Republicans won’t be satisfied with overturning Roe

Ketanji Brown Jackson’s hearing offered a glimpse of upcoming culture war fights at the court

By Melissa Murray
March 25, 2022

For more than two decades, confirmation hearings for Supreme Court justices have revolved around a single question: whether the nominee would uphold or overrule Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that recognized nationally a woman’s right to choose an abortion. As far back as the ill-fated confirmation hearings for Robert Bork in 1987, abortion has always been the elephant in the room, prompting thinly veiled questions about fidelity to precedent and “unenumerated rights” — rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

With this in mind, the hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson were unlike those that came before. Not only is Jackson the first Black woman to be nominated to the high court, but she is also the first nominee to be vetted in a soon-to-be post-Roe landscape.

Continued: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/03/25/ketanji-brown-jackson-roe/

If Roe falls, some fear ripple effect on civil rights cases

If the Supreme Court decides to overturn or gut the decision that legalized abortion, some fear that it could undermine other precedent-setting cases, including civil rights and LGBTQ protections

By LINDSAY WHITEHURST, Associated Press
7 December 2021

If the Supreme Court decides to overturn or gut the decision that legalized abortion, some fear that it could undermine other precedent-setting cases, including civil rights and LGBTQ protections.

Overturning Roe v. Wade would have a bigger effect than most cases because it was reaffirmed by a second decision, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, three decades later, legal scholars and advocates said. The Supreme Court's conservative majority signaled in arguments last week they would allow states to ban abortion much earlier in pregnancy and may even overturn the nationwide right that has existed for nearly 50 years. A decision is expected next summer.

Continued: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/roe-falls-fear-ripple-effect-civil-rights-cases-81604652

It’s time to say it: The conservatives on the Supreme Court lied to us all

By Paul Waldman, Columnist
Dec 3, 2021

They lied.

Yes, I’m talking about the conservative justices on the Supreme Court, and the abortion rights those justices have now made clear they will eviscerate.

They weren’t just evasive, or vague, or deceptive. They lied. They lied to Congress and to the country, claiming they either had no opinions at all about abortion, or that their beliefs were simply irrelevant to how they would rule. They would be wise and pure, unsullied by crass policy preferences, offering impeccably objective readings of the Constitution.

Continued: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/03/supreme-court-conservatives-lied/

03.12.2021

Amy Coney Barrett

Brett Kavanaugh

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

Clarence Thomas

confirmation hearings

Laura Ingraham

Neil Gorsuch

overturning precedent

Roe vs. Wade in crosshairs at Supreme Court, which sticks with precedent, except when it doesn’t

Abortion rights hinge on justices’ regard for precedent as they weigh Mississippi’s 15-week ban in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health.

By Todd J. Gillman
Nov 24, 2021

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has overturned hundreds of its own rulings since 1789, but hardly any on an issue as divisive as abortion rights.

Next Wednesday, the justices will hear arguments on a 15-week ban adopted by Mississippi in open defiance of Roe vs. Wade, which gives women another two months to legally terminate a pregnancy.

Continued: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2021/11/24/abortion-foes-want-roe-overturned-and-supreme-court-hardly-ever-repudiates-its-own-landmark-rulings/

24.11.2021

Brown vs. Board of Education

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

Obergefell v. Hodges

overturning precedent

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey

USA – When a commitment to precedent rings hollow

The June Medical ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court illustrates how relying on stare decisis can only go so far in ensuring abortion access.

by Jennifer Taylor
3 Jul 2020

We often hear that we’re living in “unprecedented times.” What is not unprecedented is the precarious status of abortion access in the United States (and parts of Canada, too). While abortion rights seem slightly safer after the decision of the United States Supreme Court in June Medical Services LLC v Russo, this is a shaky victory.

If anything, June Medical proves that precedent is slippery — and political.

Continued: https://www.nationalmagazine.ca/en-ca/articles/law/opinion/2020/when-a-commitment-to-precedent-rings-hollow

How the Supreme Court could overturn Roe — while claiming to respect precedent

Conservatives could build on abortion restrictions that point to “scientific uncertainty.”

By Mary Ziegler
July 1, 2020

The Supreme Court’s recent abortion ruling shows that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. means it when he says that “the legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike.” Casting the deciding vote Monday in June Medical Services v. Russo, he ruled against an abortion restriction that Louisiana claimed protected women against unscrupulous doctors. The state even asked the court to prevent abortion providers from suing on behalf of their patients, claiming a conflict of interest. If these arguments were new, the chief justice almost certainly would have accepted them both. The problem was that the Supreme Court had heard them before: In 2016, the justices invalidated an identical Texas law. Roberts couldn’t distinguish the two statutes enough to make a different ruling — not while respecting precedent.

Continued: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/how-supreme-court-could-overturn-roe/2020/07/01/51fe4a2c-bb1e-11ea-80b9-40ece9a701dc_story.html

USA – A Supreme Court Reporter Defines the Threat to Abortion Rights

A Supreme Court Reporter Defines the Threat to Abortion Rights

By Isaac Chotiner
May 14, 2019

The past two weeks have been some of the worst on record for abortion rights in the U.S. Last week, the governor of Georgia, Brian Kemp, signed a bill that outlaws abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. Now Alabama is planning to go a step further, with the country’s most extreme anti-abortion law. Under the proposed legislation, abortion would be criminalized, with no exceptions for cases of rape or incest; doctors could face a ninety-nine-year prison sentence for terminating a pregnancy. The Alabama House has passed the bill, and the Senate is expected to vote on the measure on Tuesday evening.

Both the Georgia and Alabama laws are sure to be challenged in court, but the legal climate surrounding abortion is different than it was just last year. After the replacement of the Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy with Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Chief Justice John Roberts is the swing vote, and many conservatives have reason to hope that the Court will rule in favor of new restrictions on abortion and eventually even overturn Roe v. Wade.

Continued: https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/a-supreme-court-reporter-defines-the-threat-to-abortion-rights