re: the supreme court

[mcsokrates]

There seem to be quite a few people, on both ends of the ideological spectrum, who expect that, with the nomination of John Roberts, Roe v. Wade will be overturned in the near future. Without getting into that argument, I'd like to point out that there is still a 5-4 majority in favor of retaining Roe. Just so you know, that's Kennedy, Stevens,

Comments

[guttregirl]

The new guy also made a statement about how Roe v. Wade is the established law of the land, and he wasn't interested in overturning it.

Of course, that could just be a giant pile of bullshit, who knows.

[jambomalone]

I hold out hope for Kennedy...

[mcsokrates]

With respect, that's probably a futile and or misplaced hope. He wrote the plurality decision in the case of Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, which reaffrims Roe vs. Wade. The decision is pretty clear: Souter, O'Connor and Kennedy regard undue restrictions on access to abortion to be unconstituional before 23 weeks.

[jambomalone]

Wasn't it Kennedy who voted for parent notification on abortions? I believe that he has been on that side of the isle several times...even if he wasn't on the Planned Parenthood vs. Casey

I'd have to check...this is just me thinking from memory so I could be wrong.

In any case, Roberts appointment (if he goes through) should make the court a little more conservative.

[mcsokrates]

That actually was PP v. Casey. The thing about it is, Kennedy supported certain restrictions on abortion, but in his joint opinion with Souter and O'Connor, it is very clear that all three regard Roe v. Wade as essentially valid. I just don't see Kennedy backing down from that.

And as for Roberts, he's a blank slate with very little in the way of judicial ruligns under his belt. Much like.... Souter and O'Connor. I don't particularly expect him to pull a Souter, but, well, things often change once you're in the black robes.