Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
So your two hidden anti Roe sitting members are Kennedy and Rehnquist?
|
Rehnquist is one. Believe me, I'm distant enough from the Court that I base my thoughts on what I read... and a lot of that was back when I had time to read stuff other than the papers. Which is to say, I wasn't thinking "Rummy? Stimpy?, dammit... what's his name agin?". Rather, just that there was a close case not so long ago that almost did it.
I'm assuming the 4th dissenter in Casey has since retired, but I can't remember who it was and who the replacement is.
Kennedy is a wild card. Seriously, I think one could envision that him and one or two others just want the solid numbers and the solid rationale in-place to overturn Roe. Not because they think Roe was right in the first place, but because they don't like overturning precedent, and they don't (editorial comment: and shouldn't) want to zigzag on this and appear like they are appeasing a political constituency.
So, what I think gets this done is:
1.) Enough time to make it something other than politically reactive;
2.) 5 people to sign onto a single opinion that says "this ain't none of our business, and never was" (as compared to multiple concurrences that make it seems like nobody really agrees on the law);
3.) and a plausible rationale for overturning and discrediting precedent... mebbe viability or sumthing.
I'm comfortable with 1 and 2, and a little sketchy on what they would use for 3.
But I'm comfortable that nobody in those robes can offer a coherent defense of an incoherent opinion.
Hello
