Will the South Dakota Law Trigger A Review of Roe?
Pete Williams of NBC thinks not:
If South Dakota’s governor signs the bill passed by the legislature this week, outlawing abortion except when needed to save the life of the mother, it will generate a fight in federal court, which is just what the sponsors intend. They hope their vote will prod the U.S. Supreme Court into revisiting, and ultimately overruling, its 1973 Roe v Wade decision.
But it’s unlikely that such a scenario will play out…
Among the reasons given by Williams: neither side of the court can be sure its views will prevail, and the political ramifications if Alito and Roberts were seen ruling on this issue so soon after being appointed…I think he’s right, especially on that last point. The justices are well aware of the explosiveness of a Roe review, and if that fight comes, I wouldn’t expect it in 2006…
Maybe this time (whenever “this time” actually comes about), they’ll plunge into the emanations of penumbras, and pull out the Tenth Amendment…
Most knowledgable observers say it will take two or three years, at a minimum, for this case to even reach SCOTUS. Pete Williams sounds like another MSM idiot.
RiverRat, you’re quite right that it wouldn’t be in 2006 in all likelihood anyway, due to the time it would take to go through the other courts. But the idiot in this case would have to be me, as I don’t think Williams used the phrasing I did…
All of this assumes that Roberts and Alito are “no” votes. What if the Supreme Court ends up taking it because everyone on the Court knows one or both of them is a “yea” vote? That would shut South Dakota up.
Ryan, I agree that we can’t say for certain which way they would go…I know the conventional wisdom is that Alito is for sure a no vote, but never say never…