US Supreme Court hears case that could lead to the overturning of Roe Vs Wade

[tmmsmyth]

Surprised no one has started a thread here on this issue. There is a lot of ongoing discussion in legal circles on Twitter about it.

Justices signal willingness to pare back abortion rights

The court heard arguments on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban Wednesday.

www.politico.com

 

[Valcazar]

Given the way the arguments went, I'm putting my marker down on 5-1-3 to overturn.
Roberts isn't going to get his way with his "overturn it but make it look like you aren't doing that" approach - the new kids are too eager.
Kavanaugh will pretend that not mandating abortion bans is the moderate position. Don't know who writes the majority decision.
Roberts writes a concurrence saying he agrees with the result (upholding the Mississippi law) but not the reasoning (explicitly overturning Roe).

 

[danmand]

Given the way the arguments went, I'm putting my marker down on 5-1-3 to overturn.
Roberts isn't going to get his way with his "overturn it but make it look like you aren't doing that" approach - the new kids are too eager.
Kavanaugh will pretend that not mandating abortion bans is the moderate position. Don't know who writes the majority decision.
Roberts writes a concurrence saying he agrees with the result (upholding the Mississippi law) but not the reasoning (explicitly overturning Roe).

A hundred years backwards.

 

[tmmsmyth]

One of the implications I believe beyond the United States is I think the Supreme Court of Canada which has moved as far to the left post Morgantaler under Justice Dickson as the SCOTUS has moved to the right might be inclined to lay down some markers in front of Canadian social conservatives to let them know not even to think about bringing the abortion issue back up in Canada. On which e is easy to layout in front of the Socons would be a completed throwing out of Bill C-36 with strong notice to Parliament that given the long line of decision sex work cases going back to Bedford, the Prostitution reference, and Hutt in the 70s they never want to see sex work related laws before the court ever again in their lifetime.

**Yes I know about the notwithstanding clause in Canada and yes many people here like Mandrill think Bill C-36 is toast anyways but I think the SCC might be more inclined to just take the whole thing down in a very broad ruling based on sexual freedom and freedom of association akin to the Labaye Swingers Club obscenity case.

Where I think this is a jut punch for the SCC is the old 1997 Malmo-Levine Marijuana case i.e. Parliament and legislatures can criminalize anything they want based on paternalism and protecting "core values" looks less and acceptable to today's public 25 years later in light of the US gutting to the right to abortion. Although as Alan Young points the SCC was trying to underdo Malmo-Levine the day it was written and Bedford with it's focus on gross disproportionality comes out of the Malmo-Levine decisions(Something Young claims the SCC basically made up in 1997). Also Malmo-Levine despite ruling for the govt probably did lead to Parliament decriminalizing marijuana eventually.

 

[Valcazar]

Interesting video.

 

[Dutch Oven]

One of the implications I believe beyond the United States is I think the Supreme Court of Canada which has moved as far to the left post Morgantaler under Justice Dickson as the SCOTUS has moved to the right might be inclined to lay down some markers in front of Canadian social conservatives to let them know not even to think about bringing the abortion issue back up in Canada. On which e is easy to layout in front of the Socons would be a completed throwing out of Bill C-36 with strong notice to Parliament that given the long line of decision sex work cases going back to Bedford, the Prostitution reference, and Hutt in the 70s they never want to see sex work related laws before the court ever again in their lifetime.

**Yes I know about the notwithstanding clause in Canada and yes many people here like Mandrill think Bill C-36 is toast anyways but I think the SCC might be more inclined to just take the whole thing down in a very broad ruling based on sexual freedom and freedom of association akin to the Labaye Swingers Club obscenity case.

Where I think this is a jut punch for the SCC is the old 1997 Malmo-Levine Marijuana case i.e. Parliament and legislatures can criminalize anything they want based on paternalism and protecting "core values" looks less and acceptable to today's public 25 years later in light of the US gutting to the right to abortion. Although as Alan Young points the SCC was trying to underdo Malmo-Levine the day it was written and Bedford with it's focus on gross disproportionality comes out of the Malmo-Levine decisions(Something Young claims the SCC basically made up in 1997). Also Malmo-Levine despite ruling for the govt probably did lead to Parliament decriminalizing marijuana eventually.

Enjoyable video.

4 observations:

1. The video is from 2012. Needs an update.
2. It's always an interesting choice when a law school invites a speaker from a "competitor" law school.
3. This lecture is from a time when when liberals were libertarian, not authoritarian.
4. That moot lecture theater looks like it hadn't been updated in decades.

 

[drlove]

Interesting video.

One of the implications I believe beyond the United States is I think the Supreme Court of Canada which has moved as far to the left post Morgantaler under Justice Dickson as the SCOTUS has moved to the right might be inclined to lay down some markers in front of Canadian social conservatives to let them know not even to think about bringing the abortion issue back up in Canada. On which e is easy to layout in front of the Socons would be a completed throwing out of Bill C-36 with strong notice to Parliament that given the long line of decision sex work cases going back to Bedford, the Prostitution reference, and Hutt in the 70s they never want to see sex work related laws before the court ever again in their lifetime.

**Yes I know about the notwithstanding clause in Canada and yes many people here like Mandrill think Bill C-36 is toast anyways but I think the SCC might be more inclined to just take the whole thing down in a very broad ruling based on sexual freedom and freedom of association akin to the Labaye Swingers Club obscenity case.]

When do you expect this to occur?

 

[mandrill]

Enjoyable video.

4 observations:

1. The video is from 2012. Needs an update.
2. It's always an interesting choice when a law school invites a speaker from a "competitor" law school.
3. This lecture is from a time when when liberals were libertarian, not authoritarian.
4. That moot lecture theater looks like it hadn't been updated in decades.

Well, you're right on #4. 1 out of 4 isn't bad for you.

 

[Dutch Oven]

Well, you're right on #4. 1 out of 4 isn't bad for you.

I was wondering if you were going to reply. However, once again, you don't disappoint. Always failing to notice the most important detail! This is why you never get boring to me. LOL!