought "every presidential term", so every four years, and if we had been following that schedule in recent decades, we would currently have almost exactly the same Supreme Court we already have; basically only Kavanaugh wouldn't have had the opportunity to be appointed.

Sure, sometimes you would end up with slightly more or less than 9 justices, but the number of justices has varied widely over the years anyway, so that's no problem.

But looking back further in history to see what would have happened if we had always been following that rule, it looks like we would have had an empty supreme court some time in the mid-late 20th century, so I thought instead to change the rate to every 2 years instead of every 4. If we had always been doing that then we would presently most likely have a Supreme Court of size 14 (2 more each for Obama, W, and Clinton), with a balance of 7 conservative / 7 liberal.

It will (once again) be up to the states to set their own abortion policies. — Relativist

I'm going to bed so I have more to say on this, but it's possible that a new right wing court will attempt to apply personhood on fetuses which would affect the ability of blue states to perform abortions

I'm going to bed so I have more to say on this, but it's possible that a new right wing court will attempt to apply personhood on fetuses which would affect the ability of blue states to perform abortions — Maw

Interesting idea, but I'm skeptical they can do that. "Conservative" jurisprudence is not the same thing as conservative politics; it entails narrower interpretation of the Constitution. The constitution doesn't define a human life, and a strict constructionist wouldn't read this into it. However, they wouldn't stand in the way of a state legislature defining life - or the US Congress.

But if a socially conservative majority of justices decide to rule against the legality of abortion in some case brought before them, on the grounds that a fetus is a person (say because it is demonstrably human and all humans are presumably persons), then that sets judicial precedent for fetuses being persons and so renders abortion legally equivalent to murder.

There doesn’t have to be a law specifically saying that fetuses are persons if the court just interprets existing laws with an assumption that they are, which thus creates common law saying that they are.

If Roe V. Wade goes, the people who made it go away may find out they've awakened a sleeping giant tiger, or tigress. If Roe is overturned, I expect women to rewrite the political landscape starting in two years and well on their way in four.

The pendulum will continue to swing as it always does. If Roe is overturned that will energize the left like nothing we've seen in years and unheard of amounts of money will pore like a torrential rain in to the bank accounts of Pro-Choice activists. The media will be clogged with stories of the bad things that can happen when safe abortion is not readily available. Roe caused the pendulum to swing to the right, overturning Roe will cause the pendulum to swing to the left. Back and forth the pendulum will swing for the rest of our lives.

There doesn’t have to be a law specifically saying that fetuses are persons if the court just interprets existing laws with an assumption that they are, which thus creates common law saying that they are. — Pfhorrest

Good point - this could happen, but I think it's a worst case scenario. Do you think this likely?

The pendulum will continue to swing as it always does. If Roe is overturned that will energize the left like nothing we've seen in years and unheard of amounts of money will pore like a torrential rain in to the bank accounts of Pro-Choice activists. The media will be clogged with stories of the bad things that can happen when safe abortion is not readily available. Roe caused the pendulum to swing to the right, overturning Roe will cause the pendulum to swing to the left. Back and forth the pendulum will swing for the rest of our lives. — Hippyhead

I agree this is the likely outcome. It's unfortunate the left didn't anticipate this in 2016. My view at the time was that SCOTUS appointments were the biggest issue. It was for evangelicals- it is what got the idiot elected.

It's unfortunate the left didn't anticipate this in 2016. My view at the time was that SCOTUS appointments were the biggest issue. It was for evangelicals- it is what got the idiot elected. — Relativist

This seems like a strange thing to say when it was an 11th month long republican senate blockade which stopped Obama from getting Merrick appointed to the Supreme court. On the grounds that 11 months was too close to an election and that the people's vote needs to factor into the senates choice for the supreme court. That's 11 months that is too close. Obviously within 2 months is a completely different scenario (sarcasm very much intended on that last one)

Will Trump get this additional appointment? If so, is Roe v Wade doomed? If Dems win the White House and Senate, will they (and SHOULD they?) pack the court? — Relativist

Yes. Probably. They will if they get the chance. They should not.

They should not, because ideally the selection and approval process shouldn't be so politicized. It is, however, and as Disraeli noted there is no honor in politics, and there is no act of treachery or meanness of which a political party is not capable, so pack it they will if they can.

Fortunately, Judges of the higher courts if they're not themselves able have staff lawyers who are capable of preparing opinions which, at least on their face, have some degree of legal basis. However, I think it's inevitable that as to issues of political significance, our Supreme Court Justices will to the extent possible and possibly even beyond what is reasonable conform to the ideology they accept.

This seems like a strange thing to say when it was an 11th month long republican senate blockade which stopped Obama from getting Merrick appointed to the Supreme court. On the grounds that 11 months was too close to an election and that the people's vote needs to factor into the senates choice for the supreme court. That's 11 months that is too close. Obviously within 2 months is a completely different scenario (sarcasm very much intended on that last one) — MSC

I'm as pissed off as you are that McConnell spouted that lie in 2016. In fact, the proximity of the election had absolutely nothing to do with the unwillingness to consider the nomination; it was purely and simply an exercise of the power held by the majority party in the Senate. Similarly, the Senate has the power today to rush through a nomination. Elections matter. Even without the SCOTUS vacancy, there's been a huge influx of conservative judges to federal courts. I hope that unhappy Bernie supporters understand this - because we don't need 4 more years of loading the federal courts with conservative federal judges.

The constitution doesn't define a human life, and a strict constructionist wouldn't read this into it. — Relativist

Not necessarily, Originalism is a far more openly interpretative Judicial philosophy than its followers would admit; its value for the GOP lies in providing a pseudo-intellectual cover to further conservative political ends irrespective of philosophically consistency. Here is an expanded article on the fight over Fetal Personhood in the court system.

Perhaps this will be a blessing in disguise for liberals like me: it may take the abortion issue off the table, and other more-pervasive issues will persuade some "pro-life" folks to embrace social welfare. — Relativist

I always have to remind myself that the abortion laws in my country are far more strict than in the US especially when here there is no debate whatsoever about the issue. The fact that the laws are more strict in all Nordic countries than in some states in the US is worth to remember too.

When I've mentioned the fact to people here that US abortion laws are far more lax than we have them, people have been totally surprised about this. Here the US abortion discussion is either portrayed as one of those hot potato issues that people go bonkers about in America or, in the leftist media, that the Republicans are impending to cancel every right of abortion that US women have and the Democrats are valiantly defending the rights of women in this case. Of course, what actually people are purposing isn't much reported.

GUESS WE'LL FUCKING SEE

Prediction: "Roe" goes down, Dems keep the Senate and House in the midterms this fall. I can't wait! Sets up a presidential election death match in 2024.

(Btw, DJT will be stricken from some key state ballots due to provisions in US 14th Amendment, Sec. 3 because of the findings of J6 Committee and subsequent state & federal indictments, so the fat old orange fascist fuck won't be able to run again in '24 (though he'll still be a player / spoiler of some sort.))

update: :yikes:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473?_amp=true

The burning begins, hopefully.

And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasise that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right.

Ah, the old "ignore our legal reasoning if it implies things that I don't want it to." :roll:

It just means a woman in Mississippi who wants an abortion will have to drive a while to get to a state that does them. A woman who doesn't have transport will probably be able to get a local one illegally. That's how it was before Roe.

It just means a woman in Mississippi who wants an abortion will have to drive a while to get to a state that does them. A woman who doesn't have transport will probably be able to get a local one illegally. That's how it was before Roe. — frank

Not necessarily. Much has changed since Roe v Wade. I think that abortion will still be legal in all states but with varying limitations depending on the state. You should still be able to get an abortion, just under specific circumstances (like rape, or life of the mother is threatened) or within a certain time frame (before the third trimester).

The scare tactics are predictable though. Both sides do it - engaging in spreading disinformation or faulty predictions about what the other side intends, basically demonizing the other side. It's just the elites of both sides mobilizing their flocks for a battle to impose their own views on the rest of us.

It is unfortunate that cancer did not kill justice Ginsburg earlier than it did.

I don't know. I think a few states will immediately ban abortion.

It just means a woman in Mississippi who wants an abortion will have to drive a while to get to a state that does them. A woman who doesn't have transport will probably be able to get a local one illegally. That's how it was before Roe. — frank

Which will disproportionately affect the poor, pushing them further into poverty (or death).

I think that abortion will still be legal in all states but with varying limitations depending on the state. — Harry Hindu

I think a few states will immediately ban abortion. — frank

22 states have laws against abortion already on the books that will come into effect as soon as Roe v Wade is overturned.

You should still be able to get an abortion, just under specific circumstances (like rape, or life of the mother is threatened) or within a certain time frame (before the third trimester). — Harry Hindu

The recent Texas law doesn't allow for abortion even in the case of a child being raped, and only allows it up to the detection of a fetal heartbeat, which can be as soon as 6 weeks. Apparently most women don't realize they're pregnant until 4-7 weeks.

You're giving states too much credit.

Which will disproportionately affect the poor, pushing them further into poverty (or death). — Michael

Thanks for the insight. We haven't been thinking about this for years, so we need you to explain it to us.

I'm here to help.

:razz:

It is unfortunate that cancer did not kill justice Ginsburg earlier than it did. — Streetlight

It sounds like you are vehemently anti-choice, but not for religious reasons, based on the comment.

I assume this will result in higher than expected turnout in the mid-term election, and this will help Dems a bit.

Much has changed since Roe v Wade. I think that abortion will still be legal in all states but with varying limitations depending on the state. — Harry Hindu

Actually, abortion was never legalized in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Wisconsin, but those laws have been unenforceable since Roe v. Wade. Presumably if Roe v. Wade is overturned, those laws would immediately become effective again.

I think there will be a good number of other states that will outlaw abortion as soon as they can. The battle to overturn Roe v. Wade hasn't just been a symbolic gesture over state authority. Much will change in certain states.

The funny thing is, I came to the forum today to see if the leaked SCOTUS opinion was being discussed. I found this thread, but didn't notice that it was started by me, two years ago, and that it confirms my powers of prophecy :-)