Re: Roe in Danger?

I had a similar thought about an executive's responsibilities to uphold the constitution when I read about the South Dakota bill. Personally, I think a governor/executive has a responsibility to veto a bill if he thinks it violates the constitution; For example, I got quite irritated with President Bush when he said that he thought the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill violated the First Amendment and then signed it anyway. I don't know if South Dakota's governor is taking a similar course as Bush, or if he actually believes he is acting in accord with a "proper" reading of the constitution.

It strikes me that despite the South Dakota legislature's obvious effort to set up a test case for overturning Roe, their efforts could potentially backfire rather spectacularly. If the current pro-Roe majority (at least five justices) is still in place when/if the issue reaches the Court, those justices might choose to grant cert. and reaffirm the Roe/Casey "core holding" yet again. A result like that could only further solidify the stare decisis status of the right to abortion and make it more difficult for the Court to overturn Roe/Casey later on.