I’m sure most of you know the court case Roe v. Wade but, just in case, here’s a quick summary: in 1973, SCOTUS ruled that the United States Constitution protects a pregnant woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion for the first trimester of the pregnancy and struck down anti-abortion laws in states like Texas. With abortion being such a hot debate, this was a controversial decision. Last Wednesday, the abortion debate returned to the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, with a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. As it stands, the Supreme Court has a six-justice conservative, an anti-abortion supermajority that could put the 1973 case at risk of being overturned.
Republicans have held a majority in the Supreme Court in recent decades, yet Roe v. Wade is just now at risk of being overturned. Why? Previous Republican justices-- John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter-- weren’t anti-abortion; they voted to uphold Roe. During his term, President Trump exercised his power of Judicial Appointment and, with the help of a Republican majority in the Senate, appointed three conservative justices to the court: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, replacing two defenders of Roe v. Wade (Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg). Claiming he’d “only put up nominees who had the enthusiastic support of the Federalist Society” (who “tends to favor judges who take conservative stances on abortion rights and other social issues”).
With these kinds of appointments-- for political stances rather than for fair judgment-- some have begun to question the “legitimacy” of SCOTUS. Among them, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asks, “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?” (NYT). Recent polling also shows a decline in recent SCOTUS approval (more on that in the NYT article if you want to check some of the numbers), but controversial subjects up for debate are bound to make that happen.
The decision for this case is expected by summer.
Questions:
How likely do you think it is that Roe v. Wade will be overturned?
It’s hard (or near impossible) to find a balance that will satisfy everyone on the topic of abortion- do you think we’ll continue to see challenges to Roe v. Wade in the future?
Do you think a politically-charged SCOTUS is good or bad? Regardless, do you think it can ever be truly objective?
“President Biden has appointed a commission to study potential changes to the court, and it is expected to issue a report this month assessing options like expanding its size or imposing term limits on the justices” (NYT). What are your thoughts on those two possibilities?
Sources:
Critical Moment for Roe, and the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy
Roe v. Wade: How Republicans got so close to overturning it
Roe v. Wade's future is in doubt after historic arguments at Supreme Court
14 comments:
The overturn of Roe v. Wade has been continuously discussed since the Supreme Court was shifted to a conservative majority, but it seems now with Dobbs v. Jackson this discussion has come to the forefront again. To begin, if Roe v. Wade was overturned, it would mean abortion regulations would be up to the state, and in twelve states, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah abortions would be immediately banned. This is because these states have trigger laws, which are unenforceable laws that could become enforceable if something changed, in this case, Roe v. Wade being overturned. While it is true that the Supreme Court has a conservative majority, that does not mean it is guaranteed that Roe v. Wade is overturned. Conservative justices have voted to uphold Row v. Wade when it was challenged as recently in 2019 in June Medical Services v. Gee. Furthermore, the idea of stare decisis, or letting decisions stand, is another factor that may mean the court is going to be less likely to overturn. With this all being said, now, more than ever does it look like Roe v. Wade will be overturned. Furthermore, no matter what there will continuously be debates and challenges to any abortion supreme court decision. Abortion is a very polarizing topic that, while stereotyped as having very clear party lines with conservatives wanting harsh restrictions, and liberals wanting more access, often breaks party lines with many people that may identify with a party that holds different abortion ideals than themselves.
In regards to a politically charged SCOTUS, it is a dire threat to the success of our democracy. The point of the Supreme Court is to be free of political influence, thus why they have lifetime terms and are appointed. The Supreme Court is supposed to be just in upholding our constitution and that we are all equal under the law. However, there is no real way to tell whether Justices are doing that. The best we can hope is that whatever decisions they make are, in their opinion, the justest. The Supreme Court has a very perspective and opinion-based job, which allows for varying interpretations of the same case. Furthermore, the supreme court is not near perfect which is clearly shown by the fact that they have the ability to overturn their own cases. Which that, the best we can hope for is that Supreme Court Justices are acting, in their opinion, with the goal of justice in mind and attempting to uphold the constitution.
Considering the justices in SCOTUS at the moment, I feel like the question will be when not if the Roe decision will be overturned. Also, some other considerations will be how they overturn the decision like if they’ll implement certain things or leave it up to the states to decide whether abortion should be banned or not. Their rulings will be very impactful for the years to come and of course very controversial. Abortion is a very polarized issue with very little compromise. It seems like people either believe in pro-life or the right for women to determine what to do with their bodies. People have felt so strongly about it that they’ve heavily protested and this issue has been in debate for a while. This Dobbs v. Jackson case is very interesting and will be one of the more pivotal ones in history since it pertains to such a salient issue. As Colin mentioned, SCOTUS approval has dropped and part of the reason why is because of this issue and how the justices stand on it.
Challenges to Roe v. Wade will definietly occur and if Roe is overturned, then challenges to the it being overturned will also occur. I find it hard to see an realistic scenario where both sides are satisfied with the rulings. This issue is so polarized. If SCOTUS changes back to more liberals who are in support of abortion, then the tables will have turned and we will probably see something closer to uphoding the Roe decision.
I think a politically charged SCOTUS is not great because it isn’t very democratic. It doesn’t represent the people well since it mainly reflects one side of the political spectrum. The system that elects SCOTUS justices makes it very hard to ever be truly objective since presidents are most likely to pack the court when they can. Also, there are an odd number of justices meaning it should lean one way or another in terms of political bias unless there was a neutral justice (which doesn’t really exist considering all people tend to lean one way or another). One of the main good things about having a politically-charged SCOTUS is that we can expect certain decisions and decisions I feel like will be made quicker, even if I don’t agree with all of them.
I like the idea of term limits because I believe that we should appoint new people to the court to reflect the changing population or the change in political climate. Having the same people is good for stability and their experience but it allows them to be independent, knowing they don’t have much to lose and it doesn’t necessarily reflect the changes occurring in the US.
I have to agree with Bryan and say that it seems like it's only a matter of time until Roe V. Wade is overturned. I don't think that finding a balance that will benefit and please everyone will be an issue for the SCOTUS. Instead, I think they're just going to make abortion illegal and pro-choice supporters are going to have to deal with the decision. Since abortion is such a black and white topic, I can't really foresee any compromise being made, either it's allowed or it's not. Regardless, I think it's an issue that will be continuously debated until there is a generational shift in ideology, which hopefully, is soon.
I think having a politically charged SCOTUS is the worst thing ever. Not literally, but if not even the most powerful court in the country is free of influence from political parties, then nothing can be left untouched. Especially since the rulings/outcomes depend on which party has a majority of appointed judges, it gets rid of the neutrality that is needed to maintain the democratic integrity of the court. The way it is now, the SCOTUS cannot be objective since the majority of the time, as seen with Trump in the article, justices are appointed based on their ideology and whether or not the President approves.
I think term limits would be a phenomenal thing. As Bryan mentioned, it'll allow for the court to reflect current population and ideology. This way, it would also be more democratic since the President will then be able to appoint new justices or make necessary changes based on public opinion (hopefully).
I think there’s a pretty decent chance that Roe v. Wade will be overturned; I don’t think there’s anything concrete preventing SCOTUS from overturning it besides public outcry, and that’s obviously not going to do much. Personally, I don’t think this country (or any country for that matter) will ever be able to find a balance that satisfies everyone on the topic of abortion.
This is for a variety of reasons, but primarily because the abortion issue has transformed from a legislative question regarding bodily autonomy to a moral debate. Unfortunately, you're going to have a really hard time trying to change someone’s mind on what constitutes personhood and what doesn’t, which is why it’s so hard to find a “middle ground” — looking at it through a moral framework, either you think a fetus is a person or you don’t, and there’s not much room for compromise within that.
I think this debate would be infinitely more productive if people stopped trying to moralize it. There are important laws that are almost entirely based around humanity’s collective moral compass — like it’s wrong to hurt or kill people — but besides the bare bones of right and wrong, trying to legislate morality is extremely dangerous, especially in these murkier areas. Believe it or not, you can consider something morally condemnable and still oppose its criminalization.
For instance, I like to think of abortion in the same way one might think of blood transfusions or organ transplants — regardless of who is affected or even killed by it, everyone has an intrinsic right to their own body and what occurs inside their body, and no one has the right to utilize someone else’s body and bodily functions against their will.
As long as the fetus is dependent on the mother’s body to sustain itself, as long as it is using her blood and nutrients and occupying an organ inside of her body, as long as it is permanently changing her body and its functions — she should have the right to remove it. Even if that means the fetus will die.
In the context of organ transplants, someone could be dying in front of me begging for a kidney and I would still have every legal right to refuse to donate it. Take it a step further: even if I was personally responsible for that person having lost their kidneys and being on the verge of death, I would still have the right to say no. That’s morally questionable, sure, but should it be illegal to refuse to donate an organ? I don’t think so. How is a uterus any different?
In this regard, we grant corpses more bodily autonomy than we do women. You can choose not to donate your organs after death, even if you have no use for them and someone might indirectly die as a result of your choice. Because of the bizarre way society views the process of pregnancy and childbirth, we consider the uterus something magical and sacred and predestined. It’s the same as any other organ, and it should be treated as such — meaning we shouldn’t have laws policing it.
Going back to the SCOTUS issue, I think the SCOTUS is intrinsically politically-charged, and you’re never going to have an “impartial court.” I also think the SCOTUS is extremely overpowered, especially for a branch of the government that the masses have no direct say in. Term limits would be great, and expansion would also help a bit with impartiality. I hope Biden does implement one or both of those things, but I’m also not expecting anything.
I think that having a politically charged SCOTUS is a terrible development for the US. It is the result of partisan polarization. Mr. Trump wanted his views in the Supreme Court so he put in extremist judges - even judges to his political right, although I do not know their policy positions in-depth - because they had the highest chance of consistently voting to his side.
The problem with electing extremist, partisan judges is that with Trump's precedent, the next president will want to elect their own judges with positions in strong support of their side to "counteract" the current judges and try to bring the mean political position to the center in the Supreme Court. Ultimately, this leads to the votes of the Supreme Court being based on the number of right or left judges there are and voting upon ideological lines so that whichever president elected the most judges of their side wins, not necessarily what is the most accurate interpretation of the constitution.
On the bright side, however, is the fact that the judges Trump elected to the supreme court are not all out partisan to the point of partisanship over everything else. When Trump's legal team pushed their baseless voter fraud claims and it arrived to the Supreme Court, it was rejected promptly and without hearing precisely because it was baseless*. We can take some respite in the fact that the judges are not completely partisan and will call out their own side when it goes too far.
As for Roe v. Wade, even moderate Republicans can interpret the constitution as not having abortion as a right so I do not think it is too much of a stretch to expect at least 5 of the 6 right wing judges to vote to overturn. But, there are still many factors that will play into the hearings and it is possible the precedent will not be overturned, although unlikely in my opinion. Overturning the precedent would mean citizens in many states would be at peril to losing their right to an abortion, but we must remind ourselves it is still up to popular opinion and many states will likely retain abortion laws, including the state in which we live, California.
* Article about SCOTUS' rejection of the voter fraud allegation case:
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-pennsylvania-elections-us-supreme-court-5cc6aee8c328c7bb1d423244b979bcec
I think it's very possible that we'll see Roe v. Wade overturned. It's devastating to think of the country taking another step back in terms of rights awarded to its citizens under law, but not something that should surprise us at this point. Now, with the Dobbs v. Jackson case, the twelve state mentioned in this blog have set the precedent for what women's autonomy is going to look like if Roe v. Wade is overturned. While some states won't completely outlaw abortions, at least 14 are presently making plans to decrease the availability of such services to its female residents. To combat this, California is already seeking government funding to become a sanctuary for women residing in other states and provide abortion services that are safe. Efforts like this are great, but they seem to be foreshadowing an outcome that many women are going to experience anguish over.
I think a politically charged SCOTUS is inherently negative. Although it's hard to find people with such high levels of involvement in government void of opinion on political and social issues- that's not what is being requested. What is being requested is a panel of Supreme Court Justices that intend to make decisions using fair judgement, as is mentioned in this blog post. The hard part is that an individual's fair judgement is charged by their opinion- hence the media's ability to recognize a threat to Roe v. Wade prior to the formal addition of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Convey Barrett to the Supreme Court. I would say it's reasonable to assume that Trump's appointments exposed a problem with political party power in government as well. When 52 out of the 53 Republicans in the Senate voted in Barrett, one of Trump's more publicly controversial appointments, I think this truth was exposed further. The one republican who voted against Barrett in the Senate, Susan Collins, is an example of an earlier version of the SCOTUS where justices voted outside of their own party lines in an effort to act on fair judgement. However, as we've talked about in class, the most competitive race in politics has become the one to win reelection rather than the race to consider and act on a diverse body of public opinion.
It can be assumed that all president's will make appointments that are likely to favor their agenda, which is why the SCOTUS may never be filled with objective appointments. Hence the reason why I do believe term limits should be imposed. If the inevitable subjective court must exist, it should at least not be given sustained power when contributing to the governing of the masses. Generational change is very apparent, especially now because of the rapidly developing social state of the country. The life term awarded to SCOTUS justices, while a time honored tradition, is something that may be holding the country back from growth. For example right now, there is a clear conservative republican majority in the senate, and unless theirs retirement, or a very unlikely impeachment, the SCOTUS will be set in stone for the time being. This reality is very daunting when it comes to current circumstances with Roe v. Wade.
I think a politically charged SCOTUS would be horrible for the United States. The old bromide that “elections have consequences” has sent shudders through the progressive community. Donald Trump appointed three justices to the high tribunal — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — giving it a solid 6-3 conservative majority.
As the Supreme Court reviews Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and potentially FDA v. ACOG (FDA rule which subjects patients to unnecessary COVID-19 risks when they receive abortion medication) in its fall term, Roe v. Wade could be overturned.
Anti-abortion laws such as those we’ve seen in Texas are inherently problematic as it makes no exceptions for rape or incest, which shouldn’t even be a justification to getting an abortion in the first place.
The new law wades deeply into uncharted waters, empowering private citizens to sue anyone who performs an abortion or “aids and abets” the procedure, a broad definition. Plaintiffs who win their cases are eligible for $10,000 rewards, plus attorney fees. Accusers need not live in Texas, have any connection to the case, or show injury. Abortion rights advocates say that provision will create a horde of “bounty hunters.”
Uber and Lyft, whose drivers could be sued simply for giving a pregnant woman a ride to an abortion clinic, have said they will cover their workers’ legal fees in such cases. However, most companies, which have pledged to finally take a stand on social issues, have been noticeably silent in this debate. Despite its recent proclamations about social justice, the bottom line apparently still reigns supreme in the business community.
Unfortunately, I do believe that it is very likely that Roe v. Wade will be overturned, if not in this Dobbs v. Jackson case, then certainly another case in the near future. As Lilly mentioned, the right to abortion has been discussed many times in the recent years, and especially with the new, conservative judges appointed by Trump. I think that seeing our country backtrack like this, after passing Roe v. Wade over 40 years ago, is devastating, and makes me worried for the overall trend our government and politics is headed towards. Thankfully, California will continue to facilitate safe, legal abortions, but at least 14 states are going to outright ban abortions immediately. The problem with this is that women are still going to still find ways to have abortions, but they are going to have to resort to unsafe, illegal procedures that put the life of the woman at risk…not very pro-life.
I do not think that it is possible for everyone in the country to be satisfied with abortion laws, and this debate will continue to go back and forth for a very long time. In class, we learned how the media can influence public opinion on matters, such as abortion. I think that how the media portrays abortion, and the various sides, such as pro-life and pro-choice, influences how the public views the issue, and what they want politicians to do about it. This relationship between the media and public opinion will continue the discussion on abortion.
Finally, I think that it is very worrisome that the Supreme Court is so politically charged because judges should make decisions based on fair judgement, not politics. I think that limiting the term length will help this by allowing a larger variety of judges to serve in a shorter amount of time.
1. There’s a strong possibility that it can be overturned. However, Justices are people and can be unpredictable. In the past there have been sufficient conservative Justices in the SCOTUS and they did not overturn it. However, recent actions by the SCOTUS suggest that it’s more likely than others to overturn it. My father reminded me that Justice Kavanaugh stated in his confirmation hearing that “Roe v Wade” was settled law, meaning it should not be challenged. It’s quite unpredictable.
2. Regardless of whether Roe v. Wade gets overturned, there will continue to be fights about it. If it gets overturned the left will mount a fight for it, if it is not overturned the right will continue to fight against it. In my view, this will be a hot point through many generations to come, likely forever.
3. The whole point of the Judicial Branch to be a separate entity was to keep it a-political. That doesn’t seem to be the case any longer. I’m not sure it ever was. Clearly, the more biased a SCOTUS is the more unbalanced the country becomes as the implementation of our laws depend on it. The lifetime appointments were good in concept if the SCOTUS were a-political. The ones that have turned it political is the Legislative Branch. To make the SCOTUS more objective we need to fix the root of the problem: Capitol Hill. We need term limits for both the Senate and House of Representatives. By flushing out the old establishment we let the “citizen legislator” emerge again, which was the goal of the Legislative Branch by our Founding Fathers.
4. The changes being looked at for SCOTUS can potentially help or create further divisiveness. What turned the SCOTUS political is the Legislative Branch. We need to fix the root cause, not the symptom. Addressing pain with Tylenol doesn’t fix what’s causing the pain of cancer. We need term limits for the Legislative Branch to eliminate the old establishment and let in the “citizen legislator” again. Young people are more altruistic and will find a better way to work together than people settled in their ways. Elders are important because they bring wisdom, but they also bring in stubbornness and old wounds that create biases and division. This is an extreme example, but a truism: if a 6 year old punches a 6 year old on the nose they’ll be playing with each other in 5 minutes; an elder punches another elder on the nose, they’ll hold grudges for decades. We need term limits on the people that work in Capitol Hill, get some younger blood in and grudges out.
Roe V wade being overturned is a huge possibility. The current judges are majority covservative and two judges have been appointed by president trump were conservative and will most likely share his views on anti abortion. However we can never know what will truly happen until this is voted on maybe they vote to bee abortional legal maybe they won't.
If roe V wade is overturned it will not stop the arguments about it. Everyone is always going to have an opinion on abortin and it wont stop if it becomes legal or not. It will always be a hot topic and we saw this even when roe v wade was fresh and old. A new decision wont change this.
I think judges who are highly political in their choices are not good. They are supposed to vote if something is constitutional, not if it fits their agenda. It's nearly impossible to have no bias but having a lot of bias towards your own political opinion can heavily damage the country, you can vote for something that is constitutionally unconstitutional because it fits your beliefs.
This comment is written by Lauren Mok because she is unable to post due to technical difficulties:
I think that having a politically-charged supreme court is extremely dangerous, as it hinders SCOTUS from doing their job of interpreting laws from an objective standpoint. Especially seeing Trump’s last Supreme Court appointments, it is clear SCOTUS is used to leverage the points of view of each Judge’s prospective party. Especially with a majority senate matching the party of the executive, it becomes especially easy for a Supreme Court Justice to be sworn in. This system seems inherently undemocratic; granted that parties change over time, this ability to elect several partial officials in only a term yet serve for a lifetime seems unfair.
As for Roe v. Wade, it is quite plausible that it will be overturned, especially in today’s current conservative majority. As Lilly mentioned, the topic of abortion has only become more polarizing, resulting in many efforts against enabling abortions and protecting those who partake in it. Unfortunately, even if Roe v. Wade isn’t overturned, resistance to abortion rights will remain. For example, Texas’ fetal heartbeat law forced physicians to search for a heartbeat before an abortion, banning it if one’s detected. However, in California, as with many other states, resources for safe abortions will remain. Therefore, efforts to continue advocating for reproductive rights must remain in order to protect those who risk losing these rights if Roe v. Wade is overturned.
I agree with those that say that Roe v Wade will be overturned. Finding such balance is not a problem that the SCOTUS should be responsible for and I don't see the benefit in it. I think that abortion which is such a one or the other type of topic, compromise is going to be hard to make without upsetting the other side of the argument. I don't see an end to this debate, however, if any changes are made I hope that nothing bad comes of them. A politically biased SCOTUS definitely doesn't help, but the most powerful court should be free of influence to make the fairest and unbiased decisions. I believe that the appointment system is to blame for such weighted outcomes. The court needs to reflect on current matters of population and ideology which will lead the president to appoint new justices based on what the public opinion needs.
Post a Comment