Now I am getting very afraid: A Supreme Court question

Forums: Legal, Abortion, Supreme Court
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I was watching the news last night and I saw something that sent a chill down my spine.

They had the woman who was the originator of the Roe v Wade case on.

She has become a born again Christian and she and her lawyer were speaking about making a motion to the Court to rescind the Roe v Wade decision since she was the original plaintiff and in the 'Interests of Justice' to vacate the decision.

Many who know me, know I that politically I am somewhat to the Right of Magaret Thatcher and a life member of the President Ronald Reagan fan club, but this type of thing makes me very nervous.

The question I have for the legal eagles is this:

What are the legal ramifications of something like this.

Is something like this automatic, or does it require a majority of the Supreme Court again ?

If, by chance, it was vacated (hope I am using the correct term) would the decision once again fall to the states?

Just looking for an informed opinion about this.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,474 • Replies: 16

No top replies

Interesting questions.

I don't know the answer to your questions but I will be interested in reading the replies you get.

0 Replies

just some idiot who wanted to f*#k without consequences who's now gettin older and fears hell....no dignity...no character....no respect....

0 Replies

Somebody invite JoefromChicago over here. He's the best guy to ask a question like this.

0 Replies

I was thinking...

Since Roe v. Wade is essentially a privacy law I would imagine many other decisions, not just about abortion, have cited Roe v. Wade.

What happens to those laws?

As I understand it, if Roe v. Wade is overturned decisions do revert back to each state as medical practices are regulated by the state. We've been dealing with that in Oregon with our physician assisted suicide law.

0 Replies

I can't imagine a SC decision being overturned after 40 years because the plaintiff changed their mind. Our laws would be totally in transition all the time.
I'll wait for more enlightenment

0 Replies

panzade wrote:

I can't imagine a SC decision being overturned after 40 years because the plaintiff changed their mind. Our laws would be totally in transition all the time.
I'll wait for more enlightenment

and how many other crazy, ridiculous, scary and f&#ked things could you not imagine happening pre 2000?

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

panzade wrote:
I can't imagine a SC decision being overturned after 40 years because the plaintiff changed their mind. Our laws would be totally in transition all the time.
I'll wait for more enlightenment

and how many other crazy, ridiculous, scary and f&#ked things could you not imagine happening pre 2000?

Ain't that the pitiful truth!!!

0 Replies

You know, Fedral. I saw an interview with that woman some time ago. She had the same message then as the one you mentioned. My thoughts then were that should Roe vs. Wade be overturned, let the born-agains support the mothers and their unwanted children. I have no idea about the legalities of such, but like boomer, I want to see what the legal beagles say.

0 Replies

Re: Now I am getting very afraid: A Supreme Court question

Fedral wrote:

The question I have for the legal eagles is this:

What are the legal ramifications of something like this.

There are none. Norma McCorvey, the original "Jane Roe," had her request to reopen the case dismissed by a federal district court. Not that there was much of a chance that the court would have gone along with her request in the first place. Courts rarely reopen cases that have reached a verdict/judgment (for an example, where the court refused to reopen a criminal case even when the complainant who alleged she had been raped recanted her story, see here).

Fedral wrote:

Is something like this automatic, or does it require a majority of the Supreme Court again ?

It has to go to a district court (a trial court) first. McCorvey's next step would be to appeal to a federal appellate court. She won't win there either. Then she would ask the supreme court to issue a writ of certiorari to review the lower courts' decisions. That won't happen either.

Fedral wrote:

If, by chance, it was vacated (hope I am using the correct term) would the decision once again fall to the states?

If, by some astronomically improbable series of events, the supreme court actually heard McCorvey's cockamamie appeal and vacated Roe v. Wade, then the law would most likely return to its pre-Roe status, where abortion was regulated by the states.

0 Replies

And once again the True Gentleman from Chicago comes through. Very Happy

Thanks Joe, I feel a little better now.

It still makes me nervous though, I don't know about most of you out there.

Not to re open this can of worms again and again, but even though I feel abortion is disgusting and wrong, I have no right to dictate my opinion on anyone elses body, just as they have no right to tell me what to do with mine.

When I heard this, I just got the hebbie jeebies and I was hoping that someone (I was hoping for Joe) would post and make it all better.

Thanks for the bandaid Joe.

0 Replies

A reversal of the decision would be more likely to come from a future court, with some different members, hearing a new case.

0 Replies

Fedral wrote:

When I heard this, I just got the hebbie jeebies and I was hoping that someone (I was hoping for Joe) would post and make it all better.

Thanks for the bandaid Joe.

I'm very glad that a bandaid was all it took. Usually, when I get the heebie jeebies, I self-medicate with a good belt of scotch.

0 Replies

Re: Now I am getting very afraid: A Supreme Court question

joefromchicago wrote:

If, by some astronomically improbable series of events, the supreme court actually heard McCorvey's cockamamie appeal and vacated Roe v. Wade, then the law would most likely return to its pre-Roe status, where abortion was regulated by the states.

Just a side thought on this comment Joe - If the SC managed to actually take this case on could the court review the case and decide that "Jane Doe" represents any of thousands of possible women and decline to vacate on that premise?

Since the case was filed under an anonymous name wouldn't the courts continue to see the the filer as "anonymous"?

(This is just generated from my own personal interest in the whole "Jane Doe" conept..)

0 Replies

Re: Now I am getting very afraid: A Supreme Court question

fishin' wrote:

Just a side thought on this comment Joe - If the SC managed to actually take this case on could the court review the case and decide that "Jane Doe" represents any of thousands of possible women and decline to vacate on that premise?

Since the case was filed under an anonymous name wouldn't the courts continue to see the the filer as "anonymous"?

Not likely. A litigant typically has to petition the court before she can be allowed to proceed anonymously. If the petition is granted, the petition itself is sealed (i.e. prohibited from being disclosed) but it will still remain a part of the court record. So the court can always find out who the real "Jane Roe" is. Besides, Norma McCorvey essentially waived her right to anonymity some time ago -- the courts couldn't very well pretend that they don't know who she is.

fishin' wrote:

(This is just generated from my own personal interest in the whole "Jane Doe" conept..)

So, you like your women anonymous, eh?

0 Replies

Another Legal Take
OK, so let's say RvW is overturned in the future. Several states have laws on the books outlawing abortion and those laws were never removed, but due to RvW, they have been unenforcable. When the Supreme Courts says those laws are just fine, and have always been fine (since they are saying they erred previously), can doctors who have been performing abortions in those states be immediately arrested?

0 Replies

Re: Another Legal Take

engineer wrote:

OK, so let's say RvW is overturned in the future. Several states have laws on the books outlawing abortion and those laws were never removed, but due to RvW, they have been unenforcable. When the Supreme Courts says those laws are just fine, and have always been fine (since they are saying they erred previously), can doctors who have been performing abortions in those states be immediately arrested?

It depends on how the court frames its opinion.

To give an example: when the court ruled that executions, as practiced at the time, were "cruel and unusual punishment," the decision effectively negated all of the state laws regarding capital punishment. Later, however, the court ruled that, under certain conditions, capital punishment could be consistent with the eighth amendment. Did that make all those old laws effective again? No, because those laws had to be rewritten to conform to the new ruling.

So a lot depends on what the court would say about what would be an acceptable abortion regulation in any decision overruling Roe, and I can't imagine any opinion leaving this particular point unresolved. Any decision overruling Roe, therefore, will instruct the states on how to rewrite their laws to conform to the new abortion standards. As a result, I doubt very much if a doctor could be arrested for performing an abortion the day after Roe is overturned.

0 Replies

Now I am getting very afraid: A Supreme Court question

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know