Supreme Court to Hear 'Watershed' Texas Abortion Case

[Frodo]

Setting the stage for the most decisive case on this issue since Planned Parenthood vs. Casey:

High court to hear 'watershed' Texas abortion case:
The most significant abortion case to come before the court since 1992, will be argued before 8 justices Wednesday.

By Jennifer Haberkorn
02/29/16 06:16 PM EST

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-------------------------------------------------

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/scotus-watershed-texas-abortion-case-219998#ixzz41c4Lxyqw

[Virginiá]

Hopefully Kennedy will vote with the liberals and we can finally extinguish these Jim Crow-like laws that exist for no other reason than to deny women their right to have an abortion.

[136or142]

If only Republicans showed such interest in regulations where people's health really is at stake.

[YaBoyNY]

Thank God Scalia is GONE.

Woo.

Hopefully Kennedy will vote with the liberals and we can finally extinguish these Jim Crow-like laws that exist for no other reason than to deny women their right to have an abortion.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thank God Scalia is GONE.

Scalia's death changes nothing to the balance of power in this specific case.

The really depressing thing is that, if we had managed to hold onto the Senate in 2014 and allowed Obama to swiftly confirm someone now, things would look very different.

[YaBoyNY]

Thank God Scalia is GONE.

Scalia's death changes nothing to the balance of power in this specific case.

The really depressing thing is that, if we had managed to hold onto the Senate in 2014 and allowed Obama to swiftly confirm someone now, things would look very different.

We're more likely to get this overturned now than we were before he bit the dust.

[Virginiá]

We're more likely to get this overturned now than we were before he bit the dust.

Right. Kennedy detests abortion but he has shown openness to the actual issue and he has made favorable votes in the past, iirc. This has a real shot.

At the very least, though, is a tie and thus no precedent. So, with that considered, we are in better shape than before Scalia's passing.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thank God Scalia is GONE.

Scalia's death changes nothing to the balance of power in this specific case.

The really depressing thing is that, if we had managed to hold onto the Senate in 2014 and allowed Obama to swiftly confirm someone now, things would look very different.

We're more likely to get this overturned now than we were before he bit the dust.

No, the likelihood is exactly the same. If Kennedy votes to overturn, it's overturned 5-3. If he votes to uphold, it's 4-4 and it's upheld.

[YaBoyNY]

Thank God Scalia is GONE.

Scalia's death changes nothing to the balance of power in this specific case.

The really depressing thing is that, if we had managed to hold onto the Senate in 2014 and allowed Obama to swiftly confirm someone now, things would look very different.

We're more likely to get this overturned now than we were before he bit the dust.

No, the likelihood is exactly the same. If Kennedy votes to overturn, it's overturned 5-3. If he votes to uphold, it's 4-4 and it's upheld.

If Scalia were still kicking, I have a hard time seeing even a 1% chance of it being overturned.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thank God Scalia is GONE.

Scalia's death changes nothing to the balance of power in this specific case.

The really depressing thing is that, if we had managed to hold onto the Senate in 2014 and allowed Obama to swiftly confirm someone now, things would look very different.

We're more likely to get this overturned now than we were before he bit the dust.

No, the likelihood is exactly the same. If Kennedy votes to overturn, it's overturned 5-3. If he votes to uphold, it's 4-4 and it's upheld.

If Scalia were still kicking, I have a hard time seeing even a 1% chance of it being overturned.

This just proves you don't understand how the SCOTUS works.

Kennedy is the swing vote. He was the swing vote before Scalia died, and he's still the swing votes on decisions where the lower courts took the conservative side, since a 4-4 ruling affirms the lower court ruling.

[YaBoyNY]

Thank God Scalia is GONE.

Scalia's death changes nothing to the balance of power in this specific case.

The really depressing thing is that, if we had managed to hold onto the Senate in 2014 and allowed Obama to swiftly confirm someone now, things would look very different.

We're more likely to get this overturned now than we were before he bit the dust.

No, the likelihood is exactly the same. If Kennedy votes to overturn, it's overturned 5-3. If he votes to uphold, it's 4-4 and it's upheld.

If Scalia were still kicking, I have a hard time seeing even a 1% chance of it being overturned.

This just proves you don't understand how the SCOTUS works.

Kennedy is the swing vote. He was the swing vote before Scalia died, and he's still the swing votes on decisions where the lower courts took the conservative side, since a 4-4 ruling affirms the lower court ruling.

But 4-4 doesn't establish precedent, and that's more important in the long-term.

[Virginiá]

This just proves you don't understand how the SCOTUS works.

Kennedy is the swing vote. He was the swing vote before Scalia died, and he's still the swing votes on decisions where the lower courts took the conservative side, since a 4-4 ruling affirms the lower court ruling.

Right but there is no precedent set, and they might set the case to be reheard once Scalia's seat is filled (either way, a similar case will eventually work it's way up there). Also, the laws can be challenged in other circuits where, due to a 4-4 deadlock, could result in these regulations being banned in one region while allowed in another. That's something, at least.

So yes, the basic end results here are somewhat the same, but not completely. Either it's ruled unconstitutional, or it's deadlocked and can/will be heard again when the seat is filled.

It's definitely a better situation.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

4-4 would uphold the laws, but the precedent would not be there for future cases.  I'm actually not sure which way Kennedy is going to go on this one.  He is unpredictable in abortion cases.  I have even heard that he and, I think, Souter were going to join with Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist to strike down Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey before O'Connor convinced them out of doing that at the last second.

Were Scalia still alive, I would say that there would be a small chance- maybe 5%- that the 5 Republican appointees would band together to overturn Roe v. Wade entirely.  But, Kennedy could do literally anything on an abortion case, and it wouldn't surprise me.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

4-4 would uphold the laws, but the precedent would not be there for future cases.  I'm actually not sure which way Kennedy is going to go on this one.  He is unpredictable in abortion cases.  I have even heard that he and, I think, Souter were going to join with Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist to strike down Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey before O'Connor convinced them out of doing that at the last second.

Were Scalia still alive, I would say that there would be a small chance- maybe 5%- that the 5 Republican appointees would band together to overturn Roe v. Wade entirely.  But, Kennedy could do literally anything on an abortion case, and it wouldn't surprise me.

Per Toobin, O'Connor and Souter were on the same page and recruited Kennedy.

[Ebsy]

Thank God Scalia is GONE.

Scalia's death changes nothing to the balance of power in this specific case.

The really depressing thing is that, if we had managed to hold onto the Senate in 2014 and allowed Obama to swiftly confirm someone now, things would look very different.

We're more likely to get this overturned now than we were before he bit the dust.

No, the likelihood is exactly the same. If Kennedy votes to overturn, it's overturned 5-3. If he votes to uphold, it's 4-4 and it's upheld.

If Scalia were still kicking, I have a hard time seeing even a 1% chance of it being overturned.

This just proves you don't understand how the SCOTUS works.

Kennedy is the swing vote. He was the swing vote before Scalia died, and he's still the swing votes on decisions where the lower courts took the conservative side, since a 4-4 ruling affirms the lower court ruling.

Could you stop lecturing on things that you obviously know nothing about?