Decision ‘08

It’s Over: 58-42

Bush has assured himself of at least one great legacy - John Roberts, Samuel Alito - and (???)…

Nicely done…

14 Responses to “It’s Over: 58-42”

1 Hokie Explorer Says:
January 31st, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Overturning Roe and rolling back civil liberties is a great legacy?
2 Mark Says:
January 31st, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Oh, and Roe got overturned today, too? What wonderful news, I must have missed it…

Hokie, conservatives have been living under the ‘active’ judiciary of liberalism for a seeming eternity…yes, this is a great conservative victory…and if you look around (NY Times, Washington Post, almost anywhere, really) you will see that not only Republicans realize the momentousness of this day…
3 Aaron Says:
January 31st, 2006 at 4:34 pm
I would think anyone who is actually a “liberal” by definition would welcome the overturn of Roe v. Wade and similar court rulings as it would return control over such important social issues to the legislatures, a branch much more influenced by the will of the people.

Secular progressives on the other hand . . .
4 Hokie Explorer Says:
January 31st, 2006 at 5:22 pm
I could care less about abortion, I’m not a woman. But civil liberities I am very concerned about, and I consider the freedom to choose whatever you want to with your personal life/body a part of civil liberties. I don’t necessarily agree with abortion, but I’m not the one making the decision.

That’s one of the interesting paradoxes in politics: conservatives want less government control, but when it comes to social issues they want more.

What is an active judiciary? Thats the damn point of it. It isn’t suppose to sit there and do nothing. Its suppose to check the power of the executive branch and congress. If all three branches of our government work together we should just throw out the constitution and get a nice authoritarian regime going. Its the same thing with the filibuster debate, if you take away the minorities ability to block the action of the majority what are you left with? Basically, an authoritarian government. The founding fathers were terrified of majorities.

Aside from that, I don’t want to get thrown in a military prison forever and stripped of any rights I might have had. A justice that is going to bend over for the executive branch is not someone I want being a justice.

Maybe I have a different perspective than you all since I’ve been approached at night by men armed with submachine guns, clad in black and told that I can’t take photos of a nearby hydroelectric plant from public property.
5 Mark Says:
January 31st, 2006 at 5:30 pm
And just what have you been up to? Security!…

I kid, I kid…

Well, I don’t agree with the premise that opposition to Roe vs. Wade means wanting more social control…it’s, at least in my case, a reaction against a Constitutional suspect ‘right’ that’s not in the Constitution at all, all under the guise of imposing social policy, however laudable that policy may be…

That, and the fetishization of the abortion issue by the left, which is WAY, WAY out of bounds to its importance as an issue (current affairs as a case in point).

In any event, you can relax…Roe isn’t going anywhere anytime soon…and even Alito’s opponents knew that all along…it was and is just a scare tactic to drump up support and raise funds…
6 peter Says:
January 31st, 2006 at 5:33 pm
I personally think Roe v. Wade should be overturned. First, it is horrible case law – it’s results-based jurisprudence, as bad as Bush v. Gore. Secondly, I think it would cause major problems for the Republicans. A majority of Americans support abortion rights. The GOP has been able to placate their base with a lot of rhetoric, without doing much about it, as they always could blame the Supreme Court for blocking them. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, then they would be in the unenviable position of being stuck between their base and a majority of voters.
7 Hokie Explorer Says:
January 31st, 2006 at 5:50 pm
The overturning of Roe V Wade would lead to a myriad of different laws state-to-state. Some would ban it outright, some would do varying levels of restrictions, and some would keep it completely legal. This has a couple of effects that I can think of:

1.) Women who want to have an abortion are going to no matter what the government says. This means there will be dirty abortions where women are doing whatever they have to without medical intervention to get the job done - this is bad.

2.) Women who want an abortion will simply cross state lines/international borders.

In fact, there are two drugs that you can take over the counter that have nearly the same effect as Mifeprex. Abortion opponents are beating a dead horse, they’ve already lost the battle. There is no way to stop abortion.

Going back to what Mark said, you are correct. There is no specific constitutional right to an abortion. However, I feel that matters pertaining to your body are your decision and not the federal government’s (abortion, assisted suicide, suicide, terri schiavo). If there has to be a constitutional basis for it, how about “freedom of expression,” expression is a nice and broad term.

But again, I’m not a woman and don’t care about Roe as much. I am extremely concerned about how the court is going to rule in the Jose Padilla case. You can’t just throw American citizens in jail because you want to and then not give them any of their due process rights. This case has made me so angry and I’m worried that with Alito on the court they are going to simply rule to defer to whatever the executive wants to do with “security.”
8 Aaron Says:
January 31st, 2006 at 6:37 pm
“abortion, assisted suicide, suicide, terri schiavo”

Add heroin, cocaine, et al to that list if your justification is solely “the government doesn’t have a right to tell you what to do with your own body.”
9 Ryan Bonneville Says:
January 31st, 2006 at 7:04 pm
“However, I feel that matters pertaining to your body are your decision and not the federal government’s (abortion, assisted suicide, suicide, terri schiavo).”

What’s your point here? That, because the federal government has no business telling you what to do with your body, you therefore must have a constitutional right to do whatever you want? That’s some seriously suspect reasoning, and it’s exactly the sort of results-oriented jurisprudence that got us in the mess we’re in now.

I’d also like to point out that plenty of people commit murder all the time. Does your “they’re going to do it anyway” argument apply there as well? Should we just get rid of all laws because people are going to break them? Isn’t that, I don’t know, stupid?
10 Muffin the Cat Says:
January 31st, 2006 at 7:38 pm
Peter,

Are you implying that since a majority of Americans want to keep the trimester abortions legal that it should be that way. If so Affirmative Action would be outlawed as would gay marriage. Decisions by courts should have nothing to do with the views of a majority of Americans.
11 peter Says:
January 31st, 2006 at 7:46 pm
No — merely trying to make the point that since most Americans favor the right to abortion, the GOP would be in a difficult position politically because they would have to choose between alienating their base and alienating a large chunk of voters.

I think abortion should be legal, but for reasons other than that it enjoys majority support.
12 Muffin the Cat Says:
January 31st, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Mark, Peter,

Talking about polls. Have you ever visited http://www.pollingreport.com/?

It is an interesting website. Has a poll on just about any subject. I refuse to take polls seriously. Just too much can be done to affect the desired outcome. Just me being cynical again.
13 peter Says:
January 31st, 2006 at 8:16 pm
I completely agree.
14 Mike Says:
January 31st, 2006 at 10:08 pm
If it goes back to state legislatures then some will outlaw it (like South Dakota) some wil have measured responses, and states like New York will keep at is and may even take it further. Whichever way it would be up to state legislatures and/or any laws within those states that are already on the books.