For RvW to be ‘overturned’, there first has to be a ‘case’.
For there to be a ‘case’ there must be a ‘wrongdoing’.
I cannot think of a way for that to actually come about.
RvW is just the Boogie Man du Jour the MSM uses for ever SCOTUS appointment................
Exactly what I was thinking. If no RvW "case" is brought up before the Supremes, it can't be overturned. At least not by them.
However, if the Dems were to run against every Republican Congressman with the same argument about reversing RvW, they may have a point, not unlike the ones on their heads. At least, Congress could introduce a law to overturn (or at least gut) the tenets of RvW.
There have been cases. The most recent regarded a Texas law putting restrictions on abortion providers. It was overruled 5-3.
If Scalia were still around and Kennedy's replacement in place, that likely would have gone the other way. Somewhat less likely, they could have overturned Roe v Wade entirely. I don't think they would have, but it's possible.
It only takes another similar case to give them the opportunity.
The way to get it overturned is for a State to pass a law limiting access to unrestricted abortions and for some stupid liberal judge or court to declare it unconstitutional.
Then the court could rule that Roe was improperly decided, just like they did with Koramatsu when the opportunity arose recently.
If the court gets 5 solid pro life justices, then States will be more or less free to whittle away at abortion and the left will either be stupid enough to challenge it or smart enough to let it be.