General Discussion

unblock

(56,206 posts)

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

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 07:26 AM

Jul 2014

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

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