More. I just read the link you sent. Should have done that first. Apologies. As I see it she simply thinks it could have been better done. OK, fair enough. She did not like having to use right to privacy as the basis for Roe thinking this neglected the real issue of a womans right to choose. Well, she is certainly right there. St…
More. I just read the link you sent. Should have done that first. Apologies. As I see it she simply thinks it could have been better done. OK, fair enough. She did not like having to use right to privacy as the basis for Roe thinking this neglected the real issue of a womans right to choose. Well, she is certainly right there. Still, Roe as constructed has worked perfectly well until we got a conservative court. What makes anyone think that the court as constructed would not strike down a right to abortion as uncondtitutional given its present leanings? There is no such thing as settled law.
No worries. Though I wasn't actually talking about the GInsberg link I sent, but rather, the link I had in the original piece, naming and claiming several lib critics: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/in-criticizing-roe-sessions-aligns-with-most-legal-scholars. Including Mike Kinsley, a lib I haven't always agreed with, but who I respect quite a bit, as he's an honest man who was never afraid to buck his own side when called for. He wrote: 'Liberal judicial activism peaked with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 abortion decision….
Although I am pro-choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching. I also believe it was a political disaster for liberals. Roe is what first politicized religious conservatives while cutting off a political process that was legalizing abortion state by state anyway."
If you're against the state-by-state legislative process on this issue, and think abortion is merely a "right" that should be nationalized, okay, fine. But when the court goes the other way, and essentially nullifies it nationally, well.........live by the sword, die by the sword. Although it is now going to become a state-by-state battle. And Kinsley is probably right that the momentum was on the libs' side back then. Who knows if it will be now? But there are plenty of libs who just don't think the court had the right to dictate it in the first place. And if, for the sake of argument, we agreed that it was iffy law, it was not only iffy law, but iffy law that enabled and even helped force-multiply a robust pro-life movement, giving it a very clear focal point to rally around. Which is why we now have at least five, and possibly six justices who will now go to the mattresses against it.
Then why are conservatives now clamoring for a National bill banning it?
I also thought conservatives weren’t supposed to upset 50 years of precedent and multiple rulings? I thought that was judicial
Activism?
I’m confused as to what conservatives are supposed to believe these days.
(Honestly Alito gave up the charade when he said it was terrible law, there no right to privacy, Roe needed to be excised….and said those same arguments were ok for other things (gay marriage, etc))
Being part of this string I think Matt is on top of this pretty much. I would like to throw out the issue of the status of married women at the time most of Alitos history of a right to Abortion discussion occurs in his draft opinion. During this entire time of men pontificating about abortion being murder or some other form of mayhem, Blackstone had this to say about married women, "By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in the law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing." This was the status of women during this formative period. Does this damning inequality have a place in this discussion? Well certainly. When have women become empowered enough to speak to question of their rights as women. Men have been blathering on and on about for 250 years as though women did not exist.
Hey Scott, don't know how long you've been reading this site, but if you expect a spirited defense from me about the remarkable consistency of conservatives, you've come to the wrong place. I've written about their hypocrisy with some regularity. I was merely pointing out that it's perfectly fair to call it iffy law, since all kinds of pro-choice liberals have, too, as quoted in the links I've provided. I would agree with you that if they keep saying "return it to the states," then immediately turn around and pass a national law banning it......well, that would be a bit of a hypocrisy problem. One that I'm sure plenty of them would have no trouble getting over, the same way they seem to be just fine about DeSantis punishing Disney when conservatives are supposed to abhor the government punishing private companies for political insubordination. Though some might argue that even with a national law, the people have a more direct legislative say in abortion laws than they do through the more distant remove of a Supreme Court decision. (As of now, of course, such a law would never pass since Republicans don't have the numbers. Which is why plenty of us think this serves as pretty strong get-out-the-vote bait for Democrats for midterms, when they had almost nothing to rally around before, other than not wanting to see a Trump cult retake the majority in advance of 2024.) However, we should all be grateful that precedent is occasionally revisited. These rulings aren't all handed down on stone tablets from God. If they weren't revisited now and then, Plessy v. Ferguson would still be a going concern. And it was only overturned by Brown v. Board, after standing for nearly 60 years. There's a long list of similar decisions that you (and plenty of conservatives) were probably glad were revisited. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-short-list-of-overturned-supreme-court-landmark-decisions
That's your characterization, not mine. But let's do away with legal niceties for a moment, and make it more intellectually honest, as you like to call it. Am I going to boo-hoo if a legally suspect justification (Roe) that essentially enshrined the extinguishing of innocent children under false constitutional pretenses might be given the sword for being the crap decision that it was? No. Not especially. And not solely because it was crappily reasoned. (As many pro-choice scholars have pointed out, not just Alito's draft opinion.) But also because of what it lead to. I.E., the snuffing out of 63 million or so children. I know it's inconvenient to be reminded of them in an abortion debate, as long as we're talking intellectual honesty - the same way it's somehow considered bad form to introduce sonograms or pictures of what the carcasses look like post-abortion. But......seems fair game to me. The same way I think it's fair game to grill anti-abortion lawmakers on how they plan to strengthen the social safety net if abortions get banned. Since we ought to face what we're talking about square in the eye on all sides. You should be able to look at what you espouse. I could send you some photos from Randall's most recent abortion-clinic/remains caper in DC that would curl your hair, if you had the stomach to look at them. Holes punched in the back of the head. One eye open, etc. (They've been published. Photos available upon request.) As long as we're talking about hiding behind badly-dressed legal arguments............But if you want to further explore hypocrisy and/or get back to legal niceties, I highly suggest reading yesterday's piece from the Washington Post's legal columnist, Jason Willick, who makes a pretty strong case that overturning Roe (which remember, doesn't ban abortions - it just doesn't maintain the federal protection for them) actually makes America more democratic, not less. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/06/overturn-roe-v-wade-states-decide/ Excerpt:
"But if the court does in fact have a “structural” bias in favor of the GOP, that’s all the more reason for policy to be decided at the state level as a matter of democratic fairness. State legislative districts have strictly equal population sizes (unlike the states represented in the U.S. Senate), and there’s no electoral college in gubernatorial races. If Roe falls, alleged democratic shortcomings in the Supreme Court confirmation process are irrelevant; authority over abortion policy would lie primarily with state officials, who are more responsive to political majorities than justices appointed by presidents of either party."
This is funny. Kinsley suffers from Parkinsons. He underwent deep brain stimulation to try and improve the matter. When he came out of anesthesia he remarked, " when you lower taxes of course government income goes up. Why couldn't I see that before?"
Well written. Early people have thought a great deal about this - and cleary. In the end, here we are with the Alito opinion as many had predicted. Though I still maintain had the thing been decided differently, say on the issue of a womans right to govern the "affairs" of her own body, we would be fixing to undo that opinion also. I doubt that cleaner law would have saved it.
More. I just read the link you sent. Should have done that first. Apologies. As I see it she simply thinks it could have been better done. OK, fair enough. She did not like having to use right to privacy as the basis for Roe thinking this neglected the real issue of a womans right to choose. Well, she is certainly right there. Still, Roe as constructed has worked perfectly well until we got a conservative court. What makes anyone think that the court as constructed would not strike down a right to abortion as uncondtitutional given its present leanings? There is no such thing as settled law.
No worries. Though I wasn't actually talking about the GInsberg link I sent, but rather, the link I had in the original piece, naming and claiming several lib critics: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/in-criticizing-roe-sessions-aligns-with-most-legal-scholars. Including Mike Kinsley, a lib I haven't always agreed with, but who I respect quite a bit, as he's an honest man who was never afraid to buck his own side when called for. He wrote: 'Liberal judicial activism peaked with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 abortion decision….
Although I am pro-choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching. I also believe it was a political disaster for liberals. Roe is what first politicized religious conservatives while cutting off a political process that was legalizing abortion state by state anyway."
If you're against the state-by-state legislative process on this issue, and think abortion is merely a "right" that should be nationalized, okay, fine. But when the court goes the other way, and essentially nullifies it nationally, well.........live by the sword, die by the sword. Although it is now going to become a state-by-state battle. And Kinsley is probably right that the momentum was on the libs' side back then. Who knows if it will be now? But there are plenty of libs who just don't think the court had the right to dictate it in the first place. And if, for the sake of argument, we agreed that it was iffy law, it was not only iffy law, but iffy law that enabled and even helped force-multiply a robust pro-life movement, giving it a very clear focal point to rally around. Which is why we now have at least five, and possibly six justices who will now go to the mattresses against it.
So….
The issue of abortion should be up to the states?
Then why are conservatives now clamoring for a National bill banning it?
I also thought conservatives weren’t supposed to upset 50 years of precedent and multiple rulings? I thought that was judicial
Activism?
I’m confused as to what conservatives are supposed to believe these days.
(Honestly Alito gave up the charade when he said it was terrible law, there no right to privacy, Roe needed to be excised….and said those same arguments were ok for other things (gay marriage, etc))
Being part of this string I think Matt is on top of this pretty much. I would like to throw out the issue of the status of married women at the time most of Alitos history of a right to Abortion discussion occurs in his draft opinion. During this entire time of men pontificating about abortion being murder or some other form of mayhem, Blackstone had this to say about married women, "By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in the law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing." This was the status of women during this formative period. Does this damning inequality have a place in this discussion? Well certainly. When have women become empowered enough to speak to question of their rights as women. Men have been blathering on and on about for 250 years as though women did not exist.
Hey Scott, don't know how long you've been reading this site, but if you expect a spirited defense from me about the remarkable consistency of conservatives, you've come to the wrong place. I've written about their hypocrisy with some regularity. I was merely pointing out that it's perfectly fair to call it iffy law, since all kinds of pro-choice liberals have, too, as quoted in the links I've provided. I would agree with you that if they keep saying "return it to the states," then immediately turn around and pass a national law banning it......well, that would be a bit of a hypocrisy problem. One that I'm sure plenty of them would have no trouble getting over, the same way they seem to be just fine about DeSantis punishing Disney when conservatives are supposed to abhor the government punishing private companies for political insubordination. Though some might argue that even with a national law, the people have a more direct legislative say in abortion laws than they do through the more distant remove of a Supreme Court decision. (As of now, of course, such a law would never pass since Republicans don't have the numbers. Which is why plenty of us think this serves as pretty strong get-out-the-vote bait for Democrats for midterms, when they had almost nothing to rally around before, other than not wanting to see a Trump cult retake the majority in advance of 2024.) However, we should all be grateful that precedent is occasionally revisited. These rulings aren't all handed down on stone tablets from God. If they weren't revisited now and then, Plessy v. Ferguson would still be a going concern. And it was only overturned by Brown v. Board, after standing for nearly 60 years. There's a long list of similar decisions that you (and plenty of conservatives) were probably glad were revisited. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-short-list-of-overturned-supreme-court-landmark-decisions
Thank you for agreeing that the hypocrisy is strong.
But you can’t agree that it’s there then fully embrace it. That’s called intellectual dishonesty.
Are you fully prepared to defend the overturning of gay marriage? Sodomy? The SEC?
None of those are explicitly called out in the Constitution.
Or, just admit - you really don’t care what the justification is…as long as abortion is allowed to be illegal.
Dress the legal arguments as you will…the end goal is the same.
That’s what Alito did.
That's your characterization, not mine. But let's do away with legal niceties for a moment, and make it more intellectually honest, as you like to call it. Am I going to boo-hoo if a legally suspect justification (Roe) that essentially enshrined the extinguishing of innocent children under false constitutional pretenses might be given the sword for being the crap decision that it was? No. Not especially. And not solely because it was crappily reasoned. (As many pro-choice scholars have pointed out, not just Alito's draft opinion.) But also because of what it lead to. I.E., the snuffing out of 63 million or so children. I know it's inconvenient to be reminded of them in an abortion debate, as long as we're talking intellectual honesty - the same way it's somehow considered bad form to introduce sonograms or pictures of what the carcasses look like post-abortion. But......seems fair game to me. The same way I think it's fair game to grill anti-abortion lawmakers on how they plan to strengthen the social safety net if abortions get banned. Since we ought to face what we're talking about square in the eye on all sides. You should be able to look at what you espouse. I could send you some photos from Randall's most recent abortion-clinic/remains caper in DC that would curl your hair, if you had the stomach to look at them. Holes punched in the back of the head. One eye open, etc. (They've been published. Photos available upon request.) As long as we're talking about hiding behind badly-dressed legal arguments............But if you want to further explore hypocrisy and/or get back to legal niceties, I highly suggest reading yesterday's piece from the Washington Post's legal columnist, Jason Willick, who makes a pretty strong case that overturning Roe (which remember, doesn't ban abortions - it just doesn't maintain the federal protection for them) actually makes America more democratic, not less. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/06/overturn-roe-v-wade-states-decide/ Excerpt:
"But if the court does in fact have a “structural” bias in favor of the GOP, that’s all the more reason for policy to be decided at the state level as a matter of democratic fairness. State legislative districts have strictly equal population sizes (unlike the states represented in the U.S. Senate), and there’s no electoral college in gubernatorial races. If Roe falls, alleged democratic shortcomings in the Supreme Court confirmation process are irrelevant; authority over abortion policy would lie primarily with state officials, who are more responsive to political majorities than justices appointed by presidents of either party."
This is funny. Kinsley suffers from Parkinsons. He underwent deep brain stimulation to try and improve the matter. When he came out of anesthesia he remarked, " when you lower taxes of course government income goes up. Why couldn't I see that before?"
He's a funny man. Wish he was still writing regularly. We miss his bat.......
Well written. Early people have thought a great deal about this - and cleary. In the end, here we are with the Alito opinion as many had predicted. Though I still maintain had the thing been decided differently, say on the issue of a womans right to govern the "affairs" of her own body, we would be fixing to undo that opinion also. I doubt that cleaner law would have saved it.