Prediction : Trump w/R Congress and RvW

[Dragonfly]

Will Trump, with an R congress do anything to jeopardize RvW?

 

[TheGoverness]

Will Trump, with an R congress do anything to jeopardize RvW?

I hope not. Maybe he'll just leave it alone.

 

[Ikari]

I really don't think he will. Fundamentally, abortion on some level is always going to be legal. Is there wiggle room to restrict it in certain cases? Yes? Will he? Who the fudge knows? I mean, one problem is that during the course of this election, Trump just ran his mouth. We have really very little clue as to what he will end up doing in the end.

 

[Removable Mind]

Will Trump, with an R congress do anything to jeopardize RvW?

They claim that that is on the agenda. But the problem they'll encounter is the Constitution itself. Roe v Wade was an admission by government that it had been Constitutionally denying women their right to abort since 1868, when the 14th Amendment was established. And the language contained in the 14th reaches into other Amendments. So women's right to abort are enmeshed with several Amendments - trying to overturn it will violate both equal protection under the law and due process under the law, not to mention unjustly denying liberty that includes the right to privacy.

 

[Fishking]

They claim that that is on the agenda. But the problem they'll encounter is the Constitution itself. Roe v Wade was an admission by government that it had been Constitutionally denying women their right to abort since 1868, when the 14th Amendment was established. And the language contained in the 14th reaches into other Amendments. So women's right to abort are enmeshed with several Amendments - trying to overturn it will violate both equal protection under the law and due process under the law, not to mention unjustly denying liberty that includes the right to privacy.

They ruled that it violated their rights to privacy and that is it. There is no right to abort.

 

[Absentglare]

Will Trump, with an R congress do anything to jeopardize RvW?

When he nominates someone like Rush Limbaugh to the supreme court, yes.

 

[Fishking]

To overturn it they would either have to do a constitutional amendment (not going to happen) or get the SCOTUS to overturn it (don't have the numbers unless like 3 judges kick the bucket).

 

[Removable Mind]

They ruled that it violated their rights to privacy and that is it. There is no right to abort.

I'm very versed in the Constitutional provisions that make abortion a choice. And it goes way beyond right to privacy.

 

[Removable Mind]

To overturn it they would either have to do a constitutional amendment (not going to happen) or get the SCOTUS to overturn it (don't have the numbers unless like 3 judges kick the bucket).

Don't forget the financial costs to this nation. If people who are against abortion think that our tax system is crazy and unfair now. Having to substantially enhance all of the social services necessary to support an exponentially growing population of children born to those who considered them to be unwanted - will be a profound to taxpayers.

 

[Absentglare]

Don't forget the financial costs to this nation. If people who are against abortion think that our tax system is crazy and unfair now. Having to substantially enhance all of the social services necessary to support an exponentially growing population of children born to those who considered them to be unwanted - will be a profound to taxpayers.

Don't assume that these people have well-thought out positions.

 

[radioman]

I mean, one problem is that during the course of this election, Trump just ran his mouth. We have really very little clue as to what he will end up doing in the end.

Good point.
That "Make America Great Again" slogan was about as specific on policy as Trump got.
I think Trump has the big ego to want to be a great Prez
We'll just have to wait and see how things go.

 

[Dragonfly]

When he nominates someone like Rush Limbaugh to the supreme court, yes.

Oh please. :roll:

 

[Removable Mind]

They ruled that it violated their rights to privacy and that is it. There is no right to abort.

You're stating the usual by anti-abortion advocates because there is no explicit clause stating women have a right to have an abortion. Neither is "the right to privacy" explicitly stated in our Constitution, although we know it's inherent to the Constitution and without it, our Constitution would fall.

The state can't deny the right life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The right to privacy is derived from liberty. Liberty also establishes the tenets around self-determination, autonomy, and freedom from oppression --- just to name a few.

Also emanating from liberty is something called "choice".

So your "no explicit right to abort" argument is impotent. And trying to narrow down the decision made by Justices in the Roe v Wade case to simply "a violation of right to privacy" is significantly short-changing what the full scope of the Court's considerations were.

 

[countryboy]

Will Trump, with an R congress do anything to jeopardize RvW?

WTF is "RvW"?

 

[TheGoverness]

WTF is "RvW"?

Roe v. Wade.

 

[countryboy]

Good point.
That "Make America Great Again" slogan was about as specific on policy as Trump got.
I think Trump has the big ego to want to be a great Prez
We'll just have to wait and see how things go.

You know darn well that's not true. Where has all this silly rhetoric gotten you? Perhaps it's time to rethink the stratergery, eh?

 

[CanadaJohn]

Will Trump, with an R congress do anything to jeopardize RvW?

Of course, no one truly knows, but Trump is not a social conservative - he's not a conservative at all - he's more in line with libertarians and Canadian conservatives, such as myself, who want smaller government and government out of our pockets and bedrooms. As such, I don't think there's a hope in hell that Trump will initiate any legislation related to abortion.

Secondly, as it stands now, Trump will be in a position to nominate a Supreme Court justice to replace Scalia - that replacement will likely be less conservative than Scalia, although I and other would hope he/she could be similar in thinking and application - so the Supreme Court will, virtually, remain as it has been since Obama took office. As long as Kennedy remains on the court, RvW will remain in force.

Finally, if and when Kennedy and Ginsberg either resign or die in office, their replacements may put in jeopardy the court's view on abortion depending on the status of the US Senate at the time of replacement. It's not inconceivable that either one or both will wait until the Senate is in Democrat hands before leaving the bench to ensure that, similar to Obama this past year, a Trump nominee does not get past committee unless Democrats support him/her.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Good point.
That "Make America Great Again" slogan was about as specific on policy as Trump got.
I think Trump has the big ego to want to be a great Prez
We'll just have to wait and see how things go.

If you wanted, you could go back in time to 2008 and substitute the name Obama for Trump in your statement and you'd be just as accurate. Hopefully, Trump will be more interested in the position than Obama was, but I'm not sure.

 

[Fishking]

You're stating the usual by anti-abortion advocates because there is no explicit clause stating women have a right to have an abortion. Neither is "the right to privacy" explicitly stated in our Constitution, although we know it's inherent to the Constitution and without it, our Constitution would fall.

So your "no explicit right to abort" argument is impotent. And trying to narrow down the decision made by Justices in the Roe v Wade case to simply "a violation of right to privacy" is significantly short-changing what the full scope of the Court's considerations were.

Not really as my statement was how it was ruled.

 

[Absentglare]

If you wanted, you could go back in time to 2008 and substitute the name Obama for Trump in your statement and you'd be just as accurate. Hopefully, Trump will be more interested in the position than Obama was, but I'm not sure.

What ? In no way is that accurate. Make America Great Again was Trump's slogan.

 

[JANFU]

They claim that that is on the agenda. But the problem they'll encounter is the Constitution itself. Roe v Wade was an admission by government that it had been Constitutionally denying women their right to abort since 1868, when the 14th Amendment was established. And the language contained in the 14th reaches into other Amendments. So women's right to abort are enmeshed with several Amendments - trying to overturn it will violate both equal protection under the law and due process under the law, not to mention unjustly denying liberty that includes the right to privacy.

Ginsburg on R v W womans right to privacy versus a woman's right
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Offers Critique of Roe v. Wade During Law School Visit | University of Chicago Law School

“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”

In his introduction for Ginsburg, Schill spoke of her ties to the Law School: Her late husband, Martin, was a Visiting Professor, her son, James, attended the law school before starting a classical music record label, and, Professor Aziz Huq was her clerk in 2003 and 2004. She’s also a longtime friend of Stone.

 

[countryboy]

Roe v. Wade.

Ah, thanks. Don't know how I missed that. Very little sleep and a few beers last night might have something to do with it. :mrgreen:

How you holdin' up my dear?

 

[Anagram]

Depends. Many of those on his short list of justices like William Pryor are critics of Roe V. Wade. Thomas and Alito would probably also vote to overturn it. However, I don't think Kennedy or Roberts would, and the other four certainly would not. So it probably depends on whether or not two more (Ginsburg and Kennedy are 80+) leave before Trump leaves office.

I don't think the Republicans can or would do anything to jeaopordize RvW outside of SCOTUS appointments though.

 

[JANFU]

Of course, no one truly knows, but Trump is not a social conservative - he's not a conservative at all - he's more in line with libertarians and Canadian conservatives, such as myself, who want smaller government and government out of our pockets and bedrooms. As such, I don't think there's a hope in hell that Trump will initiate any legislation related to abortion.

Secondly, as it stands now, Trump will be in a position to nominate a Supreme Court justice to replace Scalia - that replacement will likely be less conservative than Scalia, although I and other would hope he/she could be similar in thinking and application - so the Supreme Court will, virtually, remain as it has been since Obama took office. As long as Kennedy remains on the court, RvW will remain in force.

Finally, if and when Kennedy and Ginsberg either resign or die in office, their replacements may put in jeopardy the court's view on abortion depending on the status of the US Senate at the time of replacement. It's not inconceivable that either one or both will wait until the Senate is in Democrat hands before leaving the bench to ensure that, similar to Obama this past year, a Trump nominee does not get past committee unless Democrats support him/her.

Presently 60 Senate votes are required
They can invoke the so called Nuke option as the Dems stated they would. 50-50 with the VP casting the deciding vote.

Recall Clarence Thomas, he won with a 53-48 vote in the Senate.
No idea when they went to 60 votes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination#Senate_confirmation

In 1991, public opinion polls showed that the vast majority of those polled believed Thomas over Hill.[51] After extensive debate, the Committee sent the nomination to the full Senate without a recommendation either way. Thomas was confirmed by the Senate with a 52 to 48 vote on October 15, 1991,[52] the narrowest margin for approval in more than a century.

 

[thinkagain]

Will Trump, with an R congress do anything to jeopardize RvW?

Absolutely - so far I am the only one that voted "YES" which I find odd.

Trumps VP is the MVP "Mandatory Vaginal Penetration" candidate. Pence has made no secret of his desire to force his personal religious beliefs on others through law.