Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • historian

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 15, 2009
    3,326
    63
    SD by residency, Hoosier by heart
    So what was the vote?
    Was it 5-4 like expected?

    5-4 to overturn Roe and Casey
    6-3 to uphold the Mississippi Ban

    Roberts is the difference, as he doesn't like Roe or Casey, but he doesn't like to overturn prior decisions either, so he would have just weakened Roe and Casey again and waited for another case. He liked to whittle away at the underpinnings rather than blow them up.
     

    SheepDog4Life

    Natural Gray Man
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    May 14, 2016
    5,385
    113
    Upstate SC
    5-4 to overturn Roe and Casey
    6-3 to uphold the Mississippi Ban

    Roberts is the difference, as he doesn't like Roe or Casey, but he doesn't like to overturn prior decisions either, so he would have just weakened Roe and Casey again and waited for another case. He liked to whittle away at the underpinnings rather than blow them up.
    ^^ This ^^

    ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., and KAVANAUGH, J., filed concurring opinions. ROBERTS, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion.

    Actually, might be more like:

    6-3 to uphold Mississippi law
    5-3 to overturn, 1 to partially overturn

    Roberts didn't address whether to keep or overturn Roe prior to 15 weeks... i.e. he punted:

    Both the Court’s opinion and the dissent display a relentless freedom from doubt on the legal issue that I cannot share. I am not sure, for example, that a ban on terminating a pregnancy from the moment of conception must be treated the same under the Constitution as a ban after fifteen weeks.

    ...

    I would decide the question we granted review to answer—whether the previously recognized abortion right bars all abortion restrictions prior to viability, such that a ban on abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy is necessarily unlawful. The answer to that question is no, and there is no need to go further to decide this case. I therefore concur only in the judgment.
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom