Advanced search

Possible next US VP and abortion

(16 Posts)
WinchesterWoman Sat 10-Sep-16 18:16:07

This is what Donald's Trump's running mate said. Sorry if you've had a thread already about this.

“I want to live to see the day that we put the sanctity of life back at the center of American law and send Roe vs. Wade to the ash heap of history, where it belongs.”

Donald Trump could win and this man could be vice president. Would he be able to be this regressive? Would this be tempered by more reasonable voices in Washington, if Trump/Pence win?

LassWiTheDelicateAir Sat 10-Sep-16 18:28:39

Seneca might be on later to clarify but aren't 't abortion laws a matter for individual states rather than a national policy?

WinchesterWoman Sat 10-Sep-16 19:34:15

Oh Ok thanks Lass - i believe his own state has some of the tightest in America already.

LassWiTheDelicateAir Sat 10-Sep-16 19:52:10

The issue of judicial appointments to the Supreme Court also comes into it. Senior judicial appointments are made by politicians and at lower level (as I understand it ) judges are elected. Hence the debates about appointment of pro life or pro choice judges.

This is very odd from a UK perspective as the judiciary and the legislative body are separate.

I hope Seneca spots this- she will be able to give a much better answer.

WinchesterWoman Sat 10-Sep-16 20:40:54

Thanks Lass. I was pretty horrified.

States may make their own law, but the federal government can override these laws, commonly by the Supreme Court finding the particular law to be unconstitutional. Roe v Wade established that states' laws preventing abortion violated a woman's right to privacy. Of course, this has been chipped away at since the original ruling, and states have found some creative ways to still make life difficult for women. But that's nothing compared to what will happen if the Republicans take the White House - the next President gets to fill an empty spot on the bench. If that's Trump and Pence we will almost certainly see Roe v Wade overturned.

It's weird because the original vision of the separation of powers set up congress to be the most powerful of the three branches: congress passes the laws, judiciary interprets the laws, president executes the laws. But more modern external forces are constantly moulding the balance in various directions: the media, technology, the cult of the celebrity, market forces, financial systems...

Xenophile Sun 11-Sep-16 14:33:30

The make up of the Supreme Court was a bit of a hot potato a couple of months back. A conservative died and Obama wanted to replace him with a more liberal woman. Much of the GOP were up in arms about the appointment, suggesting that Obama was acting in an extraordinary fashion by making the appointment. I'm not 100% sure if he managed it (I'm at work right now so can't check)

222CherryCoke Sun 11-Sep-16 16:21:45

The ways in which the VP could influence the make up of the Supreme Court would be a President with an unprecedented level of incompetence left him in charge of "all domestic and foreign policy" (that's the offer Trump's people are rumoured to have made to prospective VP picks), or if there was a tie in the Senate between the yea's and nay's in the nomination process, and the VP had to break the tie.

Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court is Merrick Garland, who is a moderate. It was a tactical nomination intended to give the (majority Republican) Senate no justifiable reason to refuse to hold hearings to confirm the nomination. There is no legally or historically justifiable reason for their obstructionist refusal to hold those hearings, it's completely outrageous and historically unheard of. But if Obama had nominated a judge with a progressive pedigree, half of the electorate would likely have supported the obstruction in the hope that the new President would nominate someone more palatable to them. At that time it was still primary season so there was a chance of a Republican nominee other than Trump. With the Garland nomination, the Senate, which has a Constitutional duty to hold hearings on the President's nominee and confirm or reject him or her, has been clearly shown up as a failure in its capacity to carry out its duties, and there's some hope that the Democrats will make some gains in the Senate on the back of people's frustration with that.

The Justice who died and created the vacancy was Scalia, a pig of a man and strict Constitutional literalist who was as regressive as they come on all sorts of social issues including women's rights, so the conservatives are all beside themselves over his replacement, as he was a hero to them. There's a sense of entitlement to have someone who reflects his views, which is ridiculous.

The new President will not only fill Scalia's seat, but in all likelihood will nominate the replacement if the Notorious RBG (the brilliant Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is 83 this year). Two other Justices are in their late 70s and 80s, so it's entirely possible that the next president will appoint four justices. Out of a total number of nine.

With Scalia gone, the court is split evenly between conservative leaning and progressive leaning justices. So the next President and the Senate are going to have an enormous influence for the next several decades on the kinds of issues the reach the Supreme Court - reproductive rights, civil rights, gun control, religious freedom (and freedom FROM religion), free speech, the legal definition of "woman"... all sorts.

Which is why is has to be HRC making those nominations... the alternative doesn't bear thinking about.

222CherryCoke Sun 11-Sep-16 16:22:59

Should have said in the first paragraph, typically the VP has no role in forming the Supreme Court at all. With a Trump Presidency though... who knows.

Bitofacow Sun 11-Sep-16 16:41:04

US VPs have little actual power and the amount of influence they have depends on POTUS.

They do however influence the 'tone' of debate.

The big issue in regard to legislation will be decided not by the Presidential race but whether the Democrats regain control of the Senate.

Altogether a lot to be concerned about.

WinchesterWoman Sun 11-Sep-16 18:08:37

Hi and thanks. The idea of 'abortion refugees' fleeing from state to state, or even country to country - as in the Ireland problem - in a country thats supposed to set some kind of progressive standard is so appalling.

Lorelei76 Sun 11-Sep-16 18:15:10

I apologise for not posting a source but my understanding is that some states have already seen many abortion provider clinics shut down and there is already a problem. So if the Republicans get in, I imagine it will get worse.

Lorelei76 Sun 11-Sep-16 18:16:22

okay here's one area that concerned me

I believe there are issues in Ohio too but I must away and do stuff off the internet...

WinchesterWoman Mon 12-Sep-16 07:45:43

Thanks. In Indiana only four out of 92 counties have an abortion provider. Women travel to Michigan. I can't stand the look on the man's face when he makes these pronouncements.

Trump has said 'there has to be some kind of punishment for the woman',

WinchesterWoman Mon 12-Sep-16 07:46:48

Cheesecake can I also say thank you for your informative post.

WinchesterWoman Mon 12-Sep-16 07:47:36

Cherrycoke! Not cheesecake sorry

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now