Why hasn't the Supreme Court outlawed Abortion?

[sellitman]

They have the votes.

Are they afraid of election?

Afraid of losing a rally cry?

It seems they are all talk and no action.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. They still aren't sure what they can get away with.

Which I find surprising, because I doubt there is much of anything that would get us up off our asses in any real prolonged resistance. Then again they are quite well prepared in case we do.

[yeoman6987]

14. The Supreme Court cannot just ban abortion

There needs to be a lawsuit that makes it all the way up to the Supreme Court and I don't think that has ever been done.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. Right, they just have to allow the states to effectively ban it.

Which they have been doing incrementally, and those suits percolate up every year.

[yeoman6987]

25. Effectively ban it is not banning it

The do not say, "this state will no longer have abortions in the state". They pass laws that make it difficult to have abortions performed in the state with a requirement of having a medical doctor available in case something goes wrong....that is the biggest one that is being passed. But that is not banning it which is why none of these cases have gotten to the Supreme Court.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. yes it is.

That is the meaning of "effectively". For example, if the courts would allow it, guns could be effectively banned by an outright ban on the possession sale and manufacturing of ammunition. The courts wont allow that because they recognize that an "effective ban" is a ban.

[unblock]

28. they could ban it outright if they wanted.

they could find it qualifies as murder.

[el_bryanto]

35. That would probably be seen as overreaching drastically

While some of the 5 might go for it anyway, others I think would be more concerned for their place in judicial history.

Bryant

[unblock]

36. right, of course they're not actually doing that.

just pointing out that they could if they wanted to. they don't actually want to.

they want abortion to remain an option for the rich, and they want the abortion issue to continue to give republicans votes and money from those "single-issue" voters.

[el_bryanto]

37. Ah yes - I agree with this. They want the issue more than they want the victory. nt

[unblock]

38. and they probably fear the same of us, lol!

[unblock]

27. they could have done this with any abortion-related case

possibly including a case we don't really know about because they decided not to hear it.

traditionally, the supreme court prefers to wait for a relatively ideal case to clarify an issue, but sometimes they go for expediency.

and if they decided that abortion was murder, then nearly any abortion-related case would do.

the hobby lobby case would certainly be quite a stretch, but it wouldn't be beyond this court, had they wanted to, to decide that hobby lobby would be accessories to murder if they complied with the insurance requirements of the aca regarding birth control.

[Hekate]

2. That's not how it works. Roberts is an incrementalist, and cases have to work their way....

...up through the various other courts before the SCOTUS can have a crack at them.

Roberts will get there eventually, you can just see it happening.
~~~~
For many years already it has been the case that most rural women have no access at all to clinics, but that's not enough for the pro-birthers. They want it all, and if we don't elect a Dem House, Senate, and President to get liberal Justices on the Court, well....

[madamesilverspurs]

3. GOP doesn't want them to.

"Abortion" is their favorite rallying cry. If they have no record of accomplishment to run on (sound familiar?) they trot that out and hurl it at Democrats and "evil libruls" and get their base whipped into a frenzy for election day. If abortion were outlawed, they'd have to run on significant issues, and that ain't gonna happen. Not that I'm cynical or anything . . .

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. This. n/t

[Thinkingabout]

11. K & R

[KentuckyWoman]

30. It is indeed a very useful shiney object.

Lookie look at this here abortion battle and pay no attention to the fact we are bleeding your family dry for all eternity....

[treestar]

32. This ^^^^^^^

You have got it. They don't want it banned. Then what would they use as a wedge issue? They could not find a better one.

[lordsummerisle]

4. Someone would have to make a case

and they would have to agree to hear it...

[LeftyMom]

6. They're building precedent incrementally and waiting for the right case.

The anti-choicers are setting this up very deliberately by chipping away one case at a time. They cause fights among themselves when some less strategic true believer tries to force a law through that the courts will slap down (see: South Dakota every year or two,) they're very careful to do what they can get away with and not much more.

[hack89]

7. What case would have allowed them to? Nt

[herding cats]

8. Has a recent case made it past the lower courts to the SC to be reviewed?

No.

That's your answer. The concept of a right to privacy still stands as a rule of law. There has been no case to make it past the lower courts to the SC because of the precedent created by Roe vs. Wade.

[Vattel]

9. Respect for precedent.

[HERVEPA]

10. You forgot the sarcasm thingy.

[Lochloosa]

16. Lol

[dem in texas]

12. Got to change the make-up of the Court or it will happen

One of the most important things that a president does is to get to chose nominees for the supreme court. When Republicans are in, we get republicans judges, when we Democrats are in, we get Democratic judges. That is why it is so important in the coming term to elect a Democrat as President. I am sure one of the judges will probably step down due to old age or health. We stand a chance of Roe v Wade being overturned with the five Catholics that are now sitting, think what could happen if another one comes on board. I am too old for this to have any effect on me, but I don't want it to happen to my daughters or granddaughters.

[Jenoch]

15. It does not always work that way.

Sometimes a judge is appointed to the USSC and does not vote the way the appointing prez thought they would vote.

[Lochloosa]

17. Souter is a perfect example

[Jenoch]

18. An even better example may be Harry Blackmun.

He was appointed by Nixon and became one of the most liberal justices. He wrote the opinion on Roe v. Wade. I got the chance to meet him and get my photo taken with him.

[Drunken Irishman]

22. Souter is a good example, but a rarity now...

Most judges over the last 30 years hold the ideological bent of the president who appointed them:

John Roberts (Bush - conservative)
Antonin Scalia (Reagan - conservative)
Anthony Kennedy (Reagan - moderate conservative)
Clarence Thomas (H.W. Bush - conservative)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Clinton - liberal)
Stephen Breyer (Clinton - liberal)
Samuel Alito (Bush - conservative)
Sonia Sotomayor (Obama - liberal)
Elena Kagan (Obama - liberal)
John Paul Stevens (Ford - liberal)
Sandra Day O'Connor (Reagan - conservative)
David Souter (H.W. Bush - liberal)

So, out of the last 12 justices, only two - Souter and Stevens - went against the ideological bent of the president who appointed them. Even them Ford was hardly a conservative (compared to Reagan and the Bushes), so, you could make the case Souter is the only one who was in direct conflict of the president who appointed him.

It just doesn't happen like it used to.

[PoliticAverse]

13. They don't "have the votes". n/t

[JI7]

19. the SC is not Congress, their decisions are based on lawsuits which make their way up there

they don't just sit back and decide "lets do another vote on roe".

[Warpy]

20. It means that corporations don't want them to

This is a rigidly pro corporate, anti citizen court. If the corporations wanted abortion stopped, it would end and clinics close tomorrow with back alley butchers in business again by Wednesday.

The truth is that corporations don't want to lose their cheaper workers to unplanned and unwanted pregnancy followed by months or years of ill health due to a botched illegal abortion.

It's all about the money.

[Retrograde]

21. It's all they have to get the base out

They had the opportunity to ban abortions when they controlled all three branches back in the early 2000s, but didn't. Why? What else did they have to get their base excited about?

[WinkyDink]

23. Maybe because the SCOTUS can't simply pick a law and overthrow it?

[unblock]

29. they don't want to ban it for rich people.

what they have now is approaching their ideal. effectively banned for the most part in practice, but rich people can still afford the cost and the hassle.

[Shrek]

31. About all they could do is return the issue to the states

They can't impose a nationwide ban.

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. 'No action'? Are you saying that their decisions up to now don't affect anything?

That's rather casual of you. Do you think the Citizens United, McCutcheon or Hobby Lobby decisions are insignificant?

[former9thward]

34. The Supreme Court is not a simplistic institution that most posters here think it is.

Most posters think everything is 5-4. It's not. Two thirds of the decisions this year were 9-0. Justices, both liberal and conservative, respect precedent. So even though there are certainly at least five Justices opposed to abortion they are just not going to pick a case and overturn Roe v Wade on a whim.

Justice Ginsburg, who supports abortion, has said Roe v Wade was a mistake. She has said the court should have allowed states to pass their own laws, rather than the court imposing a nationwide standard. The court is not going to jump the other way and make the same mistake twice.

[xfundy]

39. When Repigs held all 3 branches

the repigs could have made it happen. But they didn't, because it's great for fundraising.

[mmonk]

40. Because that would end one of their main campaign issues

in the future and may threaten the religion/big business alliance.