Will Roe V. Wade Be Overturned?

<p>Will Roe V. Wade Be Overturned? I don't want your opinion about abortion; simply state whether you think that it is possible that Roe V. Wade could be overturned in your lifetime...</p>

<p>oh yes, i think it is possible. GWBush made that promise to the American people, that if he were reelected and able to appoint SC judges, he would only appoint those who would overturn it, just as JFKerry made the opposite promise.
i think it is sad that it is even a possibility.</p>

<p>As I understand it, the Roe v. Wade breakdown on the court is 6 to 3, with Justice Rehnquist being one of the 3. So Rehnquist, and two more justices (Stephens and O'Connor most likely) would have to be replaced first, with justices who were committed to overturning it; whether all of that will happen in the next four years is a question. Then, it becomes possible, although I think you would see curtailment of the right but not an immediate overturning, but that too is possible.</p>



<p>I'm sorry, but if you are going to make a claim like that, you are going to have to provide an exact quote where President Bush said that or anything even remotely similar to that.</p>

<p>id--I think that we can all read between the lines. In the debates he said very cutely, "I will appoint judges who will uphold the Constitution" (or something close to that). Duh...meaning, interpret the Constitution to take away the constitutional right to privacy upon which the right to choose is based.</p>

<p>Also, the "culture of life" language in his victory speech? Puleeeaze.</p>

<p>"Right" to choose?! HA
You've got to be kididng me - there should be no "right" to choose murder, legal or otherwise. The ethical implications are a topic for another time, apparently...
So yes, I hope it gets overturned. Will it? good question - Bush will likely have the opportunity to appoint up to 4 new judges to the bench, but they all have to be approved by congress first. And with the current pro-abortion attitude in our nation, it is mostly unlikely (unfortunately)</p>

<p>during the first debate, when the subject was brought up, Bush said, quote, "If elected to another term, I promise that I will nominate Supreme Court Justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade."... this he said right after his Dread Scot remarks, if you recall. </p>

<p>during the second debate, when asked about the Supreme Court Judges he would appoint, in the middle of the talk about abortion, Bush said, quote,
"I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States. "</p>


<p>You must have more complete transcripts of the three presidential debates than available on the Commission for Presidential Debates website, because here is the only exchange I can find in the three debates that includes the phrase "Supreme Court":</p>


<p>MICHAELSON: Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why? </p>

<p>BUSH: I'm not telling. </p>

<p>(LAUGHTER) </p>

<p>I really don't have -- haven't picked anybody yet. Plus, I want them all voting for me. </p>

<p>(LAUGHTER) </p>

<p>I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States. </p>

<p>Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn't pick. </p>

<p>I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution. </p>

<p>Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. </p>

<p>That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America. </p>

<p>And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution. </p>

<p>And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year -- the next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution. </p>

<p>Thank you. </p>


<p>While the President's answer certainly wandered, I can't seem seem to find the phrase "I promise that I will nominate Supreme Court Justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade" that you quote above. Could you provide a reference for that quote?</p>

<p>PS: I'm sorry to pick on you over this. But, if you are going to claim the President said something like that, it's only fair to show when and where he said it.</p>



<p>Huh? So when a Supreme Court justice takes the oath of office and swears to uphold the Constitution, we are to interpret that as a solemn vow to disregard the right to privacy and outlaw abortion? Wow! That is some serious reading between the lines!</p>

<p>Interesteddad, I must say you have really impressed me in this discussion. I have always had a respect for you but it has now reached an entirely new level.</p>

<p>Interesteddad got me curious - Here is what Bush said in the third debate on abortion from the actual transcript of the debate - as you can see, no mention of overturning Roe vs. Wade, definite mention of being opposed to partial birth abortions, and a desire to decrease the number of abortions:</p>

<p>BUSH: I think it's important to promote a culture of life. I think a hospitable society is a society where every being counts and every person matters. I believe the ideal world is one in which every child is protected in law and welcomed to life. I understand there's great differences on this issue of abortion, but I believe reasonable people can come together and put good law in place that will help reduce the number of abortions. </p>

<p>Take, for example, the ban on partial birth abortion. It's a brutal practice. People from both political parties came together in the halls of Congress and voted overwhelmingly to ban that practice. It made a lot of sense. My opponent, in that he's out of the mainstream, voted against that law. </p>

<p>What I'm saying is, is that as we promote life and promote a culture of life, surely there are ways we can work together to reduce the number of abortions: continue to promote adoption laws -- it's a great alternative to abortion -- continue to fund and promote maternity group homes; I will continue to promote abstinence programs. </p>

<p>The last debate, my opponent said his wife was involved with those programs. That's great. I appreciate that very much. All of us ought to be involved with programs that provide a viable alternative to abortion.</p>

<p>I believe that I know what he said and what he meant, but I am clearly not going to convince you. Just check in with me when he has appointed his 3rd pro-life justice. And yes, when they swear to uphold the Constitution, they swear to uphold their version of the proper approach to the Constitution, whether it is strict constructionism or not. Anyone who watches confirmation hearings and has studied the previous written opinions of a person nominated for the Supreme Court knows exactly what their approach to the Constitution will be, sometimes even on the very same or a similar issue in a case that was pending before them in a lower court. It is true that there have been a few surprises--Harry Blackmun chief among them--who did not end up voting the way it was predicted they would. But most of the others have done exactly what one would have predicted they would do.</p>

<p>The right to privacy is a penumbral right--it is not specifically articulated in the Constitution but has grown up around the specifically enumerated rights in the Constitution and represents a more flexible approach to Constitutional interpretation and yes, it would be very easy for a strict constructionist to say that there is in fact no such right.</p>

<p>And Carolyn, frankly your value-laden comments about how impressive someone is because they agree with you is kind of gratuitous.</p>


<p>I certainly find myself in an awkward position on this issue. I've voted against Republican presidential candidates going back to Richard Nixon and a VERY large component of my reasoning is their position against a woman's right to choose. However, I try to be fair to politicians and at least evaluate what they actually say. Rational political discussion really falls apart when we start evaluating what we "think" they say. Then, we are in Michael Moore territory and it really detracts from intelligent discussion of issues.</p>

<p>My gut instinct is that George W. Bush's political instincts are too good for him to even hint at a Roe v. Wade litmus test for Supreme Court nominations. The abortion issue is lose/lose proposition for politicians. Smart Republicans will try to throw a bone to the their most fervent constituents (partial birth abortion, parental notification, etc.), but that's about it. Unlike the Democrats, they have figured out that allowing their fringe supporters to define the agenda is a surefire recipe for losing the all-important centrist voter.</p>

<p>ID--he doesn't NEED a litmus test. Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist--anyone could have easily predicted how they would vote on such issues without anyone asking, "Would you find that a woman has a right to choose an abortion as protected by the Constitution." I find both you and Carolyn extremely disingenous on this subject.</p>

<p>Actually, Patient, Interesteddad doesn't agree with me on everything. In fact, I suspect we disagree much more than we agree. But what has impressed me is that he has handled this discussion with a sense of fairness and willingness to look at both sides, even the sides he doesn't agree with. He hasn't allowed emotion to enter into his discussion yet he's presented some very cognizant arguments for his side of things that have made me really stop and reconsider some of my own points of view. I admire him for that ability.</p>

<p>I admire him too, (and you too) but more on the other thread :). I still stick with my "disingenuous", whether consciously or subconsciously.</p>

<p>And by the way Patient, it might surprise you to know that I am pro-choice so don't assume you know what all of my positions are just because of the way I voted.</p>

<p>Sounds like ID is too. I didn't even think about your views, though, but just how you were defending a man who I think DOES have either his own, or his electorate's, agenda to overturn Roe v. Wade. But I don't see how Bush as a born-again Christian could be pro-choice. Isn't that against their creed? (hey, it's late and I'm getting cynical)</p>

<p>I think Interesteddad said it best when he said above: "Rational political discussion really falls apart when we start evaluating what we "think" they say. Then, we are in Michael Moore territory and it really detracts from intelligent discussion of issues."</p>

<p>And I'm getting tired too. So, good night all. Thanks for the great, thought-provoking conversation.</p>

<p>Hey guys, when the draft begins again and Roe v. Wade is overturned, I WILL say "I told you so" ;). I'll even take you out to lunch if you come visit me in my new home in the south of France. (speaking of which, the local SF news station had a segment tonight on how many northern Californians are now making plans to move to Canada....there were some humorous comments from people but mostly that we feel we aren't wanted any more here.)</p>