Replies

But I know he's pro-choice. The question is whether he believes that abortion is a constitutional right. I don't think he does.

If he is pro-choice, then he is a de facto supporter of Roe since it is the flawed legal instrument by which some rather ignorant justices inflicted their uninformed views on the country decades ago. We're not talking about a constitutional amendment. We're not talking about a Court decision of substance and merit. It's a naked attempt to justify, entirely without legal argument, the practice of infanticide. But it is not a respectable decision and probably has even less merit than, say, Kelo.

Obviously, The Rudy agrees with the results of Roe even if he might, due to his association with real constitutional lawyers like Ted Olson, dispute the legal particulars of Roe. Personally, I see little of any real distinction in his record as a lawyer. I think he is a mediocre lawyer turned prosecutor turned politician, a group that should never be allowed higher office. Their record as a group runs from mediocre to just plain bad.

So whether Rudy might or might not consider Roe good constitutional law, it is a distinction without any significance either in the law or in the practice of infanticide. Well, unless you are somehow suggesting that The Rudy wants to strike down Roe and let the Congress or the states enact the exact same results as the results of popular whim. Admittedly, he might do that because he is an unprincipled autocrat, dangerous to the Constitution in the same way that LBJ and FDR were.

I'm not sure I'm following you. We're not talking about Rudy striking down Roe himself, as no president has that authority. We're talking about Rudy nominating judges who would overturn Roe. And I think that's what he will do, even if he agrees with the result of Roe. I think you can be pro-choice, without supporting imposing a nationwide solution.

Well, unless you are somehow suggesting that The Rudy wants to strike down Roe and let the Congress or the states enact the exact same results as the results of popular whim.

Isn't overturning Roe v. Wade one of the goals of the pro-life movement? What would you have them do, if you think that a US without Roe will have the exact same results?