Decision ‘08

Jane Hamsher: Knee-Jerk Partisan

I knew- I mean, I KNEW, like ‘bet the farm on it’ knew - that Jane Hamsher (how’s that Cheney story coming along for you, Jane?), who derides pro-life Americans as the ‘forced-birth brigade’, would completely have a cow over the mere thought that the most disgustingly extreme form of abortion, the ‘partial-birth’ variety, would even be considered by the Supreme Court (despite poll after poll showing Americans in favor of a ban, by a good margin). Needless to say, she didn’t disappoint:

I’m not going to waste any more time hammering on Planned Parenthood and NARAL except to say that they do not get it. Pro-choice in this country is going down, all because of people like Joe Lieberman. It will not survive another vacancy on the Supreme Court filled by George Bush and passed by this Senate.

One reason the Democratic Party finds itself increasingly marginalized is its unyielding stance on any abortion restrictions whatsoever. It’s more than a little ironic that the very same people who whined about Alito being ‘out of the mainstream’ (in fact, he’s right in the middle of it ) are so incredibly out of tune with public sentiment themselves. When Americans approve of a ban on partial-birth abortions by 3-1, only a fool would argue otherwise - for that is the textbook definition of a mainstream view…

10 Responses to “Jane Hamsher: Knee-Jerk Partisan”

1 Jacques Distler Says:
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Oh, yeah, it’s just about “partial-birth” abortions.

Alito was nominated to the SCOTUS, with the express idea that he (along with new “conservative majority” on the Court) would vote to overturn Roe-vs-Wade at the earliest opportunity. Is there a shred of doubt (among either his supporters or his opponents) that he will do so?

This particular case may end up being decided narrowly (absence of a “health of the mother” exception is just fine). But there are other cases on the way. Jane is right to be alarmed (though I’m not sure I agree with her tactics).
2 Mark Says:
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Actually, I quite doubt that the current court would revoke Roe v. Wade, much less at the earliest opportunity. The case before the court is indeed only about partial-birth abortions, and if Roe DOES get overturned, it will be in no small part because people like Jane refuse to give any ground on even the remotest hint of a restriction on abortions.

The indisputable fact is that the American people overwhelmingly support an end to partial-birth abortions, and (by a much narrower margin) tend to support the continuation of Roe…and I think that’s the way the court will eventually decide…
3 Jacques Distler Says:
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:55 pm
I have no idea why you think the latest poll numbers will figure (or ought to figure) into the deliberations of the Justices (particularly, originalist or strict-constructionist ones).

Do you really think Alito, given the opportunity to rule on the South Dakota law, will vote to uphold Roe? If so, I think you are the only Alito supporter who believes that.
4 Mark Says:
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:54 pm
I think in areas of broad concern, the justices, over time, usually find a way to get areas of overwhelming societal consensus into their decisions - the invention of the right to privacy to rule in Roe being a perfect example. It may not be right, and the justices will probably deny it, but it’s kind of the basis for the whole school of thought that the Constitution is a living document, isn’t it?

I know that doesn’t fit with the strict-constructionist viewpoint, but I think it probably fits the reality…
5 Jacques Distler Says:
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:11 pm
[I]t’s kind of the basis for the whole school of thought that the Constitution is a living document, isn’t it?

A school of thought which, I had been given to understand, was staunchly-opposed by conservatives such as yourself. Weren’t we supposed to be appointing strict-constructionists/originalists to the bench?

[T]he invention of the right to privacy to rule in Roe being a perfect example.

Exactly. Weren’t these conservative appointments supposed to bring to an end the practice of Justices “inventing” constitutional rights not in the text of the Constitution? Wasn’t that the whole point?

You’ll forgive me for being a little confused.
6 Mark Says:
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Here, I’ll be more blunt - I think most strict constructionists ‘evolve’ once they get on the job…in other words, the performance doesn’t meet the intention…

Sort of like how Congressmen who campaign against corruption seem to lose their appetite for reform once elected…

I’m trying to be a realist here, and not an idealist…
7 Jacques Distler Says:
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:02 pm
I’m trying to be a realist here…

So am I.

The South Dakota law is sure to come before the Supreme Court. And I would be very surprised, were Alito to vote to strike it down. The only question is whether he has 4 other like-minded votes.

I’m not sure, but I think he does …
8 Mark Says:
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:49 pm
Well, maybe…I guess I just feel that Roe is such an established fact, and such a can of worms, that they’ll find some way to weasel out of a complete ‘overthrow’…

I’ve always felt that, even if Rove WERE overturned, that the states would keep it legal, anyway -but I guess South Dakota challenges that assumption, eh?…

My own feeling, that I’ve stated before, is that I’d just as soon have it legal, but heavily restricted…I know that makes me a neanderthal is some quarters, but that’s my story and I’m sticking to it…
9 Jacques Distler Says:
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:33 pm
I’ve always felt that, even if Rove WERE overturned, that the states would keep it legal, anyway -but I guess South Dakota challenges that assumption, eh?…

Rove? An interesting slip…

For decades the States (the red States; no one expects New York or California to outlaw abortion any time soon) have had to content themselves with chipping away at the periphery of Roe: a parental notification requirement here, a two-week waiting period there …

South Dakota is the first frontal assault on Roe. Now that the anti-Roe forces believe that they have the votes on the SCOTUS to overturn Roe, they have moved very quickly to put forward a case which directly challenged Roe’s core findings.

If the South Dakota law is upheld, you’ll see similar legislation in a dozen other States within months.

That was clearly the plan wasn’t it? That was why this nomination was so hard-fought (on both sides).
10 Mark Says:
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:24 pm
Sure, Rove vs. Wade - that famous case about redistricting - that was what we were talking about, right?

In all seriousness (and I’m not playing dumb here) - I’m probably the wrong conservative to ask about the ‘plan’, as you put it - I’m disgusted in equal proportions by the rabidly pro-life, and the rabidly pro-choice. It just ain’t my favorite issue.

I’m sure for some Alito supporters, that was the plan - maybe most. Like I said, I don’t know. For me, it wasn’t…but I’ve laid out my position for you, and it’s probably not pro-life enough for a lot of conservatives (though, like most conservatives, and I suspect quite a few liberals, I feel a visceral dislike of the procedure)…