Alito and Roe v Wade
Sitting in the airport lounge in Newark (I'll be here another 4 hours if anyone wants to join me for a beer) I'm thinking about whether Alito really holds the key swing vote to overturning Row v Wade. Here's how I think the vote would go:
Roberts For
Scalia For
Stevens Against
Alito For
Thomas For
Breyer Against
Souter Against
Ginsberg Against
Kennedy Against
Thomas could go either way but I'll dump him in the "For" bucket. All in all not that much for democrats to worry about. Do I have this all wrong?
Roberts For
Scalia For
Stevens Against
Alito For
Thomas For
Breyer Against
Souter Against
Ginsberg Against
Kennedy Against
Thomas could go either way but I'll dump him in the "For" bucket. All in all not that much for democrats to worry about. Do I have this all wrong?
posted by mochi at 6:23 PM
11 Comments:
Mochi,
I know that Roe is often the sacred cow of liberals, but I have many liberal lawyer and judge friends that recognize it for what it is--bad law. It was an unconstitutional ruling. If people want abortion rights, then they need to get them the same way that everyone else gets rights and that is through proper legislation. The role of the Supreme Court is to guarantee Constitutionalal rights, not make them up. As your BRIGHT liberal lawyer friends and they will confirm this.
-Jack
Liberal lawyer friends? I have a conservative lawyer friend and a liberal lawyer-in-training friend. Will they do?
It's not at all unconstitutional. What part of the constitution protects non-viable embryonic cells against the rights of a living breathing woman?
None, Mochi. THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT! There is no basis for a CONSTITUTIONAL RULING on this issue, therefore it is the jurisdiction of the legislative branch. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives a woman the right to abort, there is nothing in the Constitution that compels her to give birth. It is NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE, and therefore, NOT A SUPREME COURT ISSUE. I can't believe with as simple a concept as this is, there are still intelligent people in the United States that can't grasp it.
Oh well...
-Jack
P.S. The left will learn to regret judicial activism just as much as the right--wait till the tide turns and the left feels the bite of judicial tyranny. I don't accept it from the left or the right, and no one in these United States that understands law and the seperation of powers would either.
It really is bad law. What stikes me most about the debate is the red herring that there is not "right of privacy" in the Constitution. Duh. That, of course, does not mean there is no right to privacy. Of course there is. The Bill of Rights, and the rest of the Amendments, was not meant to be an exclusive, all-inclusive, listing of our rights. Do you see a right to travel anywhere in the Constitution? Would you argue that you have no right to get on a highway and drive to your neighboring city or state to visit family? Of course not.
The fact is, the right to privacy has nothing to do with the legality of abortion. Liberals see the issue as one of "non-viable embryonic cells against the rights of a living breathing woman". Of course, those of us opposed to abortion feel the real issue is whether a woman has the right to end a human life developing inside her. But that isn't what this post is about, or where we should take it.
The fact remains that this case was poorly decided. It should be dumped on the ash heap of history and the individual state legislators should take up the issue. I think that will be how Roe is overturned, it will simply be deemed an issue which the Federal courts cannot reach and returned to the States.
Marshall is dead! I suggest you research your posts before you cite dead justices as voting to overturn case law. Just a thought. Marshall could go either way? Huh? And you left out a clear opponent to Roe v. Wade, Clarence Thomas. How you could confuse Marshall Brennan or Thurgood Marshall for Clarence Thomas blows my mind. Do your research.
Regarding the case being overturned, that would be great. Unfortunately, all Roberts and Scalia will do is add one vote to the conservative side. Abortion opinions will shift from 6-3 decisions to 5-4; unborn children still lose. Liberal issues like affirmative action and imminent domain to benefit government (Kelo v New London) will shift from 6-3 liberal majorities to 5-4. Only if Ginsberg or Stevens retire and Bush replaces one of these with a strict constructionist will any real progress be made.
One more thing: It's Roe, not Row.
You are right and right, I meant Thomas not Marshall, in the airport I forgot his name. My bad. I modified the post, the name was wrong, my assertion isn't.
As far as Roe, you are right again. That must make you feel good.
So when Roe v Wade is overturned and a case comes up to challenge the right to abortion are you guys going to contend that abortion is a constitutional issue?
Good job correcting the misstatements. Sadly, I am sure you would see just as many errors on my posts when in the same situation, and I apologize if my comments were a bit sharp.
Although my views are clear (abortion is not a constitutional right), I do not believe we will ever see the day when Roe v. Wade is overturned. The Iraq war has alientated most moderates, and Bush has lost the support he needs to nominate another conservative. I also suspect that 2008 will see a democrat elected to the presidency, and absent Ginsberg or Stevens retiring or dieing before then, that means a Dem will make the next nomination. Thus, Roe v. Wade will stand via a precarious 5-4 majority, and such a majority will be solidified with the next administration (Hillary Clinton?).
What do you think?
I think it's time for a new party. I'm sick of republicans pretending to be shocked everytime a democrat questions the progress of the war and I'm equally sick of democrats pretending they didn't vote for it. Meanwhile the budget continues be blown out by both the war and hurricane clean-up.
Watching Mehlman on MTP I had to hold back vomiting when he said they had cut the budget deficit by 100 billion. That number excludes the spending on Iraq Afghanistan and Katrina.
Give me a fiscally conservative candidate that won't ignore national issues and I'd vote for them; Republican or Democrat. But most likely neither.
Mochi,
I know we're getting off the subject a bit, but the Iraq war and disaster relief is chump change compared to what social spending will become at the current rate. Baby boomers who are now voting every entitlement in the books are going to bankrupt this nation.
-Jack
Half a trillion doesn't seem like chump change to me.
Post a Comment
<< Home