Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

sellitman

(11,745 posts) Sun Jul 6, 2014, 09:57 PM Jul 2014

Why hasn't the Supreme Court outlawed Abortion? [View all]

They have the votes.

Are they afraid of election?

Afraid of losing a rally cry?

It seems they are all talk and no action.

40 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why hasn't the Supreme Court outlawed Abortion? [View all] sellitman Jul 2014 OP

They still aren't sure what they can get away with. Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #1

The Supreme Court cannot just ban abortion yeoman6987 Jul 2014 #14

Right, they just have to allow the states to effectively ban it. Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #24

Effectively ban it is not banning it yeoman6987 Jul 2014 #25

yes it is. Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #26

they could ban it outright if they wanted. unblock Jul 2014 #28

That would probably be seen as overreaching drastically el_bryanto Jul 2014 #35

right, of course they're not actually doing that. unblock Jul 2014 #36

Ah yes - I agree with this. They want the issue more than they want the victory. nt el_bryanto Jul 2014 #37

and they probably fear the same of us, lol! unblock Jul 2014 #38

they could have done this with any abortion-related case unblock Jul 2014 #27

That's not how it works. Roberts is an incrementalist, and cases have to work their way.... Hekate Jul 2014 #2

GOP doesn't want them to. madamesilverspurs Jul 2014 #3

This. n/t lumberjack_jeff Jul 2014 #5

K & R Thinkingabout Jul 2014 #11

It is indeed a very useful shiney object. KentuckyWoman Jul 2014 #30

This ^^^^^^^ treestar Jul 2014 #32

Someone would have to make a case lordsummerisle Jul 2014 #4

They're building precedent incrementally and waiting for the right case. LeftyMom Jul 2014 #6

What case would have allowed them to? Nt hack89 Jul 2014 #7

Has a recent case made it past the lower courts to the SC to be reviewed? herding cats Jul 2014 #8

Respect for precedent. Vattel Jul 2014 #9

You forgot the sarcasm thingy. HERVEPA Jul 2014 #10

Lol Lochloosa Jul 2014 #16

Got to change the make-up of the Court or it will happen dem in texas Jul 2014 #12

It does not always work that way. Jenoch Jul 2014 #15

Souter is a perfect example Lochloosa Jul 2014 #17

An even better example may be Harry Blackmun. Jenoch Jul 2014 #18

Souter is a good example, but a rarity now... Drunken Irishman Jul 2014 #22

They don't "have the votes". n/t PoliticAverse Jul 2014 #13

the SC is not Congress, their decisions are based on lawsuits which make their way up there JI7 Jul 2014 #19

It means that corporations don't want them to Warpy Jul 2014 #20

It's all they have to get the base out Retrograde Jul 2014 #21

Maybe because the SCOTUS can't simply pick a law and overthrow it? WinkyDink Jul 2014 #23

they don't want to ban it for rich people. unblock Jul 2014 #29

About all they could do is return the issue to the states Shrek Jul 2014 #31

'No action'? Are you saying that their decisions up to now don't affect anything? muriel_volestrangler Jul 2014 #33

The Supreme Court is not a simplistic institution that most posters here think it is. former9thward Jul 2014 #34

When Repigs held all 3 branches xfundy Jul 2014 #39

Because that would end one of their main campaign issues mmonk Jul 2014 #40