Posted on 11/15/2005 9:44:25 PM PST by goldstategop
Since Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement from the Supreme Court in July, members of the Democratic left have been itching to pummel a Republican nominee on abortion. Chief Justice John Roberts didn't fit the bill, since he had never made any controversial statements about Roe v. Wade -- or anything else for that matter. Judge Samuel Alito is a different matter, however.
In a 1985 document released on Nov. 15, Alito told the Reagan administration that he would be proud to argue "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." This revelation produced gasps of outrage among Senate Democrats. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called Alito's statement "the strongest statement we've seen from a nominee on this very controversial subject for a long time," and warned, "this puts a much stronger onus on Judge Alito to answer questions on this subject."
Naturally, Alito backed off from his 1985 statements. Alito would be a fool to stand behind his eminently correct appraisal of Roe in 1985; to do so could cost him dearly. At this point, any judge who openly opposes Roe v. Wade will likely be denied a seat on the Supreme Court, despite Republicans' 55-vote majority in the Senate. Pro-choice advocates like Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) sank Judge Robert Bork's nomination in 1987 when Bork refused to pay humble obeisance to the first "right to privacy" case, Griswold v. Connecticut. They would certainly do the same to Alito if he did not at least mouth words about Roe's value as precedent.
If Alito has any jurisprudential integrity at all, paying homage to Roe will be an exercise in playacting. Roe is clearly a wrongly decided case. The Roe decision itself is not based in the Constitution, and it does not pretend to be; even Justice Blackmun, the author of the Roe opinion, could not come up with a constitutional mandate for a right to abortion. The legal argumentation in Roe amounts to this sentence: "This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the 14th Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
That's it. No justification. No explanation. The Supreme Court "feels" that the Constitution mandates abortion, and poof! It is so. After all, one provision or the other can be read broadly enough to encompass the justices' personal policy preferences. As Justice Antonin Scalia dissented in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a case upholding Roe, "The Imperial Judiciary lives."
Despite Roe's obvious transfer of power from democratically elected legislatures to an unelected oligarchy, Americans continue to support Roe when polled. At the same time, Americans show consistent support for some restrictions on abortion, particularly late-term elective abortions. Why the inconsistency?
The answer is simple: Most Americans do not understand what Roe actually does. Most Americans believe (wrongly) that if Roe were overturned, abortion would automatically become illegal across the land. That is exactly what pro-abortion advocacy groups want Americans to believe. Dr. Wendy Chavkin, a professor at Columbia University who chairs Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, for example, states that overturning Roe would force "American women … to [go] outside the health care system and [act] like they're in a Third World country."
This is blatantly false. If Roe were overturned, the people in each state would decide abortion policy for themselves. Voters in California would decide abortion policy in California; voters in Alabama would decide abortion policy in Alabama. Some states would likely restrict abortion heavily; others would allow free access to abortion. Instead of a broad national answer dictated by the Supreme Court, we would have a plethora of answers dictated by the people.
But liberal Democrats, left-wing Republicans and liberal members of the Supreme Court are afraid of the people's voice on this issue. They view Americans as benighted provincials, Bible-thumping morons. They would prefer that the people sit down and shut up when it comes to abortion policy. That's why Judge Alito will remain silent when asked about Roe: If anyone like Judge Alito ever tried to give power back to the people on abortion policy, the reign of the elites would be at an end. Then what would Chuck Schumer and Arlen Specter do with their spare time?
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Why do we not even blink when they label anyone, as they are now, who may not agree with them on abortion, as "extreme?"
IT's a tactic straight from the old Communist Party handbook: smear the opponent.
There is no such thing as 'difference of opinion' with the left... anyone not in lock step with them - or any ideas that differ from theirs , is "extreme" "dangerous" etc.
Saying a thing makes it so in the sheeples minds. That's how the left gets away with their tripe -
Just once, I'd like to see a TV news-person or commentator call 'em on it. Just once say "Why is having a different take on something "extreme?" "Maybe your take on the subject is the "extreme?""
Why The Left Supports Roe ? because they have no respect for choice or for woman’s rights, that is the choice of the unborn and the right of the unborn woman to live so she should choose to do so.
The fact that they feel the need to "protect" Roe v Wade further testifies to how absurd the decision is.
This is one of the best points made about this issue.
If one has to delicately hang on to the stupid "super duper precedent" concept to keep the ruling stand, it could not have been originally decided on sound principles of constitutional law.
If Roe were overturned. the pro-abortionists would lose support even in the pro-abort states. People do not approve of abortion on demand. They would vote for curbs on the practice. In certain locals, even in a place like California, abortion clincs would be forced to close. Something like local option would become the policy everywhere. So the pattern would be like prohibition BEFORE the 18th Amendment. On the other hand, the continued legality of abortion in some venues would continue to coarsen our views of natal life. The widespread practice of IVF, which applles the techniques of animal husbandy to human reproduction, has created a huge "warehouse" of extra embryos, simply because 1) they could not be destroyed and 2) almost no women want to be inpregnated by another's woman's children. Result: the commercialization of the products of human reproduction.
Here's my problem with the counter to the Roe argument--we should NOT start talking about our rights as limited to what the Constitution specifically states.
The 'reasoning' of Roe is correct, it's whether or not one agrees that the unborn are deserving of protection and whether or not states have the power to regulate surgical procedures or an individual's control over their body.
I think conservatives are waaaay too eager to jump onto that very narrow view of the Constitution. "there's no right to XYZ in there!" is a tyranny-supporting view, in my opinion.
Quite true, but IMO irrelevant.
The first problem is that there was no groundswell of opinion from the people nor the states to make abortion a right. If there was, a constitutional amendment was the way to go. Secondly, and it has been a number of years since I read Roe v. Wade, the written decision is horribly contorted and impossible to follow.
Make no mistake, Roe v. Wade was judge made law unsupported by the people.
The problem with judge made law is that it never has a chance to gain the support of the people. If abortion policy were decided through the state legislatures, there would be an energetic debate to decide that policy. Legislators would have to advocate one position or another and would risk losing their seats if they could not convince enough voters to support their position. Through this process, a public consensus could emerge.
Instead, the law is imposed upon us and there is not chance to hammer out the details. As a result, the electorate is divided into warring factions, with no consensus-building mechanism to bring them together. It will remain so until power is handed back to the people.
mark
I could not disagree more. The reasoning of Roe gives one person a "right" to decide the fate of another life, outside of due process. Further, Roe's reasoning removes from the public square any debate on the morality/immorality and rightness/wrongness of permitting the practice.
The Bill of Rights was designed to limit the government's intrusions on citizens rights. By enumerating specific areas in the BOR, and reserving all others to the states and/or people, the framers specifically mandated public debate and legislative decision making on issues not amongst the enumerations. Judicial legislation such as Roe turns the entire "checks and balances" philosophy on its head.
Basically, I see your stated position as saying that (by not specifically mentioning abortion) the BOR says we can't discuss it as a society. Why would we have legislatures and executive branches then, pray tell?
Is it supposed to be some mystery why the left supports Roe? Follow the money and see why.
As Roe goes, so goes the RAT party.
Ergo, Roe is the single unifying cause on the left.
The biggest piece of misinformation out there on Roe V Wade..is that overturning it will make abortion illegal.
Seriously, we have to get the word out and explain that to be a falsehood. You wouldn't believe how many "moderates" on both sides think abortion will be illegal if Roe v Wade is overturned. Once I explain that some states will offer abortions others won't, no one seems to care about the issue.
I already said(or should have said) that I understand making the argument about the RIGHTS of the unborn and how far protection is extended or whether that debate is left to the States.
My problem is that by saying States may then decide anything not listed, that anything is up for 51 percent vote to ban, prohibit or punish by THAT reasoning (It's not LISTED in teh Constitution.)
By using that as an argument, we risk sanctioning all regulation and law that infringes on freedoms not ENUMERATED.
If all other questions of rights were left to the States, why have a 9th Amendment at all? there'd only be need for a 10th.
Well said. Save for future posts.
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.