With the Supreme Court’s approval rating slipping in the USA and only 28% polled recently wanting to see the pro-choice Roe versus Wade repealed, there will be a moment of truth coming. The Texas near total ban on abortions even where rape or incest are involved and a Mississippi similar one are coming before SCOTUS in November and December. It will be the first abortion case argued before the court since the nomination of three justices by former Republican president Donald Trump gave conservatives a 6-3 majority on the panel. Congress has already adopted a bill to enshrine the right to an abortion in federal law to protect it from any possible reversal but it has no chance of passing the Senate.
The first hearing on November 1st has a tricky Sun Mars in Scorpio with Uranus in opposition and square Saturn – which will make for an aggravated mood. The aftermath with Mars closing these aspects to exact will be rancorous and bitter. John Roberts, the Chief Justice looks discouraged and he must be worried about the lack of public respect. On the Roe v Wade chart January into February 2022 look the most aggravated time. With some cheer following in February. But the issue won’t go away.
From a previous post September 24 2020: ‘Roe v Wade was signed 22 January 1973 at 10 am Washington, DC which gives a stalwart Aquarius Sun trine Pluto sextile Neptune in Sagittarius; with an optimistic Uranus square Jupiter Mercury; and a destructive Mars opposition Saturn. There are tremors of an upheaval this year until late December though nothing would be decided that quickly. Though an anti-abortion choice for SCOTUS might send shivers of fear through the chart. Where the major debate comes is 2023/24 with tr Pluto conjunct the Mercury with a seriously rattled and insecure Solar Arc Uranus conjunct Mars in 2024/25. Tr Pluto will also be conjunct the Sun in 2024 so that looks the most challenging time.’
The SCOTUS chart itself is on edge with tr Saturn square the Uranus and tr Uranus square the Sun; with confusion following in December as Pluto squares the Neptune – and 222 is no better with tr Neptune conjunct the Saturn and opposes the Moon. Not too woman friendly from the look of that. Disappointment will be the mood and it will be internal as well as external.
See also post September 2 2021 Texas anti-Abortion.
Add On: Amy Coney Barrett, 28 January 1972, the latest Trump and uber-religious appointee, has tr Saturn exactly conjunct her Aquarius Sun now, so sobering days till mid November. Where her chart looks super-stressed is 2023/24 when she has a serious setback from Solar Arc Saturn square her afflicted Mars; and tr Pluto in a discouraging trine to her Saturn into 2024 as well; along with a deflated-hopes tr Neptune square Jupiter in 2024.
Brett Kavanaugh, another recent Trump appointee, is equally look devastated in 2023/24 with a panicky -failure tr Neptune opposition his Mars; tr Uranus square his Sun plus plus a couple of other negative influences.
Neil Gorsuch, 29 August 1967, will be jostled around in 2023/24 as tr Uranus is in a helpful square to his Jupiter but also in an explosive, insecure opposition to his Mars Neptune in Scorpio – so more bad than good.
It could be personal travails in each case but altogether it looks challenging and not progressive for the right wingers.
I don’t understand your last comment “and not progressive for the right wingers.” Do you mean it will be favorable for right wingers or the opposite?
Pretty sure she means “not good”for right wingers.
Amy Coney Barrett went on record to say the SCOTUS is “not just a bunch of partisan hacks.” Reminded me of Richard Nixon earnestly telling the public he was “not a criminal.” We found out he was!
So much hypocrisy among these supremes. Worried about the fate of RvW…they claim to be prolife yet lifted the horrific stay on Oklahoma executions. The court needs to be expanded. And no more lifetime appointments!!! Way past time for reform.
Getting rid of lifetime appointments will require a constitutional amendment.
And given the partisan state of US politics, good luck with trying to get 3/4 of state legislatures to agree to that.
That won’t be happening in this or possibly the next generation either.
True however… The “number” of Supreme Court justices is not set by the Constitution. So a change in the court’s complement does not require a constitutional amendment, that is done by Congress. In fact, the number of justices in the court fluctuated fairly often between its inception. When FDR got opposition from the court in dealing with the depression & the Court struck down several New Deal measures as being unconstitutional. In 1936, FDR won a sweeping re-election victory and in the months following, he proposed to reorganize the federal judiciary by adding a new justice each time a justice reached age 70 and failed to retire. The bill came to be known as Roosevelt’s “court-packing plan. After the election some of the justices shifted opinions. So an “independent judiciary”? Not really right? … however certain justices do seem to be influenced by public opinion.