SCOTUS, Abortion, and 2020

[Heebie Jeebie]

Yesterday evening SCOTUS granted a temporary stay on a Louisiana abortion law nearly identical to one from Texas that the Court struck down just two years ago.  The dissent in the case was written by Brett Kavanaugh, who voted to ignore that recent precedent. In his dissent, Kavanaugh argued that the Louisiana law wouldn't impose an undue burden on the state's women.  This case will come back to the Court to be ruled on on the merits, probably in the upcoming October session.

So what are the likely electoral consequences if SCOTUS takes a hammer to Roe v. Wade, as it almost certainly will at some point?

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

It is highly unlikely SCOTUS takes any abortion case between now and the election. This Louisiana law was passed back in 2014 and still has never gone into effect. SCOTUS sent it back down to lower courts and given the general timing of these things I wouldn't even expect the circuit court to rule on it by then.
No other abortion case seems  close to coming up to SCOTUS
It seems like Roberts is trying his best to punt every case involving abortion for the time being as much as he can as a result of the Kavanaugh hearing. 

[Heebie Jeebie]

It is highly unlikely SCOTUS takes any abortion case between now and the election. This Louisiana law was passed back in 2014 and still has never gone into effect. SCOTUS sent it back down to lower courts and given the general timing of these things I wouldn't even expect the circuit court to rule on it by then.
No other abortion case seems  close to coming up to SCOTUS
It seems like Roberts is trying his best to punt every case involving abortion for the time being as much as he can as a result of the Kavanaugh hearing. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the stay issued by the Court only blocked the law's implementation while abortion rights activists have a chance to file an appeal against the 2-1 decision last September of a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to let the law go into effect.   In other words, the circuit court has already ruled on it, and the next step is to take the case to the Supreme Court.

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

It is highly unlikely SCOTUS takes any abortion case between now and the election. This Louisiana law was passed back in 2014 and still has never gone into effect. SCOTUS sent it back down to lower courts and given the general timing of these things I wouldn't even expect the circuit court to rule on it by then.
No other abortion case seems  close to coming up to SCOTUS
It seems like Roberts is trying his best to punt every case involving abortion for the time being as much as he can as a result of the Kavanaugh hearing. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the stay issued by the Court only blocked the law's implementation while abortion rights activists have a chance to file an appeal against the 2-1 decision last September of a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to let the law go into effect.   In other words, the circuit court has already ruled on it, and the next step is to take the case to the Supreme Court.

Yes, my bad. I'm sorry I thought the lower courts hadn't ruled on the merits yet.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Well, conservatives will have finally got what they always wanted, but I doubt that it would deter them from turning out. Meanwhile, well-educated suburban women would probably turn out for the Democrats again in big numbers. But ultimately it would cancel out and be a long-term win for the conservatives in this country. It might even be the ultimate indicator that they had succeeded in winning the culture wars, at least until the balance on the Supreme Court changes significantly. If only those desperate, concerned people had the foresight to vote for Clinton back in 2016 when this could perhaps have been prevented.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Well, conservatives will have finally got what they always wanted, but I doubt that it would deter them from turning out. Meanwhile, well-educated suburban women would probably turn out for the Democrats again in big numbers. But ultimately it would cancel out and be a long-term win for the conservatives in this country. It might even be the ultimate indicator that they had succeeded in winning the culture wars, at least until the balance on the Supreme Court changes significantly. If only those desperate, concerned people had the foresight to vote for Clinton back in 2016 when this could perhaps have been prevented.

But her emails...

On a more serious note, I'll bet Kavanaugh's dissent has Susan Collins shaking in her boots right now.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Well, conservatives will have finally got what they always wanted, but I doubt that it would deter them from turning out. Meanwhile, well-educated suburban women would probably turn out for the Democrats again in big numbers. But ultimately it would cancel out and be a long-term win for the conservatives in this country. It might even be the ultimate indicator that they had succeeded in winning the culture wars, at least until the balance on the Supreme Court changes significantly. If only those desperate, concerned people had the foresight to vote for Clinton back in 2016 when this could perhaps have been prevented.

But her emails...

On a more serious note, I'll bet Kavanaugh's dissent has Susan Collins shaking in her boots right now.

I hope so. She deserves to finally lose. Hell, maybe she'll even retire. That would be even better.

[R.P. McM]

I would love to see them overturn Roe. One of two things would happen: either Corporate America would fully withdraw from Red America; or the economically prosperous, technologically advanced, culturally progressive majority of this country would finally impose its will on the toothless sh**t-kickers. A win-win!
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord ...

[Beet]

It only takes four justices to grant certiori. The four liberal justices would be crazy not to grant certiori on a Roe case for the fall 2019 session and summer 2020 decision. That would make Roberts (if Ginsburg is still there) choose between overturning a decision that 60% of the American people don't think should be overturned, and not overturning it, smack dab in the middle of a presidential election. If the case waits until 2021 all pressure will be off and the conservative justices will be able to do whatever they want.

[Heebie Jeebie]

It only takes four justices to grant certiori. The four liberal justices would be crazy not to grant certiori on a Roe case for the fall 2019 session and summer 2020 decision. That would make Roberts (if Ginsburg is still there) choose between overturning a decision that 60% of the American people don't think should be overturned, and not overturning it, smack dab in the middle of a presidential election. If the case waits until 2021 all pressure will be off and the conservative justices will be able to do whatever they want.

Question:  if SCOTUS were to overturn or weaken Roe, would that have the potential to make court-packing a campaign issue?  Is the ruling likely to come down while the primaries are still going?

[Beet]

It only takes four justices to grant certiori. The four liberal justices would be crazy not to grant certiori on a Roe case for the fall 2019 session and summer 2020 decision. That would make Roberts (if Ginsburg is still there) choose between overturning a decision that 60% of the American people don't think should be overturned, and not overturning it, smack dab in the middle of a presidential election. If the case waits until 2021 all pressure will be off and the conservative justices will be able to do whatever they want.

Question:  if SCOTUS were to overturn or weaken Roe, would that have the potential to make court-packing a campaign issue?  Is the ruling likely to come down while the primaries are still going?

A decision would likely come down in June if it follows the normal schedule, and the primaries would likely be over by then.

[Heebie Jeebie]

A decision would likely come down in June if it follows the normal schedule, and the primaries would likely be over by then.

That's a shame.  It would have been interesting to see one of the candidates seize onto court-packing as a way of differentiating herself from the pack.  The party nominee is less likely to take on that issue, at least publicly. 

[Crumpets]

No matter what they rule, it will inevitably not be enough for conservatives, who will then claim to only need one more seat to really end abortion rights. This will then carry on indefinitely.

That being said, the entire notion that conservatives on the court are actually seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade is unrealistic. Sure, they want to chip away at it, but they will never actually achieve their alleged final goal because that would mean finding some other strawman to tear down.

[Heebie Jeebie]

No matter what they rule, it will inevitably not be enough for conservatives, who will then claim to only need one more seat to really end abortion rights. This will then carry on indefinitely.

That being said, the entire notion that conservatives on the court are actually seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade is unrealistic. Sure, they want to chip away at it, but they will never actually achieve their alleged final goal because that would mean finding some other strawman to tear down.

I think you're being too cynical here.  Most Republican leaders, including conservative Supreme Court justices, don't regard Roe v. Wade as a political straw man--they just really find women's reproductive rights abhorrent and are genuinely committed to ending them.  Sometimes politicians aren't lying.  Sometimes, they're just evil. 

[PaperKooper]

No matter what they rule, it will inevitably not be enough for conservatives, who will then claim to only need one more seat to really end abortion rights. This will then carry on indefinitely.

That being said, the entire notion that conservatives on the court are actually seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade is unrealistic. Sure, they want to chip away at it, but they will never actually achieve their alleged final goal because that would mean finding some other strawman to tear down.

I think you're being too cynical here.  Most Republican leaders, including conservative Supreme Court justices, don't regard Roe v. Wade as a political straw man--they just really find women's reproductive rights abhorrent and are genuinely committed to ending them.  Sometimes politicians aren't lying.  Sometimes, they're just evil. 

Replace "women's reproductive rights" with "abortions" and this is accurate, except for the evil part. 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Replace "women's reproductive rights" with "abortions" and this is accurate, except for the evil part. 

I stand by the "reproductive rights" language, but I regretted the "evil" bit as soon as I hit post. That realky wasn't helpful and I should've edited it out. This is just a subject that hits home for me, and I have trouble reigning in my anger.  Apologies if I offended.

[PaperKooper]

Replace "women's reproductive rights" with "abortions" and this is accurate, except for the evil part. 

I stand by the "reproductive rights" language, but I regretted the "evil" bit as soon as I hit post. That realky wasn't helpful and I should've edited it out. This is just a subject that hits home for me, and I have trouble reigning in my anger.  Apologies if I offended.

Haha, no worries, I feel the same except with the other viewpoint.  I had typed up a snarkier response but deleted it.