Sotomayor suggests Supreme Court won't 'survive the stench' of overturning Roe v. Wade

Sotomayor had the quote of the day. 

Sotomayor called Roe v. Wade a watershed decision that created an "entrenched set of expectations in our society, that this is what the court decided, this is what we will follow."

Overturning Roe could have other far-reaching consequences as well, she warned.

"I could name any other set of rights, including the Second Amendment by the way. There are many political people who believe the court erred in seeing this is a personal right as opposed to a militia right," she said. "If people actually believe that it's all political, how will we survive? How will the court survive?"

When some day a liberal court overturns Heller and makes individual gun ownership unconstitutional will conservatives and other gun owners accept the courts decision and turn their guns over peacefully because the Supreme Court said so ? 

The Supreme Court doesnt have to be objective. These justices are such sharp legal minds , they can predetermine the politically desired outcome of a case first and find the legal (constitutional ) rationale second. 

There are entrenched expectations of the people ( a majority believes abortion should be a right)  that cannot just be tossed aside for political reasons.  The Supreme Court is playing with fire. 

When the Court became conservative I knew the time was ripe for somebody to bring a case in an attempt to overthrow RvW:

She noted that the sponsors of the 2018 Mississippi abortion law, which would ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, had said they were pushing ahead with the legislation and a court challenge "because we have new justices" on the Supreme Court.

The sponsors themselves said it.

As far as Mississippi's concern for a woman's interest? Methinks they want to invent a new type of nanny-state, one where they pat the little woman on the head and tell her, it's ok, honey, the men are in charge now. Don't you worry your pretty little head about anything. What's that? How are you supposed to feed 4 children? Maybe you should have kept your legs closed

I'll tell you what: If they do this - if they say the government has this kind of control, they better be lining people up for their Covid shots at the point of a gun the very next day.

A slight bit hyperbolic, but you're not far off. I think it will certainly open the door for companies to wipe out HIPPA and use medical histories for employment determinations and marketing.

Some companies already do..Hobby Lobby is one of at least a dozen.

There  should be some restrictions on how late in the pregnancy an abortion should performed, if the mother's health is not in question...certainly not beyond viability of the fetus. This should be up to the states to decide. The idea that Roe will be "overturned" is absurd

There  should be some restrictions on how late in the pregnancy an abortion should performed, if the mother's health is not in question..

There already is!

.certainly not beyond viability of the fetus.

Elective abortions are not performed after viability unless there is health threats to the woman or severe fetal abnormality/demise.

This should be up to the states to decide

Why? Especially when there are already restrictions on abortion. The states decided pre-Roe and that didn't turn out so well, promting legal challenges up to Roe.

The idea that Roe will be "overturned" is absurd

I would hope so. But overturning Roe does seem to be every anti-choicers wet dream.

I would hope so. But overturning Roe does seem to be every anti-choicers wet dream.

I listened to the argument, last night on c-span. I think Mississippi's SG missed on some opportunities. Sotomayor, IMO, had his number. I do agree with some of his argument though, but, at the end of the day, I don't think he or the state gets there. US SG, I thought, was on top of it. 

You may recall, I'm not a fan of abortion. I can affirmatively state that Roe isn't anywhere on my spectrum of wet dreams. 

I didn't know it was on that. Might have been interesting to watch.

Well, I'll confess I'm a bit of a nerd, but it was interesting. For a nerd, listening to the argument is like watching a football game for the sports fan. "Man, they should have run the ball on that 2nd and 1 play..."

What they won't survive is the stench of the back alley abortions and discarded coat hangers if women no longer have reproductive rights.  I am betting that a lot of the people trying to overturn Roe vs Wade are the same people bitching about wearing masks and taking vaccines screaming my body, my right.

What they won't survive is the stench of the back alley abortions and discarded coat hangers if women no longer have reproductive rights. 

Welcome back in time to pre 1973.

I am betting that a lot of the people trying to overturn Roe vs Wade are the same people bitching about wearing masks and taking vaccines screaming my body, my right.

I would not be surprised in the least.

Congress could have resolved this issue any time in the past 40 years but they chose to ignore it.  While I do not like abortion myself I do think that the choice to have an abortion should be between a woman and her doctor and not the government or outside forces in any way. But I also think that this is rightfully a legislative issue that should be solved by legislation. 

Historically, rulings from the SCOTUS have stood the test of time better than Congressional legislation. 

Could thing she wasn't on the Court when Brown v Board of Education was handed down.

Of all the Justices to pay attention to,  it's no surprise the hyperventilator who thinks she's a politician and not a justice is the one the far left gloms onto.

 Kagan's the smart progressive.  Sotomayor is the clown. 

It's hard to imagine what the thought processes are of people who think they will be able to turn back the clock and get away with it. As Sotomayor said, we are talking about an entrenched expectation that has existed for 50 years. Now they are going to overturn it with a highly politicized court, and have it accepted?  I don't think so. 

hat the thought processes are of people who think they will be able to turn back the clock and get away with

That people will once again be able to decide what laws they want to live under? Just think John, if Roe is overturned, you can live in an abortionists nirvana where the State of Illinois prowls poor neighborhoods begging woman to get free abortions paid for by the State.  

we are talking about an entrenched expectation that has existed for 50 years. 

So was Plessy. People were killed over that. Does the fact that people objected to change  and were used to a rule that existed for 50 years make Brown wrong? By that logic, nothing else needs to be said to prove that Roe was wrongly decided. 

they are going to overturn it with a highly politicized court, and have it accepted? 

Very Trumpian of you. Don't like the law, don't accept it.

DO you imagine upholding it is any less of a politicized act? Did you pay attention the Oral Arguments? You have one side making legal arguments and one side (and a Justice)  making political ones. Anyone who's paying attention knows who's "politicizing" the issue.

Progressives, are barely trying to make a legal argument that Roe was correctly decided, they've resorted to trying to intimidate the Court into implementing it's preferred policy.  That's the real danger. 

Your argument equates believing racism is ethical with believing abortion is ethical. 

I dont think that is a reasonable argument. I may not personally like or approve of abortion but I can understand why many good people feel it is ok to do. 

I don't understand why people think the color of someone's skin should be used to judge them or put them in a lower caste. 

may not personally like or approve of abortion but I can understand why many good people feel it is ok to do. 

But John's beliefs are not the Supreme Court's standard.  Whether you agree with them, people were incredibly upset by Brown. The Sotomayor argument is now the worse a precedent is, and the more people want it to be overturned,  the more protected the precedent t is.  It's an insane rationale, and it's only put forward to apply in one specific case to protect a favored policy.  Sotomayor is the most political of justices, for her, of anyone, to complain about the politicization of the Court shows how shameless she is. 

The left wants there to be  Constitutional  law, and a completely separate category of law called abortion law that bears no relationship to our legal system. And the two to be completely separate. 

  Precedent get overturned, and it's particularly funny to see Sotomayor, who just voted to gut Heller, talk about respecting precedent.  

The Sotomayor argument is now the worse a precedent is, and the more people want it to be overturned,  the more protected the precedent t is. 

Wow, another convoluted comment. What a surprise. 

This "public pressure" argument is one of the more idiotic and dangerous arguments that can be made. For starters, is Sotomayor so ignorant to not understand that the same arguments can be against reaffirming Roe, given the incredible pressure put on the Court to do so?  We had a sitting US Senator threatening a revolution if it's overturned!   Roe was a political decision and because it was so wrongly decided any subsequent decision is subject to the same criticism.  Scalia exposed what the silliness of the argument in Casey:

But whether it would "subvert the Court's legitimacy" or not, the notion that we would decide a case differently from the way we otherwise would have in order to show that we can stand firm against public disapproval is frightening. It is a bad enough idea, even in the head of someone like me, who believes that the text of the Constitution, and our traditions, say what they say and there is no fiddling with them. But when it is in the mind of a Court that believes the Constitution has an evolving meaning, see ante , at 6; that the Ninth Amendment 's reference to "othe[r]" rights is not a disclaimer, but a charter for action, ibid. ; and that the function of this Court is to "speak before all others for [the people's] constitutional ideals" unrestrained by meaningful text or tradition--then the notion that the Court must adhere to a decision for as long as the decision faces "great opposition" and the Court is "under fire" acquires a character of almost czarist arrogance. We are offended by these marchers who descend upon us, every year on the anniversary of Roe , to protest our saying that the Constitution requires what our society has never thought the Constitution requires. These people who refuse to be "tested by following" must be taught a lesson. We have no Cossacks, but at least we can stubbornly refuse to abandon an erroneous opinion that we might otherwise change--to show how little they intimidate us.

Of course, as the Chief Justice points out, we have been subjected to what the Court calls "political pressure" by both sides of this issue. Ante , at 21. Maybe today's decision not to overrule Roe will be seen as buckling to pressure from that direction. Instead of engaging in the hopeless task of predicting public perception--a job not for lawyers but for political campaign managers--the Justices should do what is legally right by asking two questions: (1) Was Roe correctly decided? (2) Has Roe succeeded in producing a settled body of law? If the answer to both questions is no, Roe should undoubtedly be overruled.

In truth, I am as distressed as the Court is--and expressed my distress several years ago, see Webster , 492 U. S., at 535--about the%political pressure" directed to the Court: the marches, the mail, the protests aimed at inducing us to change our opinions. How upsetting it is, that so many of our citizens (good people, not lawless ones, on both sides of this abortion issue, and on various sides of other issues as well) think that we Justices should properly take into account their views, as though we were engaged not in ascertaining an objective law but in determining some kind of social consensus. The Court would profit, I think, from giving less attention to the fact of this distressing phenomenon, and more attention to the cause of it. That cause permeates today's opinion: a new mode of constitutional adjudication that relies not upon text and traditional practice to determine the law, but upon what the Court calls "reasoned judgment," ante , at 7, which turns out to be nothing but philosophical predilection and moral intuition.

law.cornell

We should be used to the stench from The Court of The Supreme Beings.  After all, they gave us Citizens United and stopped the vote counting in 2000.  What's to like, right?

"Supreme Court won't 'survive the stench' of overturning Roe v. Wade"

Neither would the women of America - their future would be predictable...

Barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen (when not babymaking in the bedroom)

9 and still more to come...

Thinking of buying a new car?  May I suggest.....

christian taliban are exercising their power.