It looks like, as predicted, the SoCons overplayed their hand and Arlen Specter is going to succeed Orrin Hatch as Senate Judiciary Committee chairman. Picking up the endorsement of Hatch almost certainly assures him of winning the caucus vote for that chairmanship. I'd call that the victory of sanity over dishonesty. The campaign of distortion that the religious right through at Specter will end up backfiring on them in the end, I predict.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Jon Rowe looks at the possibility that Bush might nominate either Arlen Specter or Orrin Hatch for the Supreme Court in his second term. A Specter nomination, given the current enmity being shown him by Bush's bulldogs in the Senate, the media and various religious right organizations, seems…
Finally, a voice of sanity in the Republican Party and of all people, it's Hugh Hewitt. In the Weekly Standard, he issues a warning to his fellow Republicans:
Fast forward four years. The Democrats have convened in late summer in Cleveland to nominate former Virginia governor Mark Warner and…
Seth Cooper, the Discovery Institute counsel I mentioned a couple days ago, has now written, rather surprisingly perhaps, that he supports Arlen Specter for the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. But in the course of his rather lukewarm endorsement, he makes this statement:
In fact, I find…
I've said several times lately that the social conservatives, who are playing up the alleged "moral mandate" from the Presidential election, may well overplay their hand and end up getting smacked down by the electorate later for it. Here's a good example of why I think that. The religious right…
In reading some of the Blogs I've come to wonder if the neocons would really want abortion to be effectively banned. That is purely from a strategy perspective.I never thought about it much before, but this would change the dynamic of the party quite a bit, and in perhaps unpredictable ways.
Don't rejoice just yet. Others have noted that this controversy surrounding Specter has so gelded him that he will let through any wacko that Bush sends up.
On the other hand, perhaps he should. Then let the USSupCt get a case that might overturn RvW and see what happens. They might have to actually put up or shut up. I suspect they will do neither, but it will expose their hypocrisy. Not that such exposure really matters in the culture wars, of course.
Raj, I hope you will forgive me if I find your comment rather condescending.
Social conservatives really DO want to get rid of legal abortion, because they really DO think it's murder. It's not a campaign tactic, not a political strategy, not a hypocritical false position. They believe this stuff. They really do.
If put in a situation of "put up or shut up," then they will overturn RvW, leading to abortion becoming illegal in many states. And I suspect they would be perfectly happy with that outcome. A few dead women would be merely an unfortunate side-effect--but think of all the unborn fetuses that had been saved!
I think if Roe v. Wade actually gets overturned, while the SoCons will be happy about it, the Republican leadership won't be. Because the result will be that the moderates will go back to the Democratic party in order to insure that it remains legal. Polls have consistently shown that 2/3 of Americans are pro-choice, while being willing to accept some restrictions on abortion such as waiting periods and notification laws. If it's actually put in jeopardy, I think you'd see a swing toward the other side at the state and federal level. And I think the Republican leadership knows that and probably hopes that the courts don't overturn it. As long as the courts keep abortion legal, they can continue to rail against the courts, rallying the faithful, without losing the moderates who don't even have to consider abortion because it's not a legislative issue. If the courts make it a political issue again instead of a judicial one, that turns things upside down.
Interesting point Ed.
It's like an old saying we have in chess - The threat is stronger than the execution. The threat to toss Roe v. Wade is possibly even more useful to the administraton than actually tossing it. Just as they found the threat to end the 527 loophole useful before the election, even though actually ending it was not desired nor possible anyway.
Jason Kuznicki at November 17, 2004 06:21 PM
Raj, I hope you will forgive me if I find your comment rather condescending
Social conservatives really DO want to get rid of legal abortion, because they really DO think it's murder. It's not a campaign tactic, not a political strategy, not a hypocritical false position. They believe this stuff. They really do.
Welcome to "real politik." Socially conservative voters might want to get rid of legal abortion. But it is clear that they will never be able to do so completely. And it is far from clear that so-called socially conservative politicians really want to get rid of legal abortion. If they were able to do so, it would essentially eliminate the issue as far as the politicians are concerned. They prefer to have the issue, to try to mobilize voters in the next election. They don't really want the issue to be resolved.
It should be clear. Abortions were carried out pre-Rowe--even in hospitals--although they were called other names, things like D&E--"dilation and extraction." The wealthier who had access to hospitals that would do D&E's would have what were essentially legal abortions. Those that did not have access to such hospitals did not.
If put in a situation of "put up or shut up," then they will overturn RvW, leading to abortion becoming illegal in many states.
Well, it's true that overturning RvW would lead to abortion being illegal in more than a few states. But so what? According to the opinion in RvW, abortion was at the time the decision was rendered, legal in some 21 states, including NY and CA, covering more than half the population.
I'll relate a bit of history. I was in law school in 1973, when the Rowe decision was rendered. At the time, I was working in the physics lab in which I had done my graduate work. After the decision was rendered, the grad students in the lab--who knew I was in law school--grilled me about the basis for the decision. Since I was in law school, I was the point person to try to defend the decision in Rowe. It was incredibly difficult to do so. I didn't believe that the opinion in Rowe held water from a legal standpoint. And, quite frankly, neither did any of the grad student in the lab--who were far from dumb.
And I suspect they would be perfectly happy with that outcome. A few dead women would be merely an unfortunate side-effect--but think of all the unborn fetuses that had been saved!
Quite frankly, I would have believed that you would have been better than to try to argue the policy issue regarding Rowe, than the Constitutional issue. Of course, having the availability of legal abortion services would be preferable--in my view--to the previous regime. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the rightness of the policy trumps the language of the Constitution. As far as I can tell, the issue in Rowe was far different than the issue in Griswold, which enunciated the right to privacy that the Court subsequently used in Rowe. (The term "right to privacy" had been used in 4th amendment search and seizure cases, but they were in very different contexts. See, for example, Mapp vs. Ohio.) But the issue in Griswold was very different than the issue in Rowe. Quite frankly, the issue in Griswold was much closer to the issue in Lawrence. Unfortunately, Rowe intervened between Griswold and Lawrence, and, in doing so, cast substantial doubt on the privacy right enunciated in Griswold.
raj wrote:
As far as I can tell, the issue in Rowe was far different than the issue in Griswold, which enunciated the right to privacy that the Court subsequently used in Rowe. (The term "right to privacy" had been used in 4th amendment search and seizure cases, but they were in very different contexts. See, for example, Mapp vs. Ohio.) But the issue in Griswold was very different than the issue in Rowe. Quite frankly, the issue in Griswold was much closer to the issue in Lawrence. Unfortunately, Rowe intervened between Griswold and Lawrence, and, in doing so, cast substantial doubt on the privacy right enunciated in Griswold.
I tend to agree with you about Roe - the outcome may have been correct, but the reasoning was quite poor, as most abortion rights advocates would agree. But the Lawrence decision is much more solid, and does not rely upon a right to privacy. I'm very curious to see how it acts as a precedent.
I'm afraid, Raj, that I can't quite agree with you: I really doubt that anyone becomes an anti-abortion politician without sincerely believing in the cause. For them, I suspect the policy question trumps the constitutional one--as Scalia very nearly admitted in his dissent to Lawrence.
Jason, I stand by my point. The US Supreme Court and other federal courts really are political bodies. Not directly, but certainly indirectly. Regardless of what the yahoos who rail against the "unelected judiciary" like to complain about.