How likely is it that Roe v. Wade will be overturned by Trump's appointed judges?

Feel free to add any commentary to go along with your vote as well.

Trump would need to replace not just Scalia, but also Ginsberg and/or Kennedy.

And then a case would have to make it's way up.

So... unlikely.

cpwill said:

Trump would need to replace not just Scalia, but also Ginsberg and/or Kennedy.

And then a case would have to make it's way up.

So... unlikely.

Click to expand...

Agreed. And even if he does replace all three of those judges, I don't think there's any way in hell they would overturn it.

Josie said:

Feel free to add any commentary to go along with your vote as well.

Click to expand...

I'd bet the farm it's not going to happen. I think certain restrictions time-wise may be found constitutional, but the whole enchilada? Not going to happen.

If he replaces Ginsburg and Kennedy/Breyer then I do think they'd have the votes for it if Trump stays true to his stated philosophy of appointing judges. And then it would be overturned if a case made it to them. A lot of ifs there.

Bigger chance than marriage equality being overturned. A real possibility, but not by any means a probability.

Never going to happen.

Anagram said:

If he replaces Ginsburg and Kennedy/Breyer then I do think they'd have the votes for it if Trump stays true to his stated philosophy of appointing judges. And then it would be overturned if a case made it to them. A lot of ifs there.

Bigger chance than marriage equality being overturned. A real possibility, but not by any means a probability.

Click to expand...

Overturning gay marriage would go against what Trump believes. I don't think he'll nominate judges who would do that.

One has to remember that Trump, until he miraculously/conveniently became a conservative, was a liberal Democrat who supported abortion rights. While his Supreme Court pick, and perhaps picks in the future, will be less social liberal renegades who believe it's their right to legislate from the bench than they would have been had Clinton won, they will, nonetheless, likely not be conservative constitutional originalist like Scalia. As such, it's not likely that there will ever be any significant reversal.

cpwill said:

Trump would need to replace not just Scalia, but also Ginsberg and/or Kennedy.

And then a case would have to make it's way up.

So... unlikely.

Click to expand...

I think it would take even more than just those two Justices. Also, the case would have to be the right case to challenge the right to privacy found in Roe. That makes it almost impossible. Add further restrictions? Maybe. Overturn Roe? As close to being able to saying never, as one could get, IMHO.

Josie said:

Overturning gay marriage would go against what Trump believes. I don't think he'll nominate judges who would do that.

Click to expand...

He says wants to nominate originalist pro-life judges. I think the vast majority of those would also disapprove of the Obergefell decision. However, precedent that recent is especially strong and like I said, I still don't think that they would overturn, and I can't even begin to imagine how a case would make it there.

Roe v. Wade being overturned is much more likely than that, but still not near 50%.

CanadaJohn said:

One has to remember that Trump, until he miraculously/conveniently became a conservative, was a liberal Democrat who supported abortion rights. While his Supreme Court pick, and perhaps picks in the future, will be less social liberal renegades who believe it's their right to legislate from the bench than they would have been had Clinton won, they will, nonetheless, likely not be conservative constitutional originalist like Scalia. As such, it's not likely that there will ever be any significant reversal.

Click to expand...

Yep -- those "New York values". The guy isn't a conservative at all.

Looks like we're pretty unanimous Trump is ass-out if this was a goal of his within first term... which he's not likely to outlast.

While it's highly unlikely that Roe will be overturned we may well see funding for abortion providers cut from the budget.

My take on this in simplest terms.... the first SCOTUS appointment will replace SCALIA- a pro life justice who in 1989 was a dissenting vote when the court upheld Roe v. Wade. That means that essentially the Supreme Court would remain the same in its make up in January as it was in January of last year. There is no changing of the balance of the court... the balance that has continued to uphold the law since 1979.

Trump has no interest in overturning Roe v. Wade or Obergfell (which by the way Scalia was on the court for that too). He says he is pro life- and he might be. But it is not a priority.

CanadaJohn said:

One has to remember that Trump, until he miraculously/conveniently became a conservative, was a liberal Democrat who supported abortion rights. While his Supreme Court pick, and perhaps picks in the future, will be less social liberal renegades who believe it's their right to legislate from the bench than they would have been had Clinton won, they will, nonetheless, likely not be conservative constitutional originalist like Scalia. As such, it's not likely that there will ever be any significant reversal.

Click to expand...

If he sticks to his list they will be. And he's said he will so many times, and so recently, I feel like that's a promise it would be hard for even him to back out of.

Josie said:

Feel free to add any commentary to go along with your vote as well.

Click to expand...

It'll be like trying to bring back segregation.

Not only not likely, pretty close to zero.

CanadaJohn said:

One has to remember that Trump, until he miraculously/conveniently became a conservative, was a liberal Democrat who supported abortion rights. While his Supreme Court pick, and perhaps picks in the future, will be less social liberal renegades who believe it's their right to legislate from the bench than they would have been had Clinton won, they will, nonetheless, likely not be conservative constitutional originalist like Scalia. As such, it's not likely that there will ever be any significant reversal.

Click to expand...

I read that Senator McCain (of all people) was pushing for Ted Cruz to be nominated for the seat left open by Scalia's death, but I can't find it on Google right now.

Lutherf said:

While it's highly unlikely that Roe will be overturned we may well see funding for abortion providers cut from the budget.

Click to expand...

Now, that has a much higher level of possibility, with Trump not vetoing a budget bill that comes his way defunding Planned Parenthood, as an example, if it should make it past the Senate.

He's also likely to accept any legislated changes to the ACA that remove any doubt that a religious entity has to fund contraceptives or other reproductive services.

Josie said:

Feel free to add any commentary to go along with your vote as well.

Click to expand...

Not likely at all really. And Im going on assuming you mean completely overturned basically.

There's so much precedent out there that it would take a ton of attempts at cases. Those cases would have to actually be heard and somehow the rulings in the lower courts would have to go against the precedent. Then after enough of those if a single case didn't just climb the ladder and get overturned multiple wins would have to happen in the lower courts and in different US district courts to cause a split. Then SCOTUS would step in and again have to go against precedent. I really dont see that happening but I guess anything is possible.

I do however see the process to overturn the many ****ty state laws taking longer . . . I think we have had 3 groups in the last 2-3 years of state(s) laws that have tried to dishonestly back door abortion laws and to eventually lose. That process may take longer based on possible attitudes but overall it would still be a pretty long process.

Also IMO any social issues are only going to be slowed down or run into speed bumps under trump IF AT ALL. Anything major like overturning RvW or taking away equal rights for Americans or making illegal discrimination legal would only open the flood gates in the opposite directions and the next mid term elections would show that and then in the next presidential election trump would be one and done.

Some of his stated policies (though he flip flops so much) are a concern and a valid one but im not really worried about Rvw disappearing or equal rights for marriage just vanishing.

Lutherf said:

While it's highly unlikely that Roe will be overturned we may well see funding for abortion providers cut from the budget.

Click to expand...

Permanent codification of the Hyde Amendment, and then a pulling of all federal funding from the budget for abortion providers given that all money is fungible. I can see that happening.

Anagram said:

If he sticks to his list they will be. And he's said he will so many times, and so recently, I feel like that's a promise it would be hard for even him to back out of.

Click to expand...

It's possible - I just don't see it. His campaign was a fraud in so many ways. Of course, his campaign and the results were also a surprise in so many ways. If this had been President Ted Cruz, I'd say yes, definitely possible, but there's nothing in Trump's past to suggest he's to the right of the two Bush's and Ronald Reagan.

If it's so unlikely, why does Trump (or any conservative president) plan to only select pro-life judges? What's the purpose in that if not to one day overturn Roe v. Wade? Why that litmus test?

Assuming Trump gets 2 or more SCOTUS appointments, I would say it will be fairly likely to be either overturned or at least limited enough to overturn it for all practical purposes.

Put yourself in the shoes of someone that is strongly pro-life. If you are strongly pro-life, you think that abortion is murder. You believe that the more than 50 million abortions since 1973 in the United States is a moral stain on the nation that is comparable to chatel slavery and as evil as the Holocaust.

So here you have it, 3 SCOTUS judges in their 80s, a Republican House, Senate, and Presidency. This is probably the only chance in your entire life to overturn Roe V. Wade. The only chance in your entire life for what you see as the horror of nationwide legal abortion to end. I somehow doubt that you would accept anything less than the nomination of judges that are comitted to overturning Roe V. Wade, and you will do everything possible to ensure that the Republican Congress passes laws that conflict enough with Roe V. Wade that it has to go to the federal courts, and you will have the greatest legal minds in the pro-life movement doing everything humanly possible to get before the Supreme Court.

That is exactly what is going to happen.

Beaudreaux said:

I read that Senator McCain (of all people) was pushing for Ted Cruz to be nominated for the seat left open by Scalia's death, but I can't find it on Google right now.

Click to expand...

McCain wants him out of the Senate, so that makes sense. Cruz would be similar in temperament to Scalia, but it's hard for me to imagine Trump rewarding Ted Cruz, after the primary campaign and the personal nature of the attacks on both sides. Trump seems like a spiteful man to me.