TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- When Roe Vs. Wade is overturned do you think there will be a backlash?

When Roe Vs. Wade is overturned do you think there will be a backlash?

It seems pretty obvious to me that if Mr. Bush replaces O'Connor and Stevens on the Supreme Court with two other justices like John Roberts, Roe Vs. Wade, the US Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide will be overturned.

I believe that Grizwold Vs CT will also fall as well. This is the decision that made it illegal for states to ban couples from using birth control by recognizing a "right to privacy."

Since a majority of the country supports Roe, and I'm sure most of the country does not support banning birth control, what kind of backlash, if any do you think this will cause in the near future?

I know many conservative voting women who frankly, fuck all the time, and it makes me wonder how they would react to these rollbacks of civil liberties that most Americans take for granted.

Recently I came across a state by state poll on the pro-choice question, and remarkably, only a little over 10 states are anti choice. They are often the states with the most fundamentalists obviously, but this leads me to believe that the right of privacy is a widely accepted mainstream view that is also mistakenly viewed by the public as untouchable.


http://surveyusa.com/50State2005/50...rtedbyState.htm


Thoughts?

it won't be overturned ever

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd it won't be overturned ever

I agree. It is too established and it has been on the books way too long.

Not a chance in hell.

I watched about 20 minutes of his confirmation hearing just then on Fox News and, based on what he said, I don't think he'd be likely to overturn Roe v Wade should an abortion case make it to the SCOTUS.

Off the top of my head, he essentially said:

• He supports the principle of stare decisis with regards to the precedent set by Roe v Wade.
  
• He does not believe that a disagreement with precendent is reason enough to overturn it.
  
• He believes that the right to privacy is guaranteed by ammendments I, III and IV of the US constitution and is supported by 80 years of supreme court precedent (the right to privacy was an essential factor in the Roe v Wade decision).
  
• He believes that Roe v Wade, as a legal precedent, is a "settled" matter.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I watched about 20 minutes of his confirmation hearing just then on I hope I'm right here, but his answers were logical and circumspect with regards to abortion and - so long as he meant what he said - I don't think the right to abortion is yet under any sort of threat.

and it shouldn't be if an individual wants to kill her child go ahead it isn't any concern for the politicians as to what some people do.

From Bloomberg:

quote:

Sept. 13 (Bloomberg) -- John Roberts, the nominee to be U.S. chief justice, told a Senate panel that the Constitution contains a right to privacy, disavowing comments he made as a government lawyer in the 1980s. ``The right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways,'' Roberts, 50, said in answer to a question from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court since 1965 has recognized a constitutional right to privacy that now guarantees access to abortion and contraceptives as well as the freedom to marry and procreate. Roberts's views on the subject had been in question, in part because of the language he used in a 1981 Justice Department memo, referring to the ``so-called `right to privacy.''' Roberts, beginning a full day of questioning from senators in Washington, said that memo was designed to reflect the views of Harvard Law School Dean Erwin Griswold, who had recently given a speech on the topic. He said the document didn't reflect his personal views. Roberts also suggested he would be slow to overturn such Supreme Court rulings as the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey abortion-rights decision, calling it a ``precedent of the court entitled to respect.'' ``It is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent,'' said Roberts, who would be the youngest U.S. chief justice in two centuries. ``Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness. It is not enough to think the prior decision was wrongly decided.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...=top_world_news

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid and it shouldn't be if an individual wants to kill her child go ahead it isn't any concern for the politicians as to what some people do.

Nope, sorry. Absolutely no idea what you're saying.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Nope, sorry. Absolutely no idea what you're saying.

Sorry sometimes I am not articulate. What I was saying is that abortion should remain legal. And that no politician should make a law against abortion. That is what I was saying....so are there some states where abortion is illegal?

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid Sorry sometimes I am not articulate. What I was saying is that abortion should remain legal.

Fair enough, but I'll give you a tip. When you're articulating a pro-choice stance don't describe it as when "an individual wants to kill her child"...

quote:

And that no politician should make a law against abortion. That is what I was saying....so are there some states where abortion is illegal?

I'm pretty sure that one of the consequences of Roe v Wade is that the states aren't allowed to create legislation which would restrict a woman's access to have an abortion. What Dave was saying was that the majority of people in the majority of states (i.e. all but 10) are pro-choice.

I watched some of the confirmation hearing as well, and was surprised by some of his answers.

If he answered truthfully, this would signal maturation on his part of his own opinion on the issue.

He did not, as a young lawyer in the Reagan administration recognize a right to privacy for example, though he stated clearly that he would not seek to overturn Grizwold in his confirmation hearing.

One thing I think is certain, and that is that he will be confirmed.

It remains to be seen whether he will be a conservative justice in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas, or a justice like Kennedy or O'Connor.

Based on his testimony today, I would say he may be more in line with Justice Kennedy.

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid Sorry sometimes I am not articulate. What I was saying is that abortion should remain legal. And that no politician should make a law against abortion. That is what I was saying....so are there some states where abortion is illegal?

Before the Roe Vs. Wade decision was issued in 1973, abortion was criminalized in some states, and legal in others. For example it was legal in New York and California, but illegal in Texas except to save the life of the mother.
Roe nullified many states' abortion bans, and more or less set a certain legal standard for abortion rights. It was decided 7-2 along with its sister case, Doe Vs. Bolton.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I'm pretty sure that one of the consequences of Roe v Wade is that the states aren't allowed to create legislation which would restrict a woman's access to have an abortion.

This is mostly true.

Roe held that states could not pass legislation to ban abortions completely, but still left open some questions about the regulation of abortions.

A subsequent case, Planned Parenthood vs. Casey upheld the basic underpinnings of Roe, but allowed for some restrictions on the part of the states. It created a new "undue burden" test for which abortion restrictions would be scrutinized. The result is that women have to jump through more hoops in some states to get an abortion than in others.

quote:

What Dave was saying was that the majority of people in the majority of states (i.e. all but 10) are pro-choice.

I should probably clarify that this poll was simply about self-identification. It asked people if they self-identified as "pro choice" or "pro-life."

These terms are usually thought of as cut and dry, but someone�s "pro choice" or �pro life� might not be the same as another person's.[/quote]

Dave, I could be wrong but it seems like you are looking for something wrong with Roberts simply because he is a conservative who is about to gain a lot of power. While I do not align myself with either side (coservative or liberal), I would say that I am genuinely excited about Roberts and the position he is filling. This is a man who will not use the Supreme Court as a way to speed a revolution in America, as was the decision in Affirmative Action. I have heard and read a number of his opinions on certain issues, and not on a single one could I find a major flaw in what he was saying (and believe me when I originally heard of him I was very weary, Bush has that affect on people I guess). So, before you start predicting the future I suggest y9ou actualy read up on the subject.

I only caught a few minutes of the hearing today, but what I caught I have to admit that Roberts was pretty impressive.

Hell I'd do him.

I mean, err, uh, nevermind.

Regardless, Biden was a bit onto something about Roberts' evasiveness, and I do think it's appropriate to answer directly. History has taught us to be a bit cautious on the answers nominees give during these hearings. Enter Clarence Thomas:

quote:

SEN. LEAHY: . . .[Y]ou've expressed some very strong views, as you know better than all, on the Ninth Amendment, and you had an article that was reprinted in a CATO Institute book, an article -- the book was on the Reagan years, but you referred to Justice Goldberg's invention, using the Ninth Amendment in his concurring opinion in Griswold. And you said, and let me quote from you, you said, "Far from being a protection, the Ninth Amendment will likely become an additional weapon for the enemies of freedom." A pretty strong statement, but you would say, would you not, Judge, notwithstanding that strong statement, if a Ninth Amendment case came before you, you'd have an open mind? JUDGE THOMAS: Again, Senator, as I noted, my concern was that I didn't believe that -- it's such an open-ended provision as the Ninth Amendment. It was view that a judge would have to tether his or her view or his or her interpretation to something other than just their feeling that this right is okay or that right is okay. I believe the approach that Justice Harlan took in Poe v. Ullman and again reaffirmed in Griswold in determining the -- or assessing the right of privacy was an appropriate way to go. http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbi...73593&textreg=1

One year later, Thomas had this to say:

quote:

In construing the phrase "liberty" incorporated in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, we have recognized that its meaning extends beyond freedom from physical restraint. . . . [W]e have held that the term "liberty" includes a right to marry . . .; a right to procreate, . . .; and a right to use contraceptives, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972). But a reading of these opinions makes clear that they do not endorse any all-encompassing "right of privacy." In Roe v. Wade, the Court recognized a "guarantee of personal privacy" which "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." 410 U.S., at 152 -153. We are now of the view that, in terming this right fundamental, the Court in Roe read the earlier opinions upon which it based its decision much too broadly. Unlike marriage, procreation, and contraception, abortion "involves the purposeful termination of a potential life." Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 325 (1980). The abortion decision must therefore be recognized as sui generis, different in kind from the others that the Court has protected under the rubric of personal or family privacy and autonomy. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scrip...l=505&invol=833

First Thomas agrees with Harlan on Griswald, then he disagrees. Pure and utter bullshit. If you believe in the right to privacy and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, then you must abide by strict constructionist standards in accordance to the Constitution (or at the very least, stare decisis). As Justice Stewart opines in regards to Roe:

quote:

. . . Several decisions of this Court make clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. . . As recently as last Term, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 , we recognized "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." That right necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. . . . Clearly, therefore, the Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scrip...ol=410&page=113

Disclaimer: If you don't know already, this is one of the few issues I tend to sit "on the fence". I tend to see both sides of the argument, and haven't quite felt completely compelled to sway one way or the other. Nevertheless, I will hold one to a particular standard, especially if that standard was set by none other than themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by kush paintings So, before you start predicting the future I suggest y9ou actualy read up on the subject.

That's just a trifle insulting.

I have read numerous memoranda Roberts has written during his tenure in two presidential administrations, and this led me to believe that he didn't recognize a right to privacy inherent in the constitution. That in turn led me to create this thread, which was created, by the way, before today's hearing.

I think what it comes down to is it's simply hard for me to believe that this administration, which is so closely tied to the religious right, which subsidizes abstinence only sex education, which stalls on allowing the FDA to sell Plan B OTC after most of the FDA panel recommends it be sold OTC, would nominate a justice to the high court who would uphold even Grizwold and Eisenstadt.

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd it won't be overturned ever

quote:

Originally posted by Reverend_Trance I agree. It is too established and it has been on the books way too long. Not a chance in hell.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I don't think the right to abortion is yet under any sort of threat.

i wouldn't be so confident. look at the excerpts from transcripts. he's citing three different factors that could lead to overturning RvW.

1. the absence of settled expectations
2. the legitimacy of the court
3. whether a particular precedent is workable or not
4. whether a precedent has been eroded by subsequent developments.

number two is easy to meet. a more conservative court could conclude (out of thin air) that women don't have an expection or reliance on RvW and that RvW has not been workable. finally, a more conservative court could easily create those 'subsequent developments' in the next few years and revisit RvW afterwards.

the people that want RvW overturned are patient and will wait a little while if need be. remember, roberts has a chance of being in the SC for thirty years.
]NYT

quote:

ROBERTS: Well, Senator, the importance of settled expectations in the application of stare decisis is a very important consideration. That was emphasized in the Casey opinion, but also in other opinions outside that area of the law. The principles of stare decisis look at a number of factors. Settled expectations is one of them, as you mentioned. ROBERTS: Whether or not particular precedents have proven to be unworkable is another consideration on the other side -- whether the doctrinal bases of a decision had been eroded by subsequent developments. For example, if you have a case in which there are three precedents that lead and support that result and in the intervening period two of them have been overruled, that may be a basis for reconsidering the prior precedent. ... ROBERTS: Well, I do think the considerations about the court's legitimacy are critically important. In other cases, my thinking of Payne v. Tennessee, for example, the court has focused on extensive disagreement as a grounds in favor of reconsideration. In Casey, the court looked at the disagreement as a factor in favor of reaffirming the decision. So it's a factor that is played different ways in different precedents of the court. I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness. It is not enough -- and the court has emphasized this on several occasions -- it is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided. That really doesn't answer the question, it just poses the question. And you do look at these other factors, like settled expectations, like the legitimacy of the court, like whether a particular precedent is workable or not, whether a precedent has been eroded by subsequent developments. All of those factors go into the determination of whether to revisit a precedent under the principles of stare decisis.

to answer the initial question, no. i think people will be shocked tho because they don't see it coming.

http://democrats.senate.gov/askroberts/


Judge Roberts,

The Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution states:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Which rights established within various precedents of the Supreme Court, (such as the right of privacy or the right to be left alone) that are not enumerated specifically in the US Constitution, do you believe are retained by the people?

Conversely which rights that have been granted by the Supreme Court to the people do you feel are not covered under the Ninth Amendment or have been granted to the people in error?


Dave, 21
Colorado Springs, Colorado

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.