Poll of the Day > What do you think the chances are that roe v. wade gets overturned?

(+) Yeah! (+)

could it

Less than .001%.

alot of people think there's a good chance

CwebbMichSac4 posted...

alot of people think there's a good chance

A lot of people are dumb?
---

well there are some laws that are passed in the u.s. and stuff where most of the people don't support it. The electoral college etc. laws and other things

Kyuubi4269 posted...

CwebbMichSac4 posted...

alot of people think there's a good chance

A lot of people are dumb?

This. Or hysterical or prone to ridiculous hyperbole. Or using it to demagogue and for fundraising purposes.

I understand that roe v. wade is the framework for regulations on abortion. But what would overturning it mean? Would that mean there are no laws regulating abortion, or that there are no abortions? Does overturning it just take the matter out of the federal arena and put it in that hands of individual states to decide?
---

Maybe overturn it in favor of free abortions for everyong
---

In this century? Somewhere between 0% and 0%.

CwebbMichSac4 posted...

alot of people think there's a good chance

CwebbMichSac4 posted...

well there are some laws that are passed in the u.s. and stuff where most of the people don't support it. The electoral college etc. laws and other things

Uh, what? The electoral college doesn't make laws. And the electoral college itself has been around since the founding of the nation.

Lokarin posted...

Maybe overturn it in favor of free abortions for everyong

Or abortions for some and miniature American flags for others.
---

Anti-abortion stupidly think by allowing for safe abortions means people line up for them, like going to the movies or something.

As if Oprah is all, you get an abortion and you get an abortion, EVERYBODY GETS AN ABORTION!

Fucking hypocrites came to this country because they were tired of being told what to worship, stole the land of the people living here, then started telling everybody what to do.
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

Anti-abortion stupidly think by allowing for safe abortions means people line up for them, like going to the movies or something.

No, they think that abortion kills babies and their shouldn't be any way to do that.
---

Well, there are 4 far right wing justices right now, and a moderate right wing justice is leaving, most likely to be replaced with a far right wing one.

I'd say theres a decent chance it gets overturned.
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

Fucking hypocrites came to this country because they were tired of being told what to worship

Another state-owned lie, like claiming America fought back their independence from England when England actually didn't bother with it and had bigger problems in the French.
---

The supreme court can't just overturn a previous decision. There has to be a reason for it, something new has to come along. That would require a legal case make it through all the courts up to them. This could take a very long time, and even if it was a case concerning abortion, it might not concern it in the right way.

Oh and the republicans know they'll lose the ability to use abortion to rile up their base, and they wouldnt throw away a tool that has been proven so consistently effective.

So its highly unlikely.
---

I told my wife's son that Trump was going to send death squads into his classroom and kill all his non white friends and now he wont stop crying. See what you did Trump supporters? You made a little kid cry!
---

We could make abortion illegal but from the age of 13 to 18 parents could have their children "retroactively aborted", harvesting all the parts to be donated to those in need.
---

and destroy the fetus harvesting industry?
---

Amuseum posted...

and destroy the fetus harvesting industry?

really? tell me about this incredible industry. They make a lot of money?

At this point nothing is outside the realm of possibility.
---

I support peoples right to chose 100% but I have no idea how you could live with yourself after having one
---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

I support peoples right to chose 100% but I have no idea how you could live with yourself after having one

couldn't live with yourself? I have a question how do some lawmakers try to stop abortions but at the same time live with themself with trying to cut those social programs that help them?

what
---

it ain't that hard

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Would that mean there are no laws regulating abortion, or that there are no abortions? Does overturning it just take the matter out of the federal arena and put it in that hands of individual states to decide?

Closer to the former. It would weaken the framework, but wouldn't outright ban all abortions across the board. It's not like there were no abortions at all before Roe v. Wade (though getting one was hard).

Plus there have been legal developments since then that would make challenging Roe v. Wade a hollow victory, such as rights to bodily autonomy (which imo are more compelling than RvW anyway).

waterdeepchu posted...

The supreme court can't just overturn a previous decision. There has to be a reason for it, something new has to come along. That would require a legal case make it through all the courts up to them.

Also this, and because our legal system functions on precedents, and Roe v. Wade already exists, having another case try the exact same facts and getting a different outcome would be extremely difficult in the here and now. That's without even bringing the supreme court into it. It would take an unbroken chain of highly conservative lower courts all deciding not to uphold Roe v. Wade before it even gets there.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

SunWuKung420 posted...

Fucking hypocrites came to this country because they were tired of being told what to worship

Another state-owned lie, like claiming America fought back their independence from England when England actually didn't bother with it and had bigger problems in the French.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
---

If the new Justice is Conservative there's actually a good chance.

I don't need to say "I told you so", I actually just hope it doesn't happen.
---

Trump got elected and is well on his way to having America join Russia and North Korea on the "other side". Is it really so hard to think that something loudmouthed evangelicals within the country want won't happen?
---

It's ironic that it's the protestants that doth protest too much
---

@Kyuubi4269 posted...

CwebbMichSac4 posted...

alot of people think there's a good chance

A lot of people are dumb?

The single swing vote for the supreme court retired. If the new judge appointed by Donald Trump is Conservative, there will be no more Liberal rulings in the supreme court.

There's another Democratic justice hanging on from pancreatic cancer, too.
---

Yellow posted...

@Kyuubi4269 posted...

CwebbMichSac4 posted...

alot of people think there's a good chance

A lot of people are dumb?

The single swing vote for the supreme court retired. If the new judge appointed by Donald Trump is Conservative, there will be no more Liberal rulings in the supreme court.

There's another Democratic justice hanging on from pancreatic cancer, too.

So? Are you of the opinion that liberals are saints and conservatives just want to see the world burn? Grow up, life's more complex than that.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Yellow posted...

@Kyuubi4269 posted...

CwebbMichSac4 posted...

alot of people think there's a good chance

A lot of people are dumb?

The single swing vote for the supreme court retired. If the new judge appointed by Donald Trump is Conservative, there will be no more Liberal rulings in the supreme court.

There's another Democratic justice hanging on from pancreatic cancer, too.

So? Are you of the opinion that liberals are saints and conservatives just want to see the world burn? Grow up, life's more complex than that.

You asked why people thought Roe Vs. Wade might be overturned, called those people idiots because you're ignorant, and now you're raging because I gave you a real answer without injecting my opinion whatsoever.
---

Yellow posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Yellow posted...

@Kyuubi4269 posted...

CwebbMichSac4 posted...

alot of people think there's a good chance

A lot of people are dumb?

The single swing vote for the supreme court retired. If the new judge appointed by Donald Trump is Conservative, there will be no more Liberal rulings in the supreme court.

There's another Democratic justice hanging on from pancreatic cancer, too.

So? Are you of the opinion that liberals are saints and conservatives just want to see the world burn? Grow up, life's more complex than that.

You asked why people thought Roe Vs. Wade might be overturned, called those people idiots because you're ignorant, and now you're raging because I gave you a real answer without injecting my opinion whatsoever.

It's not an answer at all, it's crying doomsday like they'll immediately ban abortion and gayness, sex outside marriage and recreational sex.

GTFO with that shillin', bro. As stated earlier, they can't just go "Oh right, that ruling ain't cosher no mo'", they do have procedure.
---

Are you deaf or braindead?

The court had 9 judges. 4 of them Democrat, 4 of them Republican. Republicans will vote against abortion 100% of the time, Democrats will vote for it. 1 of them was the flip vote, and he would vote either way.

That flip vote is leaving.

If it's brought up again, and wow would you look at that, there's a huge base of people who actively go down to Washington to protest abortion in the thousands every single year, a straight Republican will return it to the state level.
---

@Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's not an answer at all, it's crying doomsday like they'll immediately ban abortion and gayness, sex outside marriage and recreational sex.

This strawman though.
---

Yellow posted...

Are you deaf or braindead?

The court had 9 judges. 4 of them Democrat, 4 of them Republican. Republicans will vote against abortion 100% of the time, Democrats will vote for it. 1 of them was the flip vote, and he would vote either way.

That flip vote is leaving.

If it's brought up again, and wow would you look at that, there's a huge base of people who actively go down to Washington to protest abortion in the thousands every single year, a straight Republican will return it to the state level.

why would they vote against abortion 100% of the time? their job is to assess the constitutionality of laws, some of which relating to abortion would be, and some would not be. Their personal politics are not part of the decision-making process. unless you think all justices are corrupt and just vote based on their party? which would suggest you have no faith in the SCOTUS?

also, kennedy was a republican, and a swing vote. how is that possible in your simplistic view of politics?

Fam_Fam posted...

Yellow posted...

Are you deaf or braindead?

The court had 9 judges. 4 of them Democrat, 4 of them Republican. Republicans will vote against abortion 100% of the time, Democrats will vote for it. 1 of them was the flip vote, and he would vote either way.

That flip vote is leaving.

If it's brought up again, and wow would you look at that, there's a huge base of people who actively go down to Washington to protest abortion in the thousands every single year, a straight Republican will return it to the state level.

why would they vote against abortion 100% of the time? their job is to assess the constitutionality of laws, some of which relating to abortion would be, and some would not be. Their personal politics are not part of the decision-making process. unless you think all justices are corrupt and just vote based on their party? which would suggest you have no faith in the SCOTUS?

also, kennedy was a republican, and a swing vote. how is that possible in your simplistic view of politics?

Maybe they think voting against abortion is what a best for the country. So, they vote against it everytime... maybe...
---

Fam_Fam posted...

why would they vote against abortion 100% of the time? their job is to assess the constitutionality of laws, some of which relating to abortion would be, and some would not be. Their personal politics are not part of the decision-making process. unless you think all justices are corrupt and just vote based on their party? which would suggest you have no faith in the SCOTUS?

also, kennedy was a republican, and a swing vote. how is that possible in your simplistic view of politics?

Because those judges aren't swing votes, they're partisan. Take a look at their records.

If Kennedy was a swing vote, I don't care. Excuse me for being rude, but if you can't make a point on a sentence or two (unless you're using the space to insert facts), you're probably just word salading me in my face in an attempt to drive the conversation to another place because your initial point has no good explanation.
---

Yellow posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

why would they vote against abortion 100% of the time? their job is to assess the constitutionality of laws, some of which relating to abortion would be, and some would not be. Their personal politics are not part of the decision-making process. unless you think all justices are corrupt and just vote based on their party? which would suggest you have no faith in the SCOTUS?

also, kennedy was a republican, and a swing vote. how is that possible in your simplistic view of politics?

Because those judges aren't swing votes, they're partisan. Take a look at their records.

If Kennedy was a swing vote, I don't care. Excuse me for being rude, but if you can't make a point on a sentence or two (unless you're using the space to insert facts), you're probably just word salading me in my face in an attempt to drive the conversation to another place because your initial point has no good explanation.

what are you talking about with "word salad"? you haven't addressed what i said at all. You claimed that Republicans would vote x way 100% of the time, and Democrats would vote the opposite. If Kennedy was Republican and a swing vote, that would undermine the theory that all republicans/democrats would just fall in line with their colleagues from the same party. That's NOT the case for all judges, so that claim doesn't seem realistic, as the very judge being replaced did not 100% fall in line with his party. It would seem reasonable to say that another republican could do so on abortion, depending on the actual case, if they voted based on their interpretation of the constitution (and not their personal feelings), which is literally their only job

Yellow posted...

If the new Justice is Conservative there's actually a good chance.

It's absurdly doubtful. Even if it was a hardcore religious conservative -- which is unlikely in the first place because you wouldn't be able to get moderate Republicans on board and you need every Republican vote for this -- you'd need to replace more of the bench to make an impact.

Yellow posted...

I don't need to say "I told you so", I actually just hope it doesn't happen.

Do we get to say, "We told you it wouldn't," when it inevitably never comes to pass?

Hell, while Trump pays lip service to the Evangelicals, I doubt even he actually wants that given his sexual history.

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Trump got elected and is well on his way to having America join Russia and North Korea on the "other side".

Yellow posted...

The single swing vote for the supreme court retired. If the new judge appointed by Donald Trump is Conservative, there will be no more Liberal rulings in the supreme court.

Overlooking that "liberal rulings" is ambiguous and vague, it's more a matter of it being far less likely. Keep in mind that Scalia was often the lone dissenter when it came to what were arguably conservative/libertarian cases that lost.

Yellow posted...

I gave you a real answer without injecting my opinion whatsoever.

That was a heavily opinionated response, though.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

GTFO with that shillin', bro. As stated earlier, they can't just go "Oh right, that ruling ain't cosher no mo'", they do have procedure.

Yeah, and even a lawsuit challenging it might not be able to reach the SCOTUS in the first place.

Yellow posted...

The court had 9 judges. 4 of them Democrat, 4 of them Republican. Republicans will vote against abortion 100% of the time, Democrats will vote for it. 1 of them was the flip vote, and he would vote either way.

And there was widespread outrage over Trump's remark that judges couldn't be impartial >_>

And, as Fam_Fam notes (and completely tears your argument apart), Kennedy was a Republican.
---

CwebbMichSac4 posted...

alot of people think there's a good chance

lots of people think lots of dumb things
---

There are very few people in this thread that have even a vague comprehension of how this part of the judicial process works. I think that's largely the fault of the popular media, which has turned all reporting about the Supreme Court into some type of liberal vs. conservative or republican vs. democrat extra-legislative body.

That's bullshit and not how it works. The justices aren't "republican" or "democrat" and they don't just randomly pick up issues on which to render a decision. So to think that there will be a scenario where they simply "vote" on "partisan" lines to overturn a prior decision is utterly fucking stupid.

Needless to say, for the experts opining on how having a new "conservative" justice replace Kennedy who was the "swing vote," which will supposedly ensure a one way voting block that will ultimately lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, can you please explain why the only "swing votes" on the Supreme Court over the last 40+ years have come from justices appointed by republican presidents?

O'Connor, Kennedy and Roberts. All republican appointed justices. Even Stevens, a reliably "liberal" justice, was appointed by a republican.

In contrast, it's the democrat appointed justices tend to never deviate from a predictable "left wing" position. In other words, if there are "partisans" on the Supreme Court, they are typically coming from the left and not the right.

That's probably due to the fact that "conservative" justices typically apply a strict analytical framework when deciding cases that leads to a result while in contrast "liberal" justices tend to start with their preferred outcome and then backfill it with post hoc analysis and reasoning.

Everyone thinks theyve got a damn crystal ball
---

Kill the unlivable
Abort the unbirthable
Roe Roe FIght da powah
---

Lokarin posted...

Kill the unlivable
Abort the unbirthable
Roe Roe FIght da powah

yeah and cut or eliminate all those social programs for those kids too

Fam_Fam posted...

what are you talking about with "word salad"? you haven't addressed what i said at all.

This is just what he says when he doesn't feel like reading. It says more about him than it does about you.
---

Low. Trump has said it's a priority for him, but the odds he'd be able to get a vehemently anti-RvW judge through confirmation are pretty slim (one of the Republican senators has explicitly said she would not vote for a judge who wasn't in favour of RvW). That and, while precedent isn't ironclad and "a change in social norms" is considered an acceptable justification for overriding precedent (see also "Dred Scott", "Separate but Equal"), the Supreme Court is generally loathe to do it, especially for something as controversial as abortion. It's worth recognizing that a majority of Americans still believe abortions should be legal in most or all cases.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I understand that roe v. wade is the framework for regulations on abortion. But what would overturning it mean? Would that mean there are no laws regulating abortion, or that there are no abortions? Does overturning it just take the matter out of the federal arena and put it in that hands of individual states to decide?

Your last sentence is correct.

If RvW is overturned, it essentially means that there is no federal standard or restriction on abortion, meaning States are free to pass their own laws, up to and including a flat-out ban on abortions.
---