Home | About | Donate

Fears for Roe V. Wade After Supreme Court Issues Decision Overruling a 40-Year Precedent

Fears for Roe V. Wade After Supreme Court Issues Decision Overruling a 40-Year Precedent

Andrea Germanos, staff writer

The U.S. Supreme Court's liberal justices sounded alarm on Monday after the court issued a ruling overturning a four decades-old precedent.

"Today's decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next," Justice Bryer wrote in his dissent (pdf), in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined.

Some observers expressed fear one of the those caes could be Roe v. Wade.

1 Like

Silly me–I thought that overturning precedent was the exclusive purview of those activist liberal justices.

2 Likes

radical right wing on the court revising long standing law. what are we going to do about it???

1 Like

The overturning of “Roe v. Wade” by the Supreme Court, if and when it comes, must propel the American People to their feet in search of their “brains and their voices” which they will need to reject any decision to disempower women by 5 angry men who sit in judgment of over 330 million of us.

2 Likes

Interesting(hypocritical) how unconservative the conservative justices are. “Stare decisis” is a conservative position, it conserves the past decisions and avoids later changes creating stability. This is all very conservative. What these justices are is reactionary meaning going backwards to suit their ideology and the moods of the people they identify with.

3 Likes

kikiki5 The wallpaper on my computer screen is a famous painting by Eugene Delacroix depicting ‘Liberty Leading the People’, commemorating the French Revolution.
That’s what we ought to do or we are doomed. Because these fascist excrement won’t give up their (abusive) powers voluntarily. We don’t have to delude ourselves: Things will get worse for the common people as fascist ideology creeps into all aspects of life.

1 Like

What they are doing, without really thinking it through, is setting precedent, I would not be surprised to see the size of the court set to three larger and have three judges appointed that have a little respect for precedent that promptly overturn all the radical activist rulings this court has made. It is probably time to set a term limit for judges also.

1 Like

They are not reactionaries, what they did never existed. They are radical activists.

Isn’t twitter wonderful? One can write a nine (9) page article, using repetitive, almost identical twitters; in what used to take a good journalist less than four or five short paragraphs. Astounding! (-:

4 Likes

There is a lot of talk of impeachment these days. It is worth noting that SCOTUS justices do not need to die to be removed fro the court. Another reason why the 2020 election has important consequences, not just Prez and House, but in the SENATE - where is the Dem strategy to retake it?

4 Likes

Hi PonyBoy : When the first woman dies because she was not allowed an abortion to save her life----then Clarence Thomas or whoever, will probably have a man, a child, a mother, a father, attack the Justice or Justices that caused the death of the love of their life. When a nation decides that a fetus is of greater value than the woman, then horrible things will happen both to women and to those who decree the woman’s death. I do not think that the courts prejudice will stop what will becomes unrelenting attacks of revenge. : ( America is in a very scary state—look at all the revenge attacks happening in schools and jobs and churches, mosques and synagogs-----when a nation is dying, horrible things spread to all groups of people. World history can be astoundingly evil to read of in so many ways. : (

4 Likes

This highlights IMO the basis for impeaching every GOP nominee on the SCOTUS. As far as I remember, every single one has been asked about stare decisis. And every single one has said he respects and will rule in concert with it. Therefore, every single one of them lied, and probably while under oath.

The Roberts and Rehnquist courts have been the quickest to overturn long standing, long accepted decisions with little or no basis for doing so.

All five need to go. That means the Senate needs to change hands along with the squatter in the WH.

4 Likes

We are going to tell people that say we should think about the Court when voting for president that they are pushing “fear voting.” We are going to pretend the Court doesn’t matter, only voting our “conscious” does. At the same time, we will celebrate establishment losses via our “conscious” votes by pretending a progressive revolution is just around the corner while the Court shifts further right. Oh, and while doing that, we’ll ignore our own role in helping that rightward shift—losing does that—by yelling at the party we didn’t vote for after proclaiming we just “know” said revolution will come after helping the right get more control. You see, we are teaching the “establishment” and “neoliberals” lessons by threatening long term precedents we theoretically support, except when it comes time to do one act that would actually support them. It’s how we role.

2 Likes

Amen to that Sister Stardust.

Thank you. I have been saying this almost in so many words of late, and in closely related forms for at least 25 years. And yes, “reactionary” has been the standard though somewhat un-descriptive term in political science for quite some time. Mr. Reinhart’s time frame seems to be fairly brief, ignoring virtually all of human history since the (original) Agricultural Revolution prior to a couple of centuries ago, and much of it since.

Pisses me off.

1 Like

Many people here on CD contributed to Trump election by ridiculous fake outrages and illogical Sanders support . Now that “ they are all the same” Trump is in power, who appointed extreme judges and district attorneys , you are still bashing Dems. Please do learn Dems need to win in order to stop all this.

To discuss the Court was to push “fear voting,” a common refrain around these parts.

1 Like

You really think Clinton would have been THAT much better? That there would have been a miraculous seeing-of-the-light by all those corrupt right-wing corporate democrats? There was a reason they fought so hard and dirty against Sanders.

1 Like

Of course Clinton would be much better, she spent her career trying to promote rights and choices for women. The Supreme and other courts would be better too.
Those who didn’t back her against foolishly sold out women’s rights as well as the environment, immigrants, labor etc - all because they didn’t think get their way in outvoting Clinton in the Democratic primaries. We may never recover from that disastrous mistake.