Posted on 11/09/2004 7:24:19 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
The best thing that could happen to the Democratic Party is for the Supreme Court to reverse Roe v. Wade. Liberal judicial activism in general - and Roe in particular - is the biggest gift the Republican Party has ever gotten.
Because of Roe, three generations of Republican politicians have had the luxury of posturing about their opposition to legalized abortion, without ever having to pay the price for that opposition.
If Roe is reversed, abortion will be outlawed in some states - although in fewer than either pro-life or pro-choice activists imagine. But an almost certain side effect of such laws will be a massive backlash against the right wing of the Republican Party, led by moderate swing voters who are willing to vote Republican as long as the party's opposition to legalized abortion remained a matter of theory rather than practice.
A similar dynamic applies to other battlegrounds in the culture wars, such as school prayer. Millions of suburbanites are willing to vote for candidates who promise to cut their taxes and put God back into the schools - as long as only the first promise gets kept.
But if the Supreme Court swings far enough to the right to allow the Republican Party to enact the legislative program its platform claims to endorse, the fundamental split in the party between cultural conservatives and libertarians - roughly speaking between those who worship God and mammon - would soon yawn wider than the Grand Canyon.
Nothing would appall the Bush administration more than the prospect of having to actually keep its promises to the 15 million voters who listed "moral values" as their main reason for re-electing the president.
Country club Republicans favor talk of "moral values" to exactly the extent such talk doesn't interfere with maximizing stock market values. Thus, liberal judicial decisions that take contentious moral issues out of the legislative arena are a veritable godsend to those who profit (quite literally) from the support of cultural conservatives. Such decisions ensure this support doesn't need to be repaid with political actions that would alienate swing voters.
This is why progressives ought to be furious with the Massachusetts supreme court for legalizing gay marriage. That idiotic decision probably did more to ensure the re-election of George W. Bush than any other single factor in the 2004 presidential race.
Indeed, the recent rapid movement toward equal treatment of same-sex couples in America will, if anything, be impeded by liberal judges who take matters into their own hands. The anti-abortion movement created by Roe would not even exist today if abortion laws had been liberalized democratically, as was already happening when the Supreme Court cut short the democratic process.
In other words, at this point it's actually in the long-term interest of liberals if the Supreme Court pursues an activist right-wing agenda.
When soccer moms suddenly realize that voting Republican means getting into bed with NASCAR dads, the fragile alliance that holds together the 51 percent of the voting public that cast their ballots for President Bush will fall apart.
It will be interesting to see if liberals rediscover the virtues of federalism, and conservatives forget them. With Republicans consolidating their hold on all branches of the federal government, it should suddenly become easy for liberals to appreciate why it isn't necessarily a good thing for California and Utah to be governed by uniform, federally mandated laws.
Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, conservatives with their hands on the levers of federal executive, legislative and judicial power are no less likely to abuse that power than were their liberal predecessors, who gave America uniform, federally mandated abortion laws.
I agree with the writer. The Republicans should be able to put forth their agenda without obstructionism. Isn't that the whole point?
What is he - nuts??? Let's do it and see what happens! A more moral country as a whole, leading to even greater prosperity because the country is walking the walk, not just talking the talk of morality. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think those "soccer moms" who voted for Clinton are now the "security moms" who voted for Bush and are married to the "Nascar dads" and have been for the last 10 years. Do it!
Apart from the issue of abortion itself, I am still stunned at how LITTLE people know about our government and how it works. Millions and millions of people literally think that nine judges (or, really, five) on the Supreme Court get to decide "whether or not abortion is legal." I have tried to educate people in discussions about this, by making it clear that the Court does NOT decide if "something is a good idea or not," but rather whether a law enacted by the legislature is in violation of another law or of the Constitution. I ask the simplest of questions: "You don't want judges MAKING laws, do you? Shouldn't the legislature do that? Judges are just supposed to INTERPRET the law." DUH. Again, I hate to sound "elitist," but if people don't understand the basics of what the judges are SUPPOSED to do, it will be difficult to counter much of the "propaganda" being thrown out there.
PS I always trow this one in" "Judicial Activism gave us Plessy v Ferguson (the decision basically giving legal approval to segregation)."
Then why are the baby-killing demonrats filibustering judicial nominees? This article is senseless.
Ending Roe v Wade will not stop one single abortion. Anyone who wants one will always obtain one.
If "soccer moms suddenly realize that voting Republican means getting into bed with NASCAR dads," their response might be, "What have I been missing all these years?"
No, no, you're right.
It isn't elitism to expect people to read a document smaller than most books in the Bible.
I do know what you mean. I guess I should have said "what judges are supposed to decide." Of course I am familiar with judicial activism. I just didn't articulate it well in my post.
I just wish much more of the country understood the Court's intended role, vs what it has too often become.
Again, as an abstraction, away from abortion or any other context: a law can be a stupid, unpopular law, but that does not make it unconstitutional. But when a court strikes down a law (wrongly) on a "Constitutional" basis, many people just decide they like the decision based on their dislike of the particular law in question, and don't see the greater harm being done.
Hope that was clearer. I fear it wasn't! My just desserts for trying to cram posts in between conference calls at work.
Thanks. I also posted again on this (#12 on thread). People really need to have some understanding of how things are supposed to work.
Whatever they are putting in their koolaid these days has to be a controlled substance.
It is worth noting, though, that when a party puts through major changes, it loses its issues, and may have to live with minority status for some time afterwards. This happened with the Democrats after Roosevelt and Johnson, and with Britain's Tories after Thatcher. It's worthwhile if it will put America back on a moral basis, but it takes some maturity to understand that and to pay the price.
It would represent a return to respect for Constitutional law which would be tremendous IMO.
Myth. Pure and simple.
If the "pro-choice" crowd could liberalize abortion laws democratically, i.e., put the issue directly before voters, they would have done so a long, long time ago.
They can't. That's why they use the back-door method of judicial legislation, a favorite tactic of the left.
If they did try and put this to a pleblicite, they'd lose consistently about 70 - 30.
Another lame attempt by that crowd to rewrite history.
CA....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.