Country Braces For Historic SCOTUS Decision That Could Uproot Roe V Wade

Country Braces For Historic SCOTUS Decision That Could Uproot Roe V Wade

Most of the justices on the Supreme Court have indicated they are open to setting new limits on the right to abortion.

During Wednesday oral arguments over a Mississippi law which bans virtually all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, conflicting with the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade decision which prohibits states from outlawing abortions prior to when a fetus is viable outside the womb, or around 24 weeks.

Kavanaugh just asked Prelogar how you can accommodate both the interests of the fetus and the woman “when you have to pick” between them. He asks why this Court should be the “arbiter” of that question as opposed to political representatives.

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) December 1, 2021

Breyer is striking back at the Kavanaugh list of overturned case. He pointedly said “you have to read” the cases before listing them. “All you have to do is open your eyes and look South my friend” to see the distinction.

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) December 1, 2021

On Wednesday, the court’s conservatives led by Chief Justice John Roberts – a six-member majority, questioned how firmly rooted Roe’s viability standard is, according to The Hill.

If you think that the issue is one of choice, that women should have the choice to terminate their pregnancy, that supposes that there is a point at which they’ve had the fair choice, the opportunity to choice. And why would 15 weeks be an inappropriate line? Viability, it seems to me, doesn’t have anything to do with choice. But if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time?” said Roberts.

Huge moment.

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) December 1, 2021

It’s worth noting that amid the actual to and fro of the court’s adjudications, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., joined the growing ranks of members of Congress in issuing a warning to the Supreme Court: reaffirm Roe v. Wade or else. 

As Jonathan Turley points out, the “else” varies from promises to pack the Court to personal accountability for justices. For Shaheen, it is a promise of “revolution.” It is the latest demand that the justice yield to popular demand or any countervailing interpretation of the Constitution. Or else.

“So you say you want a revolution.” However, these threats are an attack on the very concept of impartial judicial review. 

“When you talk about destruction” of our traditions of judicial review, as the Beatles declared in 1968, “you can count me out.”

I understand that Sen. Shaneen is speaking of a political rather than actual revolution but the implications is that there would be consequences for the Court.

Threatening the Supreme Court has become something of a required public exhibition of faith for Democrats, a demonstration that abstract notions like judicial independence will not distract from achieving political results.  Sen. Richard Blumenthal previously warned the Supreme Court that, if it continued to issue conservative rulings or “chipped away at Roe v Wade” it would trigger “a seismic movement to reform the Supreme Court. It may not be expanding the Supreme Court, it may be making changes to its jurisdiction, or requiring a certain numbers of votes to strike down certain past precedents.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer also declared in front of the Supreme Court “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”

The message is clear and unambiguous: vote “correctly” or you will face personal or institutional repercussions.

According to these politicians, the media, and many in academia, justices should consider such consequences in reading the Constitution. These type of extrinsic considerations are anathema to ethical judging. A jurist should not be concerned how her ruling will be received as opposed to whether it is based on principled interpretative principles. That is precisely why the Framers gave these jurists life tenure.  As Alexander Hamilton stated in The Federalist No. 78, judicial independence “is the best expedient which can be devised in any government to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.”

It was once viewed as anathema to attack the Court or threaten retaliation if justices did not vote as demanded. Indeed, many Democrats criticized President Donald Trump for attacking judges as partisans during his Administration. Now, however, Democrats routinely denounce conservatives as activists and threaten to change the Court if they continue to rule conservatively. Notably, while pointing to conservatives voting together as proof of ideological bias, these same leaders do not denounce the liberal justices who routinely vote as a block form the left of the Court. They are not ideologues because they are ruling “correctly.”

Roe is being used by many as an excuse to engage in raw court packing and jurisdiction stripping. Leaders like Shaheen are suggesting that, if the Court votes wrong, they have license to unleash the “Revolution.”

Tyler Durden
Wed, 12/01/2021 – 12:16

Share DeepPol