Do you think Roe V. Wade will be overturned?

[otm]

Dandelion_Wine:

Not a chance. The Democrats are for abortion. The Republicans are against abortion in so much as it’s a political platform for them to pull christians into their ranks. Why would they kill the goose that laid the golden egg?

And why do you think they would be kiling any goose?

Perhaps you have not been aware of the tidal shift in morality, or lack thereof, within the Democartic platform these years of late. At the rate the Dems go at it, the Republicans will not lack for an attraction as long as they choose to take the moral high ground in sexual ethics.

 

[otm]

Catholic2003:

This is why we need a third-party President to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Hving seen the miserable turnout in the last several elections, it is highly unlikely that a third party effort could ever be raised for anything other than a spoiler effect to a two party election.

It is much more likely that the Supreme Court, if it has a philosophical shift to a strict constructionist approach, would not outright reverse Roe V. Wade, but would simply find a way to eviscerate it. And it more than likely would occur in increments. The most likely result would be to throw the issue back to the States, leaving a checkerboard pattern of some abortions allowed in some areas, with more or less liberal policies in place depending on the more or less liberal makeup of the state.

What we need is not an overturning of Roe V Wade, but a finding that the unborn child has the same rights as one who is born, but that is unlikely barring a Constitutional ammendment. We are much more likely to get an amendment defining marriage than we are defining life.

 

[Hildebrand]

MooCowSteph:

With S. D. O’Conner retiring, do you think there is a real chance of overturning Roe v. Wade. I tend to think no, that it will not happen.

Given the premise that Bush nominates and the Senate confirms a “pro-life” Supreme Court justice…

There will be 4 pro-life justices and 4 pro-abortion justices. Justice Kennedy will be the swing vote and there is no support for the idea that he wants to overturn Roe v Wade. Therefore even if Bush nominates a pro-lifer, Roe still will be there.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Eventually the courts will have to overturn Roe v Wade. R v W is basically self contradictory law. It has not been able to define the point at which life begins.

Essentially the courts themselves have been chipping away at R v W. Long before the Unborn Victims of Violence Act was passed, courts were defining the unborn as ‘persons.’

You have the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, The Partial Birth Abortion Act, the Born Alive Act. All of these contradict R v W.

Coupled with this, you have the fatal flaw of the Clintons who are now pushing abortion but as a rare occurrence. What could possibly justify arguing for ‘rarity’ unless it were becoming generally accepted that abortion is a manifest harm to the mother (at least).

R v W is a house built on sand. It will fall.

 

[David_Paul]

PiusXIII:

The courts are still overwhelmingly conservative including the Supreme Court

Uh…huh…that is why we had Laurence and Kelso. That is why the 9th circuit tried to take God out of the pledge. That is why it is now illegal to place the Ten Commandments inside a court house.

What are you basing this on? That Reagan appointed Kennedy? He was his third choice. Bork was his first. For most of the last half century, Republican presidents faced a Democrat Senate during confirmation fights. When the GOP did hold the Senate, it was by a hair.

As Scalia has written, the power to substitute one’s own politics for the constitution is seductive. Republicans nominees are not immune to that. If there has ever been a justice who went from liberal activistism to orginalism, I am unaware of it.

We don’t have to worry thought with the current crop of nominees. This isn’t 1980 when Democrats had a two to one voter edge, when liberalism wasn’t yet totally discredited.

Pryor, Brown, Owen, Garza and the others will not change their position once on the court. They are dead set against activism. They also love the law and know the damage activists have done to it.