I haven't been neglecting to mention my desire for a pro-life Supreme Court nominee because I'm hoping for one to fly in under the radar, but rather because I figure that my desire goes without saying. However, Manuel Miranda -- whose Supreme Court nominee articles have been invaluable -- suggests that pro-life Republicans have allowed themselves to be sidelined by the Bush Administration, and that we should speak up.
Preparing for the Supreme Court fight, pro-lifers were told by White House surrogates to stay out of the light and out of the newspapers, to be quiet so as not to scare the horses. Even before Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement this summer, while liberal reporters worked to connect conservative concern over the Supreme Court with the abortion issue, pro-lifers were measuring their words, beating each other up, and trying not to appear too demanding of the president that, in the small margins that matter, they had elected.Ever so smoothly, pro-lifers were corralled and managed, so that if the president appointed yet another Republican disappointment to the Supreme Court, it would be too late after the fact to do anything about it. It isn't that pro-life leaders don't trust President George W. Bush. They do. They trust what they think is a working internal compass. Yet there is the fear that for some who surround him "Roe versus Wade" are merely two alternative means of exiting New Orleans.
Not that I'm any sort of "pro-life leader", but I'm not sure how much I trust President Bush. He's been pretty reliable when it comes to moral issues, granted, but his prolifigate spending has made me wary in general. So, for whatever it's worth, let me throw in my $200 billion and urge the President to nominate someone who will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade on legal grounds.
Our Constitution should be construed to protect federalism, and Roe v. Wade violated that principle and laid the groundwork for ever-more intrusive government intervention into local politics. As Charles Krauthammer wrote, has any other judicial decision ever disenfranchised so many?
In our lifetime has there been a more politically poisonous Supreme Court decision than Roe v. Wade ? Set aside for a moment your thoughts on the substance of the ruling. (I happen to be a supporter of legalized abortion.) I'm talking about the continuing damage to the republic: disenfranchising, instantly and without recourse, an enormous part of the American population; preventing, as even Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, proper political settlement of the issue by the people and their representatives; making us the only nation in the West to have legalized abortion by judicial fiat rather than by the popular will expressed democratically.The corruption continues 32 years later. You could see it played out hour by hour in the Senate confirmation hearings of Judge John Roberts. Question upon question that pretended to be about high constitutional principle was really about abortion in ill-concealed disguise.
End the farce. Let the people vote.
And when we can, I will do my best to convince people to vote to protect the sanctity of life.
When Charles Krauthammer wrote: "Set aside for a moment your thoughts on the substance of the ruling." ... is precisely what many people, on both sides of the debate, cannot and will not do.
The argument that Roe v. Wade should be overturned simply because of its implications on Federalism is disingenuous... because that's not what most people say the reason is for it to be overturned. Sure, some talking heads may get on their soapbox about it... but that's not what it's about in the minds of most Americans.
It's very similar to when conservatives argue for public money to go to private schools in the form of vouchers. They say it's about what's best for the children... and then in the next sentence they argue that they don't want their tax money going to public schools because, guess what, it's not about what's best for the children when the topic is public schools. Of course, the flipside of that is people who say they don't want their tax money going to private schools (both religious and secular) say, when the conversation shifts to public schools, that it's about what's best for the children. Both sides of that debate are disingenuous.
Mark, your accusations of disingenuousness are excellent examples of what I like to call liberal ESP. How exactly did you gain this intimate knowledge of the secret beliefs of large numbers of people whom you disagree with? Might you be projecting onto them what you wish they believed, rather than having any real knowledge about what they believe?
BB: Everyone I know who objects to Roe v. Wade does so because of their opinion that abortion is wrong and should be illegal... not because Roe v. Wade conflicts with Federalism.
Ditto all of that for the school vouchers debate.
Your notion of "liberal ESP" is a saucy name for what you and many other people on this and other blogs do: speak about what the opposing side's beliefs are. So don't talk to me about "liberal ESP" when such accusations are also applicable to you with your "conservative ESP".
Mark: I don't understand. Can't RvW be both bad morally and bad legally? If so, why shouldn't I be free to argue both or either position? If I know one will be more persuasive in a given situation, then shouldn't I be free to make that argument? It's not disingenuous if I believe both.
MW: What *you* believe is not relevant to the point I was making.
When a majority of the American people link the overturning of Roe v. Wade to the abortion of abortion, it doesn't take a lot of perceptive ability to see that they're not, as Mr. Krauthammer suggests, "setting aside their thoughts on the substance of the ruling".