this almost feels like an "old" issue, but i've been thinking about it for some time, and my reading cases for my Fed Courts class continues to solidify my prediction:

The Supreme Court will summarily dismiss the efforts of the South Dakota legislature in prompting a reconsideration of Roe v. Wade and the constitutionality of the underlying idea that a woman's right to choose is protected.

I believe the the Court is historically offended by such outright defiance to its decisions. i think that one example of that is Congress' attempt to override the Courts' decision in Employment Division v. Smith by passing the Religious Freedoms Restoration Act. That was struck down. I am reading several cases where legislative actions designed to usurp the Court has been smacked down - over and over.

South Dakota (or any other abortion opponents) did not need an outright ban in order to prompt reconsideration of Roe v. Wade. Casey, in 1992, did not involve a state's outright ban, and it was a wholesale reconsideration of a woman's right to choose. Considering that lesser action was required to bring the issue before the Supreme Court, i do not think that this blatant defiance is going to be smiled upon.

My optimism does not come from a belief that the Supreme Court as it exists today feels any sort of commitment to a woman's right to choose -- i beleive the opposite. However, I do think that the traditionalism and the respect for the institution of the Court that is held by the most conservative members will save the right to choose through this recent manufactured challenge by South Dakota.

posted by Zuska @ 7:42 PM

1 Comments:

At Thursday, April 06, 2006 2:15:00 PM, Anonymous said…

I wish I had your optimism. You may be on to something, that this court will be too arrogant in its hold on its power to allow such usurption. But it flies in the face of their desired outcome to smack it down... It will be interesting to see how they resolve their dilemna