Replies

the reason for the timidity comes down to the principles that neither side want to debate. The Democrats cannot really defend Roe V. Wade except superficially. The Republicans who should have the upper hand shrink from debate, for whatever reason. Perhaps the constitutional rationale for their positions are not clear to their full understanding.

The rationale is politics over principle. The GOP and DEM are united as a ruling class to some degree, to the detriment of the people. A fight over a balance of powers issue might educate the people as to how their government is supposed to function.

I am amazed that here at FR, less than 2% of the posters have a clear understanding of balance of powers. The "system" envisioned by the constitution is subjected to sophistry and shallow "analysis," but never connected with what the ruling class is pulling over on the public.

So, I think the timidity is simple conflict avoidance. It has no basis in Constitutional principle - if it did, it would be discussed in those terms.

And as for defending Roe, that is the name of the case, but the rational in the case is the true power center - the unjustified adoption of the court opf issues that belong in the legislature. Again, all go along. The politician avoids being held to account for public policy, and the court is (relatively) immune to public criticism.

With regard to the reasons President Bush nominated Ms. Miers, I do believe that in addition to the belief by all that she would preserve status quo, no rocking the boat, but a play dispute so the people would feel good that there had been some fight, I am not convinced that the nomination (especially given the benefit that agreed stealth provides to the nominee) is based more on giving a favor than on qualifications.