tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post113077643666232477..comments2024-03-25T06:39:42.081-04:00Comments on Bonfire of the Vanities: Dems dusting off original Bork playbookFr Martin Foxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-1130974759329672302005-11-02T18:39:00.000-05:002005-11-02T18:39:00.000-05:00Todd,Actually, I'd say that most movement conserva...Todd,<BR/><BR/>Actually, I'd say that most movement conservatives (which is only a semi-overlapping group with pro-lifers in general) are hoping that the supreme court would simply rule that the constitution does not speak to the question of abortion, and that it must be determined by the legislative branches at the national and state level. Few conservatives (though some pro-lifers who are not movement conservatives) are pushing for the temporary-activist-court-that-bans-abortion-outright you seem to be envisioning. <BR/><BR/>However, under the current SCOTUS thinking, the legislative branch has very little power at all over abortion regulation -- leaving the US as the western democracy with the most permissive abortion laws even though the population is less in favor of abortion than in most other western nations.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-1130884766416061342005-11-01T17:39:00.000-05:002005-11-01T17:39:00.000-05:00Dred Scott is not still the law of the land. Neit...<I>Dred Scott</I> is not still the law of the land. Neither is <I>Plessy v. Ferguson</I>. The Berlin wall came down. The 2004 election was conceded without weeks of litigation. These last two I never expected to see. <I>Roe</I> could be overturned. Then we could have an actual democratic process to decide the issue; which would take years.<BR/><BR/>Father, your prediction is already coming true, <A HREF="http://regularthoughts.blogspot.com/2005/11/ugly.html" REL="nofollow">they're questioning his performance as a prosecutor in a mafia case</A> in which he didn't get a conviction, implying that his Italian heritage motivated him to go easy on mafiosos.<BR/><BR/>Look for a bogus sexual harrassment case (a la Justice Thomas), or a foreign nanny (as in Linda Chavez' nomination to the cabinet in 2001).Sir Galen of Bristolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249011691189216258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-1130784330736861432005-10-31T13:45:00.000-05:002005-10-31T13:45:00.000-05:00Todd:Let me add this as well, about the "upcoming ...Todd:<BR/><BR/>Let me add this as well, about the "upcoming fight": I think the fight, itself, is well worth having.<BR/><BR/>Some caricature this thinking as "itching for a brawl"; and, I admit, it's only a semi-caricature: as a former, full-time political activist, I did itch for such brawls.<BR/><BR/>But here's the thing: I happen to believe that such a "brawl": i.e., a debate and an actual decision, over substantive policy, is politics at its best.<BR/><BR/>Of course, it remains to be seen if any substantive ideas of jurisprudence will be debated. But a "brawl" -- debate and a vote -- over the meaning of the Constitution, over the means and ends of judicial review? Yes, I think that's a very good thing.<BR/><BR/>I also believe -- as someone who does care about the outcome of elections -- that debates, followed by <B>votes</B> -- over "divisive" issues is a good thing.<BR/><BR/>I think elections should be about such choices; and forcing politicians to cast votes that matter, gives the electorate the opportunity to have elections that matter.<BR/><BR/>Certainly, many tactics in politics are disreputable; but forcing (i.e., through public pressure) politicians to vote for or against legislation, for or against a nominee, and then holding them accountable for that at the election? I understand why politicians don't like it; but I think it's entirely honorable and salutary.<BR/><BR/>Thus can this battle be worthwhile even if Mr. Alito fails to be confirmed.Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-1130783702356748672005-10-31T13:35:00.000-05:002005-10-31T13:35:00.000-05:00If I were to guess -- and that's all it is -- I'd ...If I were to guess -- and that's all it is -- I'd guess Mr. Alito would be a vote to gut, if not overturn, <I>Roe</I> and <I>Casey</I> and related rulings.<BR/><BR/>Assuming this is true of Roberts, then Alito would make four votes to overturn <I>Roe</I>; however, very often in history, precedents aren't overturned, strictly speaking, they are simply "reinterpreted" largely into irrelevance.<BR/><BR/>I think this would be a very good outcome. <I>Roe</I> was horrible, horrible law; and I say that more than because of its immediate result: abortion-on-demand; but also because it had so little to do with the Constitution.<BR/><BR/>Sweeping it aside, as a spurious constitutional matter, and returning it to legislatures, would, in time, be very healthy for our judicial system.<BR/><BR/>Now, as to your question: will this happen?<BR/><BR/>Nobody knows. But it may; and <I>somebody</I> has to be put on the Supreme Court...<BR/><BR/>Also, I think this matters in terms of what further nonsense may be prevented: in my opinion, the Supreme Court, in its last decision on the Texas Sodomy law, came to the very threshold of declaring -- on the basis of "privacy" -- a "right" to gay "marriage." <BR/><BR/>Yes, I think this matters. If we are to have gay "marriage," the courts should not create it as a constitutional right.Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-1130782576620430562005-10-31T13:16:00.000-05:002005-10-31T13:16:00.000-05:00Fr Fox, I can't say this appointment, nor the upco...Fr Fox, I can't say this appointment, nor the upcoming fight over it, holds much interest for me. It seems conservatives hope for an activist court long enough to get abortion off the books, then to hope to return to a mild Eisenhower/Pleasantville kind of life.<BR/><BR/>Ultimately, abortion should be decided legislatively, and if that were to happen, we'd see some middle way: early abortions for a wide range of reasons permitted and later-term procedures with questionable methods outlawed.<BR/><BR/>Leaving this in the Supreme's hands sort of lets everybody off the hook in terms of getting their hands dirty. Anti-abortionists can spend their energy in the political realm without saving the number of lives they hope to. Legislators can be wishy-washy, taking a stand as it suits their election stake. The abortion industry rakes in the dough.<BR/><BR/>Quite honestly, I see no change in the cards for America. Does anybody else who's not a Pollyanna disagree?Toddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01191406902235512701noreply@blogger.com