Judge Alito for the U.S. Supreme Court
It turns out that the fingers-crossed technique works after all. President George Bush decided to appoint a perfectly-qualified conservative to SCOTUS. Way to go, George. Better late than never.Meanwhile, the liberal Democrats in the Senate are spouting their tired, mindless drivel. Senator Edward Kennedy opined that Bush chose a nominee with "extreme" views. Such blather suggests that Kennedy hasn't had an original idea in quite some time, maybe not in his lifetime. As I explained in a previous post, the word "extremist" and its variations is the first refuge of demogogues.
A Democratic National Committee anti-Alito document breathlessly charges: "Alito Would Require Women to Notify Husbands Before Exercising Her Reproductive Rights." Lawyers would call this a libel; bloggers would call it a cheap shot. Imagine this: the Pennsylvania state legislature, elected by the good people of Pennsylvania, passed the law. Bob Casey, a Democratic governor, signed the legislation. What a bunch of extremists. Judge Alito, relying on Supreme Court precedent, decided that the Constitution does not forbid this legislation, whatever he may think of the merits of the policy. So he, too, is an extremist.
In 1789, the authors of the Constitution agreed on the existence of certain fundamental rights and recognized these rights in the first ten amendments to the Constitution: Congress shall not abridge free speech. Everyone has the right to religious exercise without interference from the government. No searches and seizures of one's person or home by the government shall take place without a warrant issued by a detached judge. A prompt trial by a jury of one's peers is guaranteed. A defendant has a right to counsel during criminal legal proceedings. A broad concensus clamored for the protection of these rights. The role of the judge is to apply these rights neutrally.
There is no concensus on the "right to reproductive freedom," it was a "mystery of human life" right concocted by the likes of Harriet Miers' favorite justice, Warren Burger. If those individuals who support restrictions on this right are "extremists" and therefore a tiny minority of the population, then why bother with recognizing the right in the first place? Abortion rights proponents should win easily over the extremists.
In 1973, the Supreme Court imposed abortion rights by fiat, and thereby deprived all citizens of an open and honest debate on the abortion issue. America could have reached a resolution on this issue a long time ago. Instead, Senators and interest groups now fight over who will be the justices who will make the decision. It is difficult to believe that anyone is persuaded by the Democrats' cheap "extremist" rhetoric.
posted by The Libertarian Republican at 1:09 AM
4 Comments:
Actually, I think there is a fairly large consensus on the right to abortion. My bet is that with a strict constructionist Court, the pro-choice side will become far better mobilized and anti-abortion forces will face increased difficulties in passing legislation on the state and local level.
for more:
http://alluzombies.blogspot.com/
According to the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll 65% of those polled believe Roe v. Wade should be upheld.
Furthermore, only 20% believe abortion should not be a right, 55% believe there should be restrictions on that right and 24% believe it should always be legal.
see http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
So the overall consensus is that abortions should be available at some level. The problem with that is that it is a highly inconsistent position implying that sometimes people think a fetus has a right to live and in other circumstance that right just mysteriously disappears. The hard-core pro-lifers are actually right to point out this inconsistency. My point is that those 55% who believe in some resrictions on abortion are going to become a lot more cognizant of the problems with restricting abortion.
Furthermore, the pro-choice majority has taken abortion for granted thus far because many assumed the Supreme Court would never overturn RvW.
When educated women learn more about how Alito thinks husbands have a right to restrict abortion, they are going to go nuts.
for the record, from what little I know about Constitutional law, I think Roe (and possibly Griswold) were based on pretty shabby reasoning. I don't see how there is a "right to privacy" when it comes to contraception and abortion but not when it comes to practicing medicine or dealing/doing certain drugs.
Jason, you've fallen into a trap... "When educated women learn more about how Alito thinks husbands have a right to restrict abortion, they are going to go nuts."
The Pennsylvania statute that Alito upheld dealt with notifying husbands, not with the right of husbands to restrict anything. And the woman didn't have to prove she notified her husband. Plus, there were lots of loopholes, like if the woman believed that her husband would harm her if he knew, she didn't have to tell him.
So the notification statute was pretty weak, nearly meaningless. And we have no idea whether Alito would vote for such a law if he was a legislator... he was trying to follow Justice O'Connor's precedents.
Charles Krauthammer has an op/ed in the Washington Post today that points out that the Supreme Court upheld in the same case the Pennsylvania statute's requirement that minors get permission from their parents to have an abortion, which is much more restrictive of abortion rights.
Jason, regarding the CNN poll, where are you getting the 65% number? Only 54% described themselves as pro-choice. Moreover, the poll shows that as recently as 2002, there was a complete tie between the pro-choice and pro-life position, soon after the pro-choice position had a significant lead. No constitutional consensus exists on abortion... in order to change the constitution, arguably there should be enough consensus to change the Constitution using the amendment process written in the document.
Post a Comment
<< Home