As a Supreme Court Justice, would you reverse Roe v Wade?
Poll - Total Votes: 38
Yeah
Nah
I have no opinion on the matter
You can only vote on one answer.
26-30, F
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
CopperCicada · M
It doesn't work that way. Get on the SCOTUS, reverse Roe v. Wade? One hears a case that's come up through the appellate courts, and that has to be heard in the context of the facts and merit of its case, and it has to be heard in the context of prior legal precedent.
IMHO anyone who thinks a SCOTUS pick will immediately protect or overturn a ruling either a) doesn't understand the system or b) betrays how highly politicized their regard of the SCOTUS is.
IMHO anyone who thinks a SCOTUS pick will immediately protect or overturn a ruling either a) doesn't understand the system or b) betrays how highly politicized their regard of the SCOTUS is.
LeopoldBloom · M
@CopperCicada You're correct in that the courts cannot act on their own; they can only address those cases that come before them.
That being said, claiming that SCOTUS decisions aren't political is fatuous. Kavanaugh was vetted by the Federalist Society, and his name presented to Trump along with Amy Coney Barrett and another guy whose name I forget. And if Kavanaugh is confirmed, it will be along party lines. If you don't think Kavanaugh was selected because he will overturn Roe if given the opportunity, you're delusional. Trump received massive support from the Evangelical community, more than George W. Bush (an actual Evangelical) did, because they were confident that he would nominate anti-abortion SCOTUS justices.
If Hillary Clinton was president and there was a Democratic Senate majority, we'd be watching the confirmation process for a justice that everyone would know was committed to preserving Roe. So both sides are treating the SCOTUS as a political football. My solution for this is to require a super-majority for confirmation. All justices would have to be palatable to both sides, leading to people being nominated for their judicial expertise rather than how they will vote on a given issue.
That being said, claiming that SCOTUS decisions aren't political is fatuous. Kavanaugh was vetted by the Federalist Society, and his name presented to Trump along with Amy Coney Barrett and another guy whose name I forget. And if Kavanaugh is confirmed, it will be along party lines. If you don't think Kavanaugh was selected because he will overturn Roe if given the opportunity, you're delusional. Trump received massive support from the Evangelical community, more than George W. Bush (an actual Evangelical) did, because they were confident that he would nominate anti-abortion SCOTUS justices.
If Hillary Clinton was president and there was a Democratic Senate majority, we'd be watching the confirmation process for a justice that everyone would know was committed to preserving Roe. So both sides are treating the SCOTUS as a political football. My solution for this is to require a super-majority for confirmation. All justices would have to be palatable to both sides, leading to people being nominated for their judicial expertise rather than how they will vote on a given issue.
SimplyTracie · 26-30, F
@CopperCicada I’m not naive. Like I’m sure when you sit on a jury, you probably have some biases and it’s almost impossible to be 100% impartial.