Bush Picks Supreme Court Nominee

It's John Roberts of the D.C. Circuit. Or so say CBS, NBC, the AP, and The Drudge Report. If egg belongs on their faces, we'll find out in an hour when Bush makes the announcement.

Comments

[andy]

Super-conservative?

Big shock.

We'll see if this is true (probably).

[MikeT]

"Rock solid conservative." Who wants to take bets that that means pro-big business, anti-small business, pro big-government, anti-individual rights with a moralizing streak running through it a mile wide and long?

[Tom Crick]

After every Republican constituency the President's stuck it to--from the balanced budget guys, the pragmatists, the big integrity guys, the free traders, etc.--why couldn't he stick it to the religious right?

...Not that overturning Roe v. Wade would be such a bad idea.

[Steve]

Well, from my 5 minutes of reading up on Robert, he seems like a good choice. Conservative, yes, but best known as a smart and professional lawyer and judge. Sure, I'd prefer a libertarian, but what were the odds of that?

[Daniel]

Mike T:

It's jackasses like you that turn what ought to be an honest debate over judicial philosophy into a shit-flinging contest. But of course that's what I suspect from people who say "the Constitution guarantees my political views become law, and if you don't agree with me you're a fascist."

[Brian]

Operation Get Rove off the News kicks into Phase Two. That Edith chick they floated for a while sounded a little too libertarianish. This guy sounds like another blowdried Dobsonbot.

[JMoore]

Steve, we got lucky once with Thomas! Don't give up hope.

[Daniel]

should be "expect" not "suspect"

[dead_elvis]

To me, he's tainted by having spent so many years arguing on the side of government. It's hard to imagine he isn't going to be pro state. But of course justices are occasionally unpredictable.

And this bit from Yahoo! news again makes it look this way; at least it appear that Bush expects him to be very deferential to government:

adding that his record appears to suit Bush's desire to nominate a judge who will apply the law, as written, and leave policy decisions to the elected branches of government.

Of course I'm saying this stuff not knowing any more than what the news wires are saying. Just speculating out my ass.

[Mikey]

I'm glad to see the AP is up-to-date on the dealings of the Supreme Court:

"In the early 1980s, Roberts was a clerk for Rehnquist before Reagan elevated the retiring jurist to the top chair in 1986."

[phocion]

This guy sounds like another blowdried Dobsonbot.

Based on what? He doesn't have an especially long record of decisions to go on. He's known primarily as a super-lawyer who can argue a case as well as it can be argued. His Roe views (which will of course be the focus of the debate) are unknown, as his only statements on abortion seem to be on behalf of one of his clients, the first Bush administration.

He does seem to me to be closer to the Rehnquist mold (rather than the Thomas mold I would prefer), but he doesn't strike me as a particularly horrendous or unexpectedly bad choice. At least he is very bright and respected, two attributes that don't always come with Bush nominations.

[Alla]

MSN (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8625492/) quotes Roberts on his view of Roe during his 2003 confirmation hearing:
?Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.?

[Anonopotomous]

JMoore,

Lucky? Thomas? Are you serious?

Sure, he's solid on the Commerce Clause, but it stops there. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

http://tinyurl.com/a3o7g

[panurge]

Believe me, Bush could have picked someone MUCH more conservative if he wanted to (Samuel Alito or Emilio Garza, for instance). I found these three items in a Slate.com article, however, which may cast a brighter light on why Bush picked him:

"[Ruled] that a police officer who searched the trunk of a car without saying that he was looking for evidence of a crime... still conducted the search legally, because there was a reasonable basis to think contraband was in the trunk, regardless of whether the officer was thinking in those terms." (This, of course, could point to a favorable ruling for Bush if something related to the Patriot Act makes it to the court.) US vs. Brown, 2004

"For [G.H.W. Bush], argued that environmental groups concerned about mining on public land had not proved enough about the impact of the government's actions to give them standing to sue. The Supreme Court adopted this arguement." (Not terribly revealing, really, but still shows that his views on business-environmental battles may be in line with Bush's, although I could be jumping to a conclusion here.) Lujan vs National Wildlife Federation, 1990

"Concurring in a decision allowing [Bush] to halt suits by Americans against Iraq as the country rebuilds, Roberts called for deference to the executive and for a literal reading of the relevant staute." (I agree with the decision to halt the suits, but Bush may see this as a chance to put someone in who will defer to the executive in similar cases.) Acree vs Republic of Iraq, 2004

[panurge]

So any bets that the Dems will filibuster? It would be a better idea if they didn't. The ensuing mess would be too much of a headache.

So could Roberts lose period? I doubt it. If all the Dems say nay, plus Jeffords, Spector, Snowe, Chaffee, Collins, and two other Republicans, but that won't happen.

[Eddy]

It's official. Rove is officially yesterdays news and I'm very glad the name wasn't Gonzales, but that could be ignorance talking.

[panurge]

Rove yesterday's news? That's silly. Most of the major decisions are in the hands of Patrick Fitzgerald, and he's not stopping anything because of a SCOTUS nod.

[Devin McCullen]

Here's a quote from over at RedState:

I'm told that the President waited to make this decision and that it was a deliberate decision. The President, I'm told, wanted someone he knew, someone who would be seen as conservative, and someone who would "tread carefully" on Executive Powers. Roberts was the only one in the end who fit the bill.

[Hakluyt]

panrunge,

Roberts (like a lot of conservatives) doesn't like the court getting involved in the "business" of the elected branches, especially in areas of foreign policy. At times its borders on the slavish majoritarianism Scalia is fond of (at least on issues where he agrees with the policy the majority is clamoring for).

[Hakluyt]

Devin McCullen,

Yeah, Roberts fits. Bush is very much about re-creating the imperial Presidency that runs roughshod over the other branches.

[Hakluyt]

Devin,

I've read that Roberts basically became a conservative because he didn't like all the Viet Nam war protests. I guess Bush and Roberts have that in common too. I swear, that the Viet Nam war still dominates our politics is just flat out depressing.

[Eddy]

panrunge,
Fitzgerald can do what he wants, the question is will it make the news? I'd wager only if Roberts' record is so short there's too little to talk about. The Repubs will coo and fawn while the Dems dig like hell to find dirt and the focus of the "MSM" will be on what Roberts had for breakfast and when his last bowel movement was. In a way he is the perfect choice, a brief history and a very long potential tenure. Rove, who was that again?

[MyNameIsAsh]

Its "judge" John Roberts on his future decisions that he makes while on the court. Supreme Court Justices can be tricky.

That being said I would love to have been a fly on the wall while Bush was interviewing all the potential picks. Probably some really interesting intellectual conversations I bet...

[D]

http://donsingleton.blogspot.com/2005/07/john-g-roberts.html is my blog entry

[madman]

I am no fan of Bush. Don't hate him either.
But you gotta love his un-pc choice though. I know nothing about Roberts, don't care either way.
When the whole world, including his wife whining about a female/minoroty pick etc, he goes and picks a middle-aged white man. I love that! BTW, I am olive skinned.

[Dynamist]

Hakluyt: Does it lift or lower your mood to think that in 30 years Vietnam will be mostly forgotten and everyone will likely still be debating whether the invasion of Iraq was justified?

I'm probably alone on this, but my mind is enjoying an image of "the dread Justice Roberts", with an eyepatch and poofy shirt under the robe.

[Devin McCullen]

I'm not advocating a quota, but is there really a good explanation why, assuming confirmation, 1 out of 9 justices are female? Is there a genetic predisposition among women against Con Law?

Oh, and I don't want to mislead anyone, I'm not a libertarian myself (although I like them a LOT more than conservatives). I just thought you guys would be interested in the quote I posted above.

[Brett]

I don't know much about him, but he clerked for (and is still good friends with) Rehnquist. Scalia has called him the brightest laywer to argue before SCOTUS this generation (paraphrasing). I will hold out hope he trends more towards Thomas.

FWIW, his wife is a big right-to-lifer.

madman - while not much of a Bush fan myself, I also dig his giving the PC establishment the finger by not going with a female. That being said, I'd bet Rehnquist is replaced with a skirt...er, female.

It seems the DC circuit court remains the SCOTUS development league.

[MyNameIsAsh]

Couple Questions:

1) How long does the H&R board think that John Roberts was at the number one spot on on Bush's Supreme Court nomination list? Has he been there since 2000 or did he only move into the top spot because of actual interviews and the pulse of the nation?

I think this guy has been in the bag for a long time.

2) How long before the American public forgets this guy's name too? Not that over 60% of the population even care about this nomination anyway.

[Brett]

Also, CNN keeps repeating that he argued a case against abortion rights. According to Volokh's site, this is based on Rust v. Sullivan where he was the 6th lawyer listed on the brief and didn't even argue the case. Seems rather flaky to me. As a lawyer representign clients, he has also argued for affirmative action, against broad property rights, etc.

But I'm sure he'll be asked the questions in time. He'll be confirmed rather easily IMO.

[LibertyLawyer]

Interesting, although clearly leftist, analysis on John G. Roberts at:

http://www.allianceforjustice.org/research_publications/research/john_roberts_report.pdf

Some highlights:

*Was an attorney for Fox Television (but according to attorney David Boies on Scarborough Country, he also represented the Playboy Channel)

*Argued unsuccessfully in favor of a law against flag-burning

*Argued successfully that a local government's restrictions on developing land around Lake Tahoe were not a taking

*Argued for the states suing Microsoft (this has been cited elsewhere as *proof* that Roberts isn't in the pocket of big business ... no, this is proof that Roberts has worked for corporate oligarchs who use state power to go after their successful competitors)

Although I'd love to be proven wrong, I fear that Judge Roberts has "Establishment Statist" written all over him. Waiting to see what Roger Pilon thinks of him.

[interested]

I'm not advocating a quota, but is there really a good explanation why, assuming confirmation, 1 out of 9 justices are female? Is there a genetic predisposition among women against Con Law?

Women might be less likely to put up with years of bullshit 90-hour weeks and ass-kissing to earn a longshot chance to one day sit on TSCOTUS. This may be due in part to their superior genetic endowment.

[Yogi]

I agree with LibertyLawyer, I think this is Bush's #1 guy, an Establishment Statist who'll probably side with the Christian Right.

Anybody else care to speculate on Bush's strategy on this whole thing? I think he rather would have nominated a more centrist candidate and then gone for Roberts the second time. But, with Rehnquist now saying that he may not retire, Bush might think this is his only shot to get his man on the bench. Any other theories out there?

[Eddy]

is there really a good explanation why...1 out of 9 justices are female?

It starts with this Y chromosome and...Seriously, there are several factors at play, the most predominant is probably the generation from which supreme court justices are chosen. Overall, justices in the running are older and the generation of the resource pool is only very recently showing any signs of parity with regard to gender. O'Connor and Ginsberg were born in '30 and '33 respectively, that places the current pool as born around 1950 which places them just at the cusp of anything resembling gender parity. It would be fairly safe to assume that the pool is going to even out shortly but considering there are only 9 slots available and various political influences all bets are off.

[Eddy]

Any other theories out there?

We know who blows most in DC?

[Yogi]

Does anybody know the % of women getting law degrees? Back in the 60s and 70s through today? Is it getting close to even? Or is it still male dominated?

[Eddy]

Yogi,
Current data here. My understanding is that in the early 70's the percentage of women getting a first professional in law was about 7%.

[Anti-Theocrat]

This guy is a blank slate. He's not polarizing enough (he has no record) and not a constitution in exile type.

I agree he is likely to back Christian right type positions - from abortion to church/state issues. However, I'm not sure he's the type to rip up decades of jurisprudence. He'll allow a lot of restrictions on abortion but not want to see Roe overturned.

Overturning Roe would be a gift to Democrats and probably rip the Republican party in two. Bush talks like he wants Roe overturned but even he is smart enough to know this would be disastrous for his party.

[Barry P.]

My first thought upon hearing this was "John Roberts? But he's a Canadian!"

But I guess it isn't *that* John Roberts

[HolierThanThou]

The name of the nominee's wife is Jane Sullivan Roberts.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/07/19/national/w193750D87.DTL

Would that be the same Jane Sullivan Roberts who was the Executive Vice President of Feminists for Life?

http://feministsforlife.com/taf/1998/winter/Winter98-99.pdf

(Wow ... *Feminists* for *Life* ... an interventionist two-for-one!)

[dead_elvis]

My wife is pissed off because Court TV has pre-empted Forensic Files for this story. I sympathize because really, what are they going to be able to say tonight that won't be outdated by tomorrow or the next day, after people have had a chance to do their research? Here it's ok because this is a blog and we can bullshit 'till we're blue in the face WITHOUT RUINING SOMEONE'S FAVORITE SHOW.

[Paul]

I for one know little about this man, but I heard NPR's story on him, and even they had nothing Bad(tm) to say about him, and they only mentioned to say "Roe V. Wade" eight or ten times during the whole report... so now I'm intruigued.

Paul

[Johnny Clarke]

I thought we'd agreed that listening to NPR is bad for your blood pressure...

[Dave Johnston]

The left is going absolutely nuts about Roberts.

Very predictable.

A true libertarian has to weigh the pros and cons of these nominees, not merely look on them in a vacuum. We could do a lot worse than Roberts.

[Paul]

I thought we'd agreed that listening to NPR is bad for your blood pressure...

We did, but so is my high salt diet-- I just keep comin' back fer more.

Paul

[Paul]

A true libertarian has to weigh the pros and cons of these nominees, not merely look on them in a vacuum. We could do a lot worse than Roberts.

I agree. Some people have pointed out some documents he'd written on Roe v Wade needing to be overturned(Now I'm saying it, somebody STOP me) but it was also pointed out that he wrote these documents while working as a LAWYER, and therefore they were the opinions of his clients. He has apparently not taken any overt, public opinions on RVW as a JUDGE, as many other judicial hopefuls have.

But, my whole point is that all of these nominees get judged on one thing, and one thing only, and that's ROE v WADE. Personally, I'd really, REALLY like to know his position on Kelo v New London. Anyone else?

Paul

[The Real Bill]

It's all about Kelo, baby!

[Mo]

It's Raiche forme. Not because of mj, but because anyone that sees interstate commerce in mj grown for personal use is a fool not worthy for the highest court in the land.

[Dynamist]

[pangloss]

Rather than by complex secret machinations, perhaps GWB picked the Dread Justice Roberts from a long-considered list of decent characters who hold respect for law above particular political desires.

In the announcement ceremony, I was pleased by Roberts' reserve and humbleness. He struck me as sincere. That seems like a good start.

[/pangloss]

Justices I prefer couldn't tell me what their positions were on cases where they weren't involved in the arguments. They could offer an analysis of previous opinion. That's not a guarantee, and maybe even not a good predictor, of how they might see the hot-button issues in context of how those issues might make their way before the Court.

[Hakluyt]

I'm not particularly worried about Roe. Abortions will always be legal somewhere in the U.S., and certainly in Canada.

I am concerned about Roberts' willingness to be a rubber-stamp man for the growth of executive branch power.

[Phil]

Abortions will always be legal somewhere in the U.S., and certainly in Canada.

Well, for starters, it won't do much good for women in Mississippi if abortion is legal in California. Yeah, yeah, the states as petri dishes for different blah blah blah, but creating divisions based on both geography and class (since poor women would not be able to avail themselves of a plane ticket to another state) has 14th Amendment implications.

But more importantly, any overturning of Roe v. Wade would result in several Republican Congressmen and Senators immediately introducing -- and probably being able to pass, with the help of some of their Southern and Western Democratic brethren -- legislation banning abortion in the U.S.

What's more, any decision to overturn Roe v. Wade which rested on a recognition of the fetus as a person with rights protected by the Constitution would, indeed, result in making abortion illegal anywhere in the US.

[Hakluyt]

Phil,

I can imagine charitable organizations springing up to aid women who want to travel to states which allow abortions. Class has really nothing to do with the 14th amendment (that is the implication of such cases as Sandoval); now, if some state tried to ban travel to another state based on a desire to have an abortion, that would implicate the right to travel.

As to the fetus recognize as a person issue, if the conservatives on the court actually did that, it would be a blatant form of judicial activism. There is no evidence whatsoever that the authors of the 14th Amendment meant for it to cover a fetus.

...legislation banning abortion in the U.S.

Under the commerce clause? That's a very shaky proposition at best.

[Anti-Theocrat]

Excellent points Phil.

I have no doubt that Roe's days are numbered. While Roberts doesn't have a paper trail on this issue, it is clear he is personally very pro life (as is his wife) and I doubt he agrees with the decision. Does he believe in stare decises? Too early to tell on that one.

You are correct that Delay and the thugs on the right will quickly introduce legislation to ban abortion nationwide. While the decision that overturns Roe will rely on federalist arguments (that it should be up to the states), the same gang of 5 will allow a federal law criminalizing abortion through some loose reading of the commerce clause. It seems to me it would be less of a stretch than in the Raich case. For example, a baby aborted in California reduces the potential labor supply in other states.

As to your last point, would the court be so activist as to create a consitutional right to life for the fetus at the moment of conception? I think that's a stretch but it's not impossible. Nino would certainly go for it, probably Thomas too, but not 5.

[thoreau]

Hakluyt-

I completely agree that there's nothing in the Commerce and General Welfare Clauses that empowers Congress to ban abortion.

But when has that stopped them from regulating anything else?

[Brett]

Would that be the same Jane Sullivan Roberts who was the Executive Vice President of Feminists for Life?

Yes, that's her.

[Hakluyt]

thoreau,

I don't think that the anti-abortion crowd has the votes in the Senate to pass the bill. Also, I take Scalia, Thomas, etc. at their words that the issue is one for the states to decide.

[Hakluyt]

Anyway, this guy is 50; that means he could be on the court for the next forty to fifty years.

[thoreau]

I don't think that the anti-abortion crowd has the votes in the Senate to pass the bill.

In the short term I agree. In the long term, well, hard to say for sure.

Also, I take Scalia, Thomas, etc. at their words that the issue is one for the states to decide.

Taking public officials at their words? I expect better from you 😉

Seriously, though, because you're right on the first point, at least in the short term, I think you're right on the second point. If Roe is overturned, the pro-choicers in Congress will pass a law protecting the right to have an abortion, and argue that they are somehow empowered to do so by the Commerce Clause or whatever. Which is of course BS, so the Court will strike it down and affirm that this is a state issue.

[Hakluyt]

Also, I find it basically rather sad that appeals court judges (especially from the D.C. Circuit) are the only people who can get on the Supreme Court these days.

[Hakluyt]

thoreau,

Well, Scalia, Thomas and Rhenquist would have to write themselves out of a very deep corner they have created for themselves in their decisions if they were to side with anything coming out of the Congress (short of a constitutional amendment of course) that banned abortion.

[Anti-Theocrat]

"If Roe is overturned, the pro-choicers in Congress will pass a law protecting the right to have an abortion"

Maybe on a cold day in hell. The much greater likelihood is a federal law criminalizing abortion. Look at the states that will quickly criminalize abortion (all the South, many Mountain and Plains) and you'll see that's about 60 Senators. It is only a matter of time before the Senate is aligned to be very Republican. There just aren't that many blue states.

As far as relying on so called federalist justices to strike such a law down? Look at Bush v. Gore and Raich.

[Hakluyt]

thoreau,

Also, I am more familiar with Scalia's decisions than any other member of the current court (I've read about fifty of them), and I do believe that he is (in general) a very consistent justice who also wields a large amount of power on the court. Of course his decisions can be colored by his own personal views.

[Brett]

Also, I find it basically rather sad that appeals court judges (especially from the D.C. Circuit) are the only people who can get on the Supreme Court these days.

Any reason why that is? Is it the proximity to the WH? Is it the types of cases they hear and thus their visibility to politicians?

[Hakluyt]

Brett,

Well, the nature of the federal courts is becoming more, hmm, rigid and "professional." Plus, someone already on the federal courts is going to have political connections, access, etc. that most say law professors don't have.

[Freeman]

One of the main reasons that D.C. appeals court judges are featured so prominantly on the supreme court is that they adjucate many of the cases involving the federal government itself (i.e actions taken by the executive branch), and thus their positions are clearly important to any president while selecting a candidate.

[Adam]

Wikipedia: On the U.S. Court of Appeals, Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion siding with a developer in a case involving the protection of a rare Californian toad under the Endangered Species Act. The issue was whether the statute, as applied, is itself an unconstitutional regulation of interstate commerce.

[joe]

Anti-theocrat, I wouldn't count on western Dems supporting a federal anti-abortion law. It's a big mistake to lump the libertarian mountain and desert states with the theocrats in Dixie. What's more, the handful of legacy Republicans from blue states, like the ladies from Maine and Lincoln Chafee, would end their careers if they voted to ban abortion. Finally, a lot of red states have remained so with small margins. Conservatives have been able to toot their anti-abortion credentials, knowing they're safe from having to actually go on record as voting to ban abortion, because of Roe. At least a handful would run away.

Haklyut, if a federal abortion ban were brought up, it wouldn't draw on the commerce clause, but equal protection. The argument being, Foetal-Americans need to have their rights protected. The nibbling-around-the-edges abortion restrictions have pointed at the commerce clause because Roe stuffed the equal protection argument.

[Scott]

That being said I would love to have been a fly on the wall while Bush was interviewing all the potential picks. Probably some really interesting intellectual conversations I bet...

Derrrr, you like clearing brush, Roberts?

[Hakluyt]

joe,

Actually, it would draw both; as is clear from my comments.

[Vache Folle]

Libertarians don't really have much of a dog in this fight. Either party's pick would be statist to the core and would differ only on details. Either way, we are screwed.

[Hakluyt]

In far more important news, the peloton is now ~23 minutes behind the the seventeen riders who escaped at the 30km mark.

[Hakluyt]

Vache Folle,

Yeah, that's basically my position.

[jimmy]

how i long for the day when the abortion rights cult and its mirror-image pro-life cult disappear, and abortion is no longer the ONLY issue anyone talks about.

[Scott]

I echo that 1000 times, Jimmy.

[metalgrid]

how i long for the day when the abortion rights cult and its mirror-image pro-life cult disappear, and abortion is no longer the ONLY issue anyone talks about.
Comment by: jimmy at July 20, 2005 09:55 AM

Would you rather talk about the (il)legality of Scalia sodomizing his wife?

[thoreau]

Would you rather talk about the (il)legality of Scalia sodomizing his wife?

Abortion it is then!

(Anything to avoid that imagery.)

[Phil]

Anti-theocrat, I wouldn't count on western Dems supporting a federal anti-abortion law. It's a big mistake to lump the libertarian mountain and desert states with the theocrats in Dixie.

Agreed, but with an extremely important caveat: The single most important things in the current GOP are winning elections, message discipline, and party solidarity. You've seen how the House and Senate GOP leadership and whips have managed to keep the folks in line on the votes that matter; where have any significant portion of GOP members in Congress deviated even slightly on the votes that have mattered?

Any GOPer from those states who dared to deviate on a federal anti-abortion vote would quickly find his or her own party funning a more rightward candidate in the next primary.

[drf]

Phil: indeed. look at how Judy Barr was unable to block the circus freak Keyes from getting on our Illinois ticket...

[joe]

Phil,

"You've seen how the House and Senate GOP leadership and whips have managed to keep the folks in line on the votes that matter; where have any significant portion of GOP members in Congress deviated even slightly on the votes that have mattered?" I think this is a case of the dog that doesn't bark.

And if the national GOP wants to beat Chaffee, Collins, or Snowe with a winger in the primaries...I think that's a GREAT idea! I mean...no, PLEASE don't throw me in the briar patch!

[Jason Ligon]

The question of the day seems to be: Is being conservative sufficient to disqualify one from serving on the Supreme Court?

The approval process is really odd here. There is a floating standard based on how much liberal goodies are threatened. The arguments being made are that this exact makeup of the court is the only legitimate one. You must replace an O'Conner with an O'Conner. Presumably, we must replace a Thomas with a Thomas, as well? I think the real lesson we are to learn is that if you are either liberal in general or liberal on every important issue, you are eligible to serve. Elections have consequences folks. There is nothing magical about maintaining a 5-4 split in favor of expansive government.

[Eddy]

And if the national GOP wants to beat Chaffee, Collins, or Snowe with a winger in the primaries

Never happen, they aren't stupid enough to slit their own throats. On the other hand, they are getting rather cocksure so they just might.

[Anti-Theocrat]

Short term the NE Republicans would never support federal anti-abortion legislation if Roe is shelved. The GOP probably will lose these 3 seats. However, there are far more red states than blue states and each gets two Senators.

In the long run the close vote will be in the House, but there are probably sufficient conservative Democrats from red states to counter the more libertarian Republican House members.

[joe]

A-T,

Your description of the status quo is apt. My point is that overturning Roe would lead to the replacement of antiabortion officeholders with pro-choicers, turn officials who have stayed quiet on the issue into vocal choicers, and cause some of those who have been loudly anti-abortion to become quite.

Electorally, Roe v. Wade is like the big "buddy" holding back a pencil neck from starting a bar fight. All that "Let me at 'im" yelling goes away if Big Buddy steps aside.

[dhex]

in a strange way, an overturning (or any decision regarding roe v. wade) would be tremendously helpful to the democrats, as a few of you have pointed out. a few friends of mine from the donkey side of the aisle have conceeded this point, once they've drunk the requisite amount of beer required to not flip the fuck out over roe v. wade.

[nmg]

The expansive reading of the Consitution embodied in Roe v. Wade could just as easily but turned around on the left.

In fact, isn't Lochner just a mirror image of the Roe v. Wade constitutionality issue? If the Court can perceive all kinds of rights in the 9th including privacy that extends even to abortion (which I don't think is really a bad thing), then the Court could also find all kinds of new rights that might invalidate other Federal intrusions.

I think I'd rather have a conservative who agrees with the reasoning behind Roe and applies that expansive reasoning elsewhere than a conservative who thinks we have no right to privacy and leaves it up to congress to decide our fates..

The 9th is there for a reason.

nmg

[joe]

dhex,

That sounds suspiciously like principle.

[thoreau]

a few friends of mine from the donkey side of the aisle have conceeded this point, once they've drunk the requisite amount of beer required to not flip the fuck out over roe v. wade.

My former thesis advisor, very much a liberal, said the same thing. I don't know if he's right or not, but if he is right then we'll never find out, because Roe will never be overturned: The right is too smart to let that happen, and the left is too dumb to make it happen.

[joe]

Good call, thoreau.

The right's practice of deliberately passing abortion bills that will be struck down, so they can have the issue, doesn't really have a counterpart on the left.

[nmg]

If the left had any balls they'd take on drug prohibition.

Most "liberals" I know are opposed to drug prohibition, in fact they naively believe their party is somehow more anti-prohibition for some reason.

But to dismantle the drug war would jeapordize the legal justification for too many cherished policies of the left, so their leaders quietly and tacitly support one of the most egregious liberty-violating policies this country has ever seen.

I have no respect for any left politician who talks about individual liberties and supports the drug war. The left needs to grow some balls and take on prohibition.

nmg

[printer]

did anyone notice the jaw twitch that the president had when giving the announcement? after almost every sentence his jaw would twitch to the left. i dunno i just thought it was funny.

[Jason Ligon]

printer:

I read somewhere that the nominee's kid was break dancing on stage but just off camera. Don't know where the pictures I saw came from, though.