|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 22, 2014 8:33:38 GMT -6
…the SCOTUS handed down its ruling in Roe v. Wade. It has been one of the most significant organizing issues in politics ever since.
One interesting phenomenon in the past decade has been the rapid liberalization of America on LGBT rights issues concurrent with a resurgence of conservative efforts (although not majority efforts, to be sure) to challenge Roe. Trout hasn't been on this week as near as I can tell, but I would be interested in his opinion on the degree to which respect for judicial precedent could prevent a conservative court from outright reversal.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jan 22, 2014 9:14:02 GMT -6
The only abortion related case before SCOTUS is a MA abortion clinic buffer zone case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2014 10:02:05 GMT -6
…the SCOTUS handed down its ruling in Roe v. Wade. It has been one of the most significant organizing issues in politics ever since. One interesting phenomenon in the past decade has been the rapid liberalization of America on LGBT rights issues concurrent with a resurgence of conservative efforts (although not majority efforts, to be sure) to challenge Roe. Trout hasn't been on this week as near as I can tell, but I would be interested in his opinion on the degree to which respect for judicial precedent could prevent a conservative court from outright reversal. Just one guy's opinion, but I don't think that there is much chance of outright reversal while Roberts is the Chief Justice. He is a consensus builder and contrary to what the left side wing-nuts think about Citizens United, Roberts is not a radical and he has profound respect for precedent. Of course the whole picture could change if the next conservative president has the opportunity to replace several of the more liberal justices with Bork types. Boy, wouldn't Harry Reid, assuming he is still alive, regret his decision to get rid of filibuster for nominations in that event... It's always tough to pigeon hole justices though. For example I'm expecting a unanimous or near unanimous opinion slapping down the President's over-use of recess appointments, which is going to displease Obama and his yes-people mightily. Back to topic, it is also important to remind ourselves that Roe could be overturned today and it would not make abortion illegal. It would merely throw the issue back to the states. Some states would pass fairly onerous restrictions, many would not. Given the majority viewpoint, I'm not sure many state legislatures would survive an outright ban. Personally, I generally favor local decision making. In this instance I'm afraid that return to state-by-state abortion rules would be really divisive and socially disruptive. Given 41 years under Roe, I'd favor an exception to my local rule bias. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 22, 2014 10:45:02 GMT -6
…the SCOTUS handed down its ruling in Roe v. Wade. It has been one of the most significant organizing issues in politics ever since. One interesting phenomenon in the past decade has been the rapid liberalization of America on LGBT rights issues concurrent with a resurgence of conservative efforts (although not majority efforts, to be sure) to challenge Roe. Trout hasn't been on this week as near as I can tell, but I would be interested in his opinion on the degree to which respect for judicial precedent could prevent a conservative court from outright reversal. Just one guy's opinion, but I don't think that there is much chance of outright reversal while Roberts is the Chief Justice. He is a consensus builder and contrary to what the left side wing-nuts think about Citizens United, Roberts is not a radical and he has profound respect for precedent. Of course the whole picture could change if the next conservative president has the opportunity to replace several of the more liberal justices with Bork types. Boy, wouldn't Harry Reid, assuming he is still alive, regret his decision to get rid of filibuster for nominations in that event... Perhaps Reid would regret it, but I would not. Judicial filibusters are out of control, to the effect of paralyzing the courts. It is said that elections have consequences. Filibusters call this conventional wisdom into question, and generally due to political reasons, not actual unfitness to serve on the bench. |
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jan 22, 2014 12:35:25 GMT -6
|
|
