THE BACKWARD BILLION
Washington Times, Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Legislators in at least five states are proposing bold anti-abortion measures as the Bush administration reshapes the U.S. Supreme Court, a report said. With the goal of challenging the Roe vs. Wade ruling that ensured a woman's right to an abortion, lawmakers in Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, South Dakota and Tennessee propose banning all abortions except when the woman's life is in danger, Stateline.org reported. If enacted, legal experts said the laws would be the first absolute abortion bans since the landmark 1973 ruling. However, some abortion foes worry that state bans could backfire especially since five pro-Roe justices remain in the Supreme Court. It's as predictable as the sun rising that lower courts would strike down such state bans, said Americans United for Life Director Clarke Forsythe. It would be better to pass legislation "that can be enforced," such as parental notification requirements and fetal pain warnings, the constitutional lawyer told the state issues organization
**************************************************************************
You know what? Let these states pass these laws. If a lower court strikes the laws down, as they should, that's only fair. If a lower court refuses to, then the unwanted children will be born and eventually....... contribute to Georgia's illustrious SAT scores, the lowest in the nation for ten years running (apparently, they are not happy with maintaining this distinction without changing the playing field).
If the case gets up to the Supreme Court, the laws will be struck down. But if they were upheld, then, and finally then, the Republican Party would pay for what it has done - especially in Ohio, and maybe even in Georgia and Tennessee (both of which voted for Clinton in 1992).
These people kept saying that they wanted the judicial confirmation process to be a forum for a "great judicial debate" - i.e. the debate between "activishts" and "schtricht construchtionishts". Funny, though, how, once the nominees got to the hearings, they studiously ducked the debates. Roberts and Alito will force the debate on themselves, and on the country, sooner or later, if not with Roe v. Wade, then with some other case. Except the "debate" won't really be a "debate." These judges will lose the debate of ideas the second they see fit to ravage precedent and constitution for the sake of it, and their crying "Alone with my principles" won't salvage them.
Lindsey Graham, when told that the Democrats were going to make Bush's judicial appointments an issue in the 2006 Presidential campaigns, said, "Go ahead. We'll clean their clocks with that issue." He forgot to mention that if the clocks are to be cleaned, it is only because a certain few judges had already decided to set them back by several decades, under stealth of night, employing hypocritical bluster instead of principled reasoning.
Bring the debate on, I say. But only if the BUsh 4 on the Supreme Court are willing to come out and say what they REALLY stand for. Since they won't (and Lindsey Graham knows that) - for to do so would cause them to alienate thousands of voters - there never will be a true debate. In the 1989 Webster case, Blackmu openly called upon Rehnquist to have a "great debate" over the issue of whether the constitution protects the right to privacy. Rehnquist declined. If Rehnquist really believed his position was the proper and justifiable one, he should have taken up the battle. But, of course, cowards don't work this way. They hide behind snide remarks, hollow rhetoric, creative "reasoning" and disingenuous logic. Maybe a few people will catch on to this by the end of this year, whither (and whether) Roe or not.
Legislators in at least five states are proposing bold anti-abortion measures as the Bush administration reshapes the U.S. Supreme Court, a report said. With the goal of challenging the Roe vs. Wade ruling that ensured a woman's right to an abortion, lawmakers in Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, South Dakota and Tennessee propose banning all abortions except when the woman's life is in danger, Stateline.org reported. If enacted, legal experts said the laws would be the first absolute abortion bans since the landmark 1973 ruling. However, some abortion foes worry that state bans could backfire especially since five pro-Roe justices remain in the Supreme Court. It's as predictable as the sun rising that lower courts would strike down such state bans, said Americans United for Life Director Clarke Forsythe. It would be better to pass legislation "that can be enforced," such as parental notification requirements and fetal pain warnings, the constitutional lawyer told the state issues organization
**************************************************************************
You know what? Let these states pass these laws. If a lower court strikes the laws down, as they should, that's only fair. If a lower court refuses to, then the unwanted children will be born and eventually....... contribute to Georgia's illustrious SAT scores, the lowest in the nation for ten years running (apparently, they are not happy with maintaining this distinction without changing the playing field).
If the case gets up to the Supreme Court, the laws will be struck down. But if they were upheld, then, and finally then, the Republican Party would pay for what it has done - especially in Ohio, and maybe even in Georgia and Tennessee (both of which voted for Clinton in 1992).
These people kept saying that they wanted the judicial confirmation process to be a forum for a "great judicial debate" - i.e. the debate between "activishts" and "schtricht construchtionishts". Funny, though, how, once the nominees got to the hearings, they studiously ducked the debates. Roberts and Alito will force the debate on themselves, and on the country, sooner or later, if not with Roe v. Wade, then with some other case. Except the "debate" won't really be a "debate." These judges will lose the debate of ideas the second they see fit to ravage precedent and constitution for the sake of it, and their crying "Alone with my principles" won't salvage them.
Lindsey Graham, when told that the Democrats were going to make Bush's judicial appointments an issue in the 2006 Presidential campaigns, said, "Go ahead. We'll clean their clocks with that issue." He forgot to mention that if the clocks are to be cleaned, it is only because a certain few judges had already decided to set them back by several decades, under stealth of night, employing hypocritical bluster instead of principled reasoning.
Bring the debate on, I say. But only if the BUsh 4 on the Supreme Court are willing to come out and say what they REALLY stand for. Since they won't (and Lindsey Graham knows that) - for to do so would cause them to alienate thousands of voters - there never will be a true debate. In the 1989 Webster case, Blackmu openly called upon Rehnquist to have a "great debate" over the issue of whether the constitution protects the right to privacy. Rehnquist declined. If Rehnquist really believed his position was the proper and justifiable one, he should have taken up the battle. But, of course, cowards don't work this way. They hide behind snide remarks, hollow rhetoric, creative "reasoning" and disingenuous logic. Maybe a few people will catch on to this by the end of this year, whither (and whether) Roe or not.
posted by EnterCenter at 7:37 AM
1 Comments:
You know I love you. Of course I agree with all you wrote. But then again, Roe will not be overturned. To do so would be a bad day for the Republican Party - they lose their precious wedge issue!
Post a Comment
<< Home