Hint: You can go ahead and cross off the liberal bloc since they obviously won’t be of any help to you

"Judge Kavanaugh wrote that “the Supreme Court’s many precedents hold that the Government has
permissible interests in favoring fetal life, protecting the best interests of a minor, and refraining from
facilitating abortion,” as long as it did not impose an undue burden on abortion access—and he concluded that the additional delay was not an undue burden."

FAVORING FETAL LIFE

https://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/factsheets/Judge-Kavanaugh-Judicial-Record-on-the-Right-to-Abortion2.pdf

"as long as it did not impose an undue burden on abortion access"

An implicit recognition of SCOTUS's prior holdings in both Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

"Undue burden" is where the real disagreements these days lie, as states fiddle with how many abortion restrictions they can get away with. Reasonable minds can differ to an extent on what that is.

But as for overturning Roe v. Wade entirely, and banning abortion from the moment of conception except in perhaps the rarest of cases? Kavanaugh wouldn't favor it, and that's not gonna happen as long as the polling on this issue remains consistent with what it's been for the past 45 years.

LOL...you really believe SCOTUS judges defer to polling to determine Constitutionality? Please stop talking.

As to you the undue burden, I left that in there for clarity and fairness. However Kavanaugh clearly states the Government favors fetal life. Yes he defers to Roe v Wade, but deference to precedent set by SCOTUS is not analogous to his agreeing with Roe v Wade. He was writing this opinion from a lower court, and he is stating the lower court is not charged with overriding SCOTUS, it's their job to adjudicate according to SCOTUS rulings.

Certainly under Chief Justice Roberts. Part of the reason many theorized Roberts voted with the liberal bloc to uphold Obamacare.

Part of preserving the Supreme Court's authority is making decisions that aren't likely to overly upset the public or be legislatively overturned. That means keeping an eye on public opinion. If the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade tomorrow, the polls suggest there would be hell to pay.

The Supreme Court tries not to view itself as the supreme authority but instead as one of three branches in our constitutional system of checks-and-balances.

Even though, as a practical matter, the Supreme Court often is the final word. And that's why I keep citing their views on this subject rather than whatever Trump said last month in full-on campaign mode at a pro-life rally or whatever.

You have no basis for your opinion that public opinion drives SCOTUS. You have now left the realm of legal decisions for unabashed mind reading.

And what does Trump saying anything have to do with discussion? This is just a blatant red herring fallacy.

I'm going through Justice Thomas decisions later to see where he would stand, but at first glance some seem to believe he would support limiting abortion, which define as overturning Roe v Wade

It is theorizing on my part: because SCOTUS doesn't cite public opinion in their decisions, and their authority would probably be shot if they did.

However, public opinion drives SCOTUS decisions, at the very least, to the extent that public opinion is translated into law via representative democracy. SCOTUS is bound to uphold those laws unless they conflict with the Constitution.

You would be correct to start with Justice Thomas, widely considered the most conservative and definitely most esoteric Supreme Court justice

You seem to be debating in good faith, so I'll hand you some of my own research on this: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-483_3d9g.pdf

A stemwinder of a Thomas concurrence from an abortion case in 2019 which begins on p. 5. Lot of interesting theorizing in there by Thomas about "eugenic" abortions, that pro-life people could have a field day with, but if you run a quick keyword search for "murder," you won't find it.

Thanks for the links. Just by chance, is that the Indiana case? That was the first one I found that came up. I haven't clicked your link, I am working off my phone.

back to public opinion...

But SCOTUS is designed to be exempt from public backlash. This is why judges have lifetime appointments. It allievates the need to appeal to public opinion where as members of elected office are availed to such whims. Should SCOTUS decide to revisit Roe v Wade it is conceivable the decision is in line with the Constitutional principle of the right to life.

Yes, the Indiana case Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky.

Thx...looking forward to that one