I was reading up on the new Supreme Court nominee to try and determine when (not if) Roe v. Wade will be overturned, and came across the following:
One Roberts case receiving particularly close attention involves a 2003 challenge to the federal Endangered Species Act. At issue was whether the act could be invoked to protect a certain species of toad that exists entirely in California and was being threatened by a development project. The appeals court ruled that under Congress’s commerce-clause powers, the Endangered Species Act extends protection to the toad.
Parties in the case asked the full appeals court to reconsider. All but two judges declined to take up the case.
Roberts was one of the two.
In his dissent, he said the full court should agree to hear the case to more faithfully apply two Supreme Court precedents establishing limits on Congress’s commerce-clause powers. He noted that the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals had recently adopted a similar, more restrictive, reading of commerce-clause authority and the Endangered Species Act.
That Roberts, who routinely appears to side with big business (and also appears to reject any restriction on presidential power–gee, hard to see what makes him attractive to Bush) wanted to take on the case isn’t the issue for me.
What bugs me is that if someone wants to build a development on MY home, and I protest that, then it’s tough beans. I lose my home. I’m screwed. But if someone wants to disenfranchise a freakin’ toad, THAT’S where the line is drawn? What the hëll–?!?
That’s it. I’m building a small enclosure in my back yard and getting me some of those toads. Either that or I’m going to lobby for Jews and/or liberals to be considered an endangered species.
PAD
• 
Yeah, but under the Endangered Species Act you will get yourself in big trouble for even touching one of those toads.
So here’s what you do: go to a rain forest, go in as deep as you can–I suggest stopping when you start seeing monkey carcasses that have died from some hemorrhagic virus unless you want to get something named after you (“Historians credit smallpox with the deaths of over 1.5 billion humans, second only to David’s Disease.”)–and start turning over rocks until you find some beetles.
Bring the beetles back across the border. You’re on your own here, pal.
Then you scatter them about you lawn and call an entomologist. Chances are, this is a BRAND NEW SPECIES, so you not only get protected land but they can’t nail you for touching a bug previously unknown to science. Yay you!
Of course, make dámņ sure you weren’t planning on building any additions to the house and you might want keep some in your house in a terrarium to replace those who die during the winter. Unless it turns out that they thrive in their new environment and wreck havoc on the Eastern Seaboard, possibly even serving as the vector for David’s Disease.
According to Wikipedia:
As Deputy Solicitor General
(arguing for the results sought by his client, the President of the United States)
Abortion. Roberts is listed as a coauthor on a brief before the Supreme Court in Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991), defending the validity of a Department of Health and Human Services regulation that prohibited recipients of funding under the Public Health Service Act from not only providing abortions, but also counselling, advising, or promoting the idea that a woman seek an abortion:
We continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled. As more fully explained in our briefs, filed as amicus curiae, in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 110 S. Ct. 2926 (1990); Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989); Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986); and City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), the Court’s conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution. [27]
The brief in question lists the following authors: Michael J. Astrue, General Counsel; Joel Mangel, Deputy Chief Counsel; Carol C. Conrad, Attorney, Department of Health and Human Services; Kenneth W. Starr, Solicitor General; Stuart M. Gerson, Assistant Attorney General; John G. Roberts, Jr., Deputy Solicitor General; Jeffrey P. Minear, Assistant to the Solicitor General; Anthony J. Steinmeyer, Lowell v. Sturgill, Jr., Attorneys.
For further discussion of Roberts’s views on Roe, see his comments at the Judiciary Committee hearings under “Views.”
Well, there goes Roe v.Wade if he gets through.
For what it’s worth, several states are now “looking at” the use of emminent domain (or as I like to call it, “let’s take those pretty decent houses over there, and build some even better houses on top of ’em”) and seeing if they want to try and restrict it. The Surpeme Court coming out and essentially saying that a government has the power to force a sale of private land if the government has some way to “better use”, i.e., receive higher tax revenue ins some way, that land. It used to be pretty clear that in cases of things like highways, airports, universities, all things that really do provide a somewhat direct and broad benefit for all, emminent domain was ana accepted burden to impose on private land owners. Now, your local mayor can decide that building a Target over your subdivision, with all the money Target pays to the municipality, is a “better use” of the land your house sits on. And while it may very well be true that having a Target, or a strip mall, or whatever, could generate some jobs, the direct benefit goes to a select few….mainly the government, Target, and those few that get jobs. There’s a difference in scale between a highway and a shopping mall, and most individuals feel that the line between accepted and unaccepted uses of emminent domain should be somewhere between the two.
And this was with a somewhat divided, though right-leaning, court. Imagine what other private rights are going to be curtailed with another conservative justice.
Oh, and the endangered species thing might just save you. But make sure you get a Safe Harbour agreement for yourself with the Fish and Wildlife Service. It’ll allow you to take (kill) so many of them a year…so you don’t have to worry about the Feds busting down your door every time you mow your lawn.
I just can’t understand how people are letting things go to hëll like this. The rest of the world (and any American with half a brain) watches this country regress farther and farther from the progress made in the last half century and wonders what the fûçk is wrong with us… yet most American’s don’t even seem to notice.
The only bright side to all this that I can possibly see is that the more we backslide into the backwards mentalities of the past, the bigger the cultural revolution will be next time it comes around… Of course as big business and gonvernment become more powerful and more the same every day, controling and manipulating the population through the media… there may be less and less of a chance for another “60s” (or to a lesser extent 90s) type cultural revolt by the youth to spark change and undo all the damage currently being done…
Well, think of it this way. At least if the government comes stomping up to your door and kicks you out to build a Wal-Mart, you’ll get some money out of the deal and have a chance to relocate.
Now, if you’re one of those toads and the government comes stomping up to your door and wants to build a Wal-Mart, they’ll run you over with bulldozer while whistling Dixie and drinking Dr. Pepper.
I think you’d be slightly better off than the toad.
I could be wrong, but I can’t see Roe v. Wade being overturned. Two reasons;
1) If Roe v. Wade is overturned, that’s political firebomb for the Republicans, and will provoke liberals to go to the polls.
2)If it’s overturned, Republicans lose one of their biggest campaign issues. It doesn’t have the same immediacy and effect to say “If the liberals get back in power, they’ll change it back” as to say “Thousands of innocent, unborn children are being murdered every year, and we have to stop it! Vote Republican!” We can see this from the other side too; the right to abortion was a much more passionate issue for liberals when it was denied to women, than now that it is legal. When an interest group wins, they become complacent.
So it’s far better for the Republicans to simply give lip service to the issue, so they can continue to exploit it for political gain in perpetuity.
I also doubt you’ll see Roe overturned outright, simply because if the court were clearly in favor of overturning it, pro-choice groups would avoid letting any possible test-case make it to the SCOTUS. This means they would probably stop suing in lower courts over state-level restrictions on access, IDX laws, etc. This would have the effect of eroding abortion rights, but not lead to an outright reversal. And remember, even if Roe were overturned, it would not mean abortion would be illegal, just that the individual states would be free to make it so.
Prior to OConnor’s retirement, the number on the court who supported overturning Roe v Wade was 3.
Roberts has made two contradicting statements, but one of those two statements (quoted above) was not his own. He was the Deputy Solictor General for Bush Sr. He had to argue what the administration wanted hiim to argue. It was his job.
Two years ago (he hasn’t been a judge for long), the Senate asked him what he felt about Roe v Wade, and he said it was the settled law of the land.
Of course, as a lower court judge, he doesn’t have the power to outright overturn past supreme court decisions. So that response makes sense in that context. However, it doesn’t say anything about how he would vote on the Supreme Court if the issue came up.
But even if he were to vote to overturn, it would still be 5-4 to keep it. Some of the related decisions may be reversed — partial birth, parental notifications, etc, etc. But Roe v Wade itself would still be safe.
On the other hand….little has been said about this….but it is likely Religious/State issues will start going the other way. Put Roberts on the court a few months ago, and it is likely the Kentucky(?) 10 Commandments case would have gone the other way. The Lee v Weissman School-Prayer ruling will likely be overturned. And a few others as well.
I think that is going TOO far. The only endangered species is those of us with common sense. Well, and good driving skills. So yes, Pete, you ARE an endangered species. Stop thinking so rationally, it puts you (and me) in a HUGE minority.
Actually, I was thinking about this a couple weeks ago, and came up with what I think is a good way around the new eminent domain law. Just let the right have their new flag desecration law. Then, paint up one whole wall (or other sizeable portion of your house) into an authentic enough American flag that it qualifies for protection as a “representation” of the flag. Voila, they can’t legally bulldoze your house.
-Rex Hondo-
The ESA just took a beating on Penn & Teller’s Showtime show. I don’t know that they always cover all angles of an issue, but they did point out a number of ways in which the ESA–as currently written–is often a tool of big business, to control what land can and can’t be developed. Sometimes less government really is a good thing…
“And this was with a somewhat divided, though right-leaning, court. Imagine what other private rights are going to be curtailed with another conservative justice.”
Er…you do know that it was the liberals on the court who voted for expanding emminent domain, right? O’Conner, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas all dissented.
Since it was a 5 to 4 vote the addition of Roberts will, sadly, not be enough to overturn this travesty.
C’mon, PAD, cut the toad some slack. Its not easy being green.
To echo what was already written, it was liberal judges who voted to take away private property rights to give it to another private business, not for true public use. Many conservatives (myself included) and at least some liberals have a problem with this.
And Roberts also made a point (not included in your post) that the commerce clause has absolutely nothing to do with a toad that only lives in California. The very basis of the ruling was absurd in the first place. (As was the ruling about Roe v. Wade, but that is for another time and post.)
Your faithful conservative, X-Factor and Hulk loving poster,
Iowa Jim
Seems to me, I remember an American Government class in high school and we talked about the balance of power between the three branches of government. Now, call me an alarmist, but if Roberts (as sort of an aside, does it bug anybody else that he’s been a judge for like, five minutes? Sorry, four and a half?) Anyway, if he gets in, does it seem to anyone else that he’ll basically be the Muppet Judge with Bush’s voice coming out? And they already have the spots calling for his up or down vote. Oh, for the days when government arguements were about Monica Lewinsky….
Don’t worry about the land-grab. We had a similar case down here in Maryland a few years ago and the citizenry knocked that one right out of the park. As for Endangered Species, I’ll have to find a link but I do believe that species are dying out on a regular basis due to natural changes more than what we invaise humans do…now, guess who thinks Roe vs Wade is wrong? C’mon, take a guess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey
Then again, she did convert to (GASP!! HORROR OF HORRORS!!!) Christianity.
I post somewhat corrected. Darn those “liberal” justices, making we wipe egg off my face.
While my facts may not have supported me, in that I alluded to a conservative Court eroding the rights of private citizens, my fear remains, although this was not an example that feeds my fear. My general fear is that a court including a highly Bush-oriented justice will lean away from decisions that I think are just. And I realize what a loaded statement that is, given the somewhat left-seeming stance I often take (although I think I’m more centrist, and only seem leftist in a conservative/right environment).
The erosion of private property rights is just an example. Roberts’ position on the ESA is another example. Simply because a species is found only in a single state is not really a relevant fact in determining that Federal Commerce Power does not extend jurisdiction. Or rather, it’s not a dterminitive fact in the way Roberts seems to be implying, i.e., that because the species is found only in one state, it must ONLY be a State issue.
This demsontrates a fundamental lack of understanding of both the Commerce Power and the ESA, and how they intersect. If this species of toad is ONLY found in one place in the US, even if it’s found in other places around the world, then that species becomes nationally imperiled. If US citizens want to observe/study this toad, there’s only one place in the country they can go…that makes it a Federal issue, via the Commerce power. If it’s the only place in the world ( for example, there’s a butterfly at LAX that I’m reasonable certain is only found in the US), that species becomes globally imperiled, and it’s protection becomes even more paramount. Roberts’ position would make the preservation of that globally endangered species a matter of state purview.
Liberal or conservative, it matters not to me: a decision that erodes or misapplies power is a Very Bad Thing, and needs to be avoided. Just in the past few months, we’ve seen a huge erosion in the rights of private citizens (reduction of access to bankruptcy protection only for real people, not for corporations, and erosion of private property rights…both of which I’m aware had high liberal support/initiation). The Patriot Act likewise erodes the rights of private citizens, and currently looks to be in danger of losing the sunset provisions that made those erosions temporary. If we get a non-sunset reauthorization of the Patriot Act, we’re going to be seeing Supreme Court challenges to it within the next 5-10 years…which Roberts could be presiding over.
Well, it looks like George W. finally realized he won’t be ‘President For Life’ so he’s going to appoint as many similar thinking whack-jobs to unelectable long-term positions so that they can continue to degrade the American way of life. Fantastic… I vote to secede from the Union…
To echo what was already written, it was liberal judges who voted to take away private property rights to give it to another private business, not for true public use.
You know, when you get right down to it, I thought the only thing that that ruling really did was say it’s in the hands of local governments.
But, hey, either way, the big business wanting this crap is in the hands of Republicans, so nobody’s innocent here.
Wasn’t it the Liberals and Moderates on the court that ruled that expanded the right of goverment to sieze private property. The stalwort conseratives Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist were the dissenters along with Oconnor who wrote the dissenting position.
Wasn’t it the Liberals and Moderates on the court that ruled that expanded the right of goverment to sieze private property.
John, meet Iowa Jim’s post.
Iowa Jim’s post, meet John.
Now play nice.
Actually, I think you’re right, Craig. My understanding was that the decision simply said that local governments could make the taking of property for economic reasons legal, and that the majority opinion actually encouraged those local governments to review, update, and/or revise their emminent domain policies, ordinances, and laws accordingly. Consequently, I believe many states are already working on laws that prohibit the use of emminent domain for economic purposes, though some make exceptions for things like eliminating blight, etc. However, it does mean that a developer with the right connections and the ability to get local ordinances lifted, changed, or exempted can make a grab at pretty much any property they want.
The said truth is that even where overt economic development purposes are out-of-bounds for eminent domain, covert purposes are easily defined by local leaders as “public interest.”
Is it in the public interest to grow the infrastructure for sprawl? It is according to the politicians who rely on developers’ money in order to be elected.
Henry Broaddus
I am not sure where PAD is getting the legal intersection between the commerce clause/ESA case, eminent domain, and Roe?
The commerce clause says that Congress gets to regulate interstate commerce, and it limits the rights of states to set up protectionist policies and tariffs. At one point, its use was fairly restricted and federal laws were struck down with some regularity. Gradually it was expanded to allow Congress to regulate anything with a rational relation to commerce, such as child labor and racial discrimination in public accomodations.
In the 90’s, however, a step in the other direction was taken when the court held Congress didn’t have the authority to pass a law criminalizing the possession of guns within a certain distance from schools, finding it had no rational relationship to interstate commerce. Thus, you can see where the argument comes from that preventing endangered species isn’t related to interstate commerce, either. (Not that I agree, but that’s the argument.)
If one were to take a restrictive view of Congress’s commerce clause power, then it could have the effect of preventing Congress from criminalizing certain types of abortion, for example, on the grounds that there is no intersection with interstate commerce.
Roe was decided on grounds that have nothing to do with interstate commerce, or federal power. So I don’t think you can deduce from an opinion on the commerce clause what a judge’s opinion might be on Roe. Some of the judges with the most expansive view of the commerce power also voted for Roe.
I agree with the previous poster that Roberts will not shift the balance on Roe — Kennedy has voted to uphold it before, which means it’s still a 5/4 split. If Rehnquist retires, that won’t change anything either. One of the five judges who support Roe would have to retire, and even though Stevens is getting up there, he’s hardly the oldest judge who’s served.
I also agree that pro-choice groups will make fewer challenges, giving the court less of an opportunity to pass on the matter.
With regard to the eminent domain decision — it is unfortunate how this has been characterized in the mainstream press. You’d really get the idea that some corporation can just walk up and hand you an eviction notice. Eminent domain is a long, involved process, governed at length by state law and requiring multiple phases of review and public hearing and notice. Market-value compensation is required, and states can limit the use of ED to public purposes. I really don’t see this decision (which merely said that states have the power to use ED for private purposes, not that they are required to) as having much of a practical impact — in most cases, it would simply be easier for a private company to make owners offers so attractive that they don’t want to refuse. I’d be surprised if this decision came into play more than a few times a year, nationwide, assuming most states don’t act to counter it outright, which I think most will.
Lynn, I don’t think the emminent domain decision is going to have much legal impact…meaning you won’t see a lot more ED actions all of a sudden. In fact, I think you’ll see even fewer. Unless states pass more restrictive laws, you won’t see ED actions, because homeowners will already know that they can’t win that fight…it may take years, but by that point, the homeowner has spent a large percentage of his personal money, while the government entity has spent maybe just as much, but a considerabally smaller percentage. And the government will most likey win, especially given the supreme court’s stance on this.
What you’ll get more often is what happened 2 years ago where I live: the local city council decided that a certain strip of land could be better used (i.e., generate more tax revenue) if it were medium density townhouses instead of single family houses with yards. So they approached the owners of those houses, and made offers to buy. Fairly reasonable offers, I’m told, but behind those offers was the threat of an emminent domain taking action. Mind, this was the CITY offering to buy the land, with the publically stated intent to turn right around and sell the land to a private developer. They did this because the developer was not getting enough voluntary commitment from the homeowners fast enough. I’d wager that the threat of an emminent domain action at least encouraged many of those homeowners that had at first refused to sell to change their minds. So, while ED was never invoked, it certainly lead to the sale of privately held land to another private entity, brokered by the government. We all should certainly be nervous about this, because it basically says that you can own land, only until someone else comes along and declares the the government that they have a “better” use for it.
Amazing how the process of picking a Supreme Court justice has evolved (devolved) into picking a candidate with the least amount of published opinions possible, to avoid controversy.
I’m reminded of Transmetropolitan, where The Smiler picks a Vice-Presidential candidate that was grown in a vat two years previous. Thus, the candidate had no secrets in the closet (other than he was, well, two years old).
Cases like the one you mention, though, aren’t affected by the recent Supreme Court decision anyway.
When I say “ED actions” I don’t mean people contesting ED takings — I mean government using ED in the first place. I think most states will pass laws limiting ED to public use (California already has one, for example) and I can’t see many states extending ED this way — the public reaction was just too negative.
I agree with you, to a degree. While the public reaction was negative, it’s going to be a battle between state government looking to appease the public with laws that limit the use, and local governments wanting to continue to hold the power, or at least the threat of power. In the case I desribed, there wasn’t any ED action…because once the government got involved, people knew that they’d either have to sell “voluntarily,” or they’d be forced to sell after an ED action. Most people in that situation would prefer to take the decent settlemet offer at the beginning, rather than be forced to take a court-dictated offer after a lot of legal expenses later on. And even if states pass laws restricting ED use, there’s still nothing preventing local governments from advocating this kind of forced transferrence of private land. Having a very public Supreme Court decision stating that states and local governments have very limited authority to invoke ED would have gone a long way to eliminating this kind of taking.
Not to put a fine point on it, and not to sound prejudicial, but haven’t Jews always been an endangered species? Or maybe I’ve gotten the wrong impression from all those Woody Allen and Mel Brooks routines.
I see both of your arguments on ED (uh huh huh, I said “ED”), Lynn and Bobb. If the states enact stricter ED laws that more effectively limit the ability of local municipalities to take property, shouldn’t that also reduce the implied threat by a city to use ED as well?
As for the impact of the decision, it’s truly going to depend on where you live. Some states already had strong restrictions on ED use, some are implementing them now as a knee-jerk reaction (I’m sure those are all written very well, with no challengeable clauses…), and some states aren’t going to do anything about it. If nothing else, it’s going to be something else to consider when you’re looking at places to move.
As for RvW, if the case is strong enough legally, shouldn’t it be able to stand, regardless of the personal beliefs of the judges? If it’s in that much danger of being overturned, maybe it needs to be, so a more clear-cut case, one in which a rock-solid legal case can be made one way or the other, can be decided by the court. Oh, but wait; if either side actually put such a case forward and won, they’d lose a key battleground in elections. I agree with the previous poster that neither side has a true political motivation to really end this debate…
Jason, your RvW comment is the main reason why SCT justice noms have become such an issue…it’s a huge unknown. Even with a judge with a longer record, you just don’t know how they’re going to react once they take that seat on the court. For all the talk about “activist judges,” not one single federal judge has been removed from office. Nor could they, not without some cause. And there’s no way a SCT justice is going to be impeached for making a decision the current government doesn’t favor.
Yet, everyone and their brother (including me) jumps up and down saying how horrible things are going to be. I/we (or at least a lot of us) did the same thing during the 2 past presidential elections, but at least there we had some idea based on facts and past events that we were justified in our rantings. With just about any SCT justice, we just don’t have those same justifications to rant and rave. Although it is pretty fun to do so, anyway.
Not to put a fine point on it, and not to sound prejudicial, but haven’t Jews always been an endangered species? Or maybe I’ve gotten the wrong impression from all those Woody Allen and Mel Brooks routines.
Your impression is correct, but the only time in recent history a decision went our way based on this was back in 1948. Sure, we got a country to call our own, but it was puny, and surrounded by some antagonistic neighbors.
There’s an old joke that Moses was a stutterer, and when G-d asked him what land the Israelites wanted, Moses said “Can…Can…Can…” and G-d gave up waiting for him to stop stuttering, and gave the Israelites Canaan. Of course, Moses was trying to say Canada. Ahh, well…
So, if the ICC doesn’t give the federal government the power protect a frog that lives only in California, why does it give the federal government the power to criminalize medical treatments, legal under state law, taking place only in California?
I’m still pretty unclear on why it required a constitutional amendment to give the federal government the power to criminalize alcohol, but the power to criminalize OTHER drugs (many of them LEGAL during Prohibition) is inherent in the ICC.
“I’m still pretty unclear on why it required a constitutional amendment to give the federal government the power to criminalize alcohol, but the power to criminalize OTHER drugs (many of them LEGAL during Prohibition) is inherent in the ICC.”
Was it that the amendment was necessary or was it just that the temperance folk wanted the power and legitimacy of a constitutional amendment?
I don’t know, just asking. And now I have my parents arguing about the answer so I’d better go make sure the steak knives are locked up.
Overturning Roe doesn’t even illegalize abortion…
it just leaves it up to the individual state.
I really like that idea. That makes legislature suddenly relevent to the issue again.
Jack: “I’m still pretty unclear on why it required a constitutional amendment to give the federal government the power to criminalize alcohol, but the power to criminalize OTHER drugs (many of them LEGAL during Prohibition) is inherent in the ICC.”
Bill: Was it that the amendment was necessary or was it just that the temperance folk wanted the power and legitimacy of a constitutional amendment?
The latter. If something is banned by Act of Congress, it can be unbanned by the next Congress. A constitutional amendment is harder to undo (although, as Prohibition itself demonstrated, it is possible). It’s really a math problem. The 108th Congress had a 51-48 Republican majority in the Senate and a 227-205 Republican majority in the House; a 5% switch to the Democrats would have changed the majority in each house, and thus allow the repeal of any given law. By contrast, once a Constitutional Amendment has been passed, it requires a 50% switch in the control of the state legislatures to repeal, because amendments must be passed by 75% of the states, rather than the 50% + 1 majority needed to pass an ordinary law. Laws are repealed on a frequent basis; with this one exception, once an Amendment is passed, it stays passed.
And there’s no way a SCT justice is going to be impeached for making a decision the current government doesn’t favor.
I wouldn’t be so sure. After all the political posturing in the Schiavo case, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone in Congress doesn’t try to impeach an SC Justice that cheezed off the administration.
There’s an old joke that Moses was a stutterer, and when G-d asked him what land the Israelites wanted, Moses said “Can…Can…Can…” and G-d gave up waiting for him to stop stuttering, and gave the Israelites Canaan. Of course, Moses was trying to say Canada. Ahh, well…
That was hilarious and now I have a great joke to tell at family gatherings.
Den, while nothing about government surprises me anymore, I think if either “side” initiated an impeachment of a SCT justice overa ruling, it would start an impeachment bloodbath that would result in the removal of probably 20% of our current elected and appointed government. Which, come to think of it, might not be an all-bad thing.
But I think the whole “activist judges” and threats of impeachment was just a bunch of political grandstanding. Many of those same folks tossing around those threats have for more to lose, and probably better grounds on which to lose them. They don’t really want to open those floodgates and start an impeachment war, when they would make some of the better targets.
I’m not as optimistic as you are, Bobb. Politics in America is becoming more and more a “Scorched Earth” game, where many involved would rather havea phyrric victory than one that involves compromise.
When Roe v. Wade is overturned, yes, it tosses it over to the states. But that’s just going to be the opening gun for anti-choice activists. Overturning Roe v. Wade is merely the first step, not the final goal. Get ready for a state to state assault on a woman’s right to choose.
My guess is that the first step will be a series of referendums on par with the anti-gay marriage acts. Also prepare for more assaults on women seeking abortions, more assaults on abortions clinics as anti-choice activists–having achieved their first “triumph”–will be emboldened and attempt to destroy a woman’s right to choose in every state they can manage.
PAD
I think many of the pro-life politicians will find there’s more to be gained politically in ralling against Roe. V. Wade than dealing with actually defeating it.
Once that occurs, every professed pro-life legislator on both the state and federal level will have two bullseyes on their back: One from the pro-choice community to oust them and one from the pro-life community to support legislation outlawing abortion or face their wrath.
Matt Adler,
“I could be wrong, but I can’t see Roe v. Wade being overturned.”
Well, you could be right. But I feel the two reasons you give are questionable.
First, while you are correct that the ruling would be a “firebomb”, there is no way of knowing WHO it would affect more. Since many on both sides still will not believe it until they see it happen, and since it would be a ruling that would send a massive tectonic shock across the entire political spectrum, there is no way to say who it would affect more, and how.
Second, “If it’s overturned, the Republicans lose one of their biggest campaign issues.”
No, they don’t. In fact, it’s very possible they would gain one, at least in the short-term. BecAUSE i HAVE HEARD many, except the truest of “true believers” feel that after a while, if nothing was done, and considering that Roberts will be the eighth Justice (if confirmed) to be picked by Republican presidents out of the last ten – and he still would not be enough to overturn Roe – that eventually the issue would “lose steam” because they would be resigned to the fact that, despite the rhetoric, the status quo wasn’t going to change. Ever.
But if that day comes, many of those social conservatives would be emboldened. They would see that their efforts had a concrete result, and that would jolt their side as well.
And how such a ruling would affect pro-abortion Republicans like Specter and anti-abortion Democrats like Reid is anybody’s guess.
The thinking here is that such a ruling would have far greater effect on state legislatures, and that the issue would become even more charged than it is now or ever has been, which is saying something. How that would play out politically is anybody’s guess and extremely difficult to predict. But with a new status quo and a state-by-state conversation on the issue, the parameters of the debate would certainly change.
PAD,
“When Roe v. Wade is overturned”
When? Not if? You’re just assuming that it will happen? Heck, Peter, I didn’t even take for granted that Bush would beat Dukakis on Election Night back in 1988. Why do you sound resigned to this? The future is not set in stone.
“When Roe v. Wade is overturned”
When? Not if? You’re just assuming that it will happen?”
No, I believe it will happen. Just one of the many punishments being inflicted on the US for being dumb enough to elect Bush for the first time in 2004.
“Heck, Peter, I didn’t even take for granted that Bush would beat Dukakis on Election Night back in 1988.”
Well, that’s weird. Just as I knew Kerry was toast when he failed to distinguish himself from Bush on Iraq, I knew Dukakis was toast the moment that he gave the bloodless answer about capital punishment if his wife was raped.
“Why do you sound resigned to this? The future is not set in stone.”
And sometimes Judgment Day is inevitable. I’m not “resigned” to it, any more than boarding up one’s house means that one is “resigned” to an oncoming hurricane. I’m saying that the sooner people get their heads out of their butts and realize that Roe v. Wade WILL be overturned, the sooner they’ll prepare for damage control. Here’s a nutty thought: How about if an activist position is taken on the assumption that women’s rights will be curtailed, rather than blind confidence that they won’t. How about, instead of a constitutional amendment prohibiting flag burning or gay marriage, we see a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a woman’s right to choose? A nutty notion, I know: An amendment created to expand citizens’ rights, not restrict them.
PAD
You know, I’m going to stir a huge pot here, but why would it be a bad thing to put the abortion issue to states versus the federal government? Why would it be a bad thing to put such the decision about an issue that revolves around personal beliefs closer to the people it’s going to affect? Are you going to get some states that are going to outright ban it? Probably. Are you going to get some states that place very few, if any real, limits on it? Probably. But abortion’s an issue that’s mired in personal philosophies, religion, scientific rationales, and morality; I doubt it’s even possible for our federal government in its current state to come up with a decision that satisfies anyone entirely, much less everyone in the country. I know the state of things before RvW wasn’t great, but it was also over 30 years ago. Things have changed a lot, especially in terms of people’s perceptions of personal rights. I think the horror stories about a grand right-wing conspiracy sweeping across the country leaves out the fact that overturning RvW would be the single biggest galvanizing moment for the Pro-Choice side, and they’d likely put up just as strong a fight across the country. Someone mentioned that overturning RvW would possibly lead to a new cultural revolution; I think it’d definitely lead to a stronger debate in this country, hopefully one based on something other than empty election rhetoric.
How about, instead of a constitutional amendment prohibiting flag burning or gay marriage, we see a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a woman’s right to choose?
Frankly I think that would be a terrible idea–it would galvanize the pro-lifers to offer their own amendment and at this point I’d have to give them the edge in likely victory. Dean and Hillary are urging democrats to reach out to pro-lifers, the democrats are running Casey vs Santorum, and a CNN poll says 72 percent said that a nominee who wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade shouldn’t be disqualified.
Add in the reality that Blacks and Latinos, two groups that the Democrats absolutely MUST hold on to tend not to be as supportive of RvW as the party as a whole and you have a recipe for utter disaster. It would appear that the country seems to be drifting away from the pro-choice position and it would be smart to reverse that trend before starting a fight that will very possibly lead to disasterous defeat.
I think the main reason that no one has proposed an amendment to guarantee the right to an abortion is twofold: 1) Those that feel strongly about it believe that this right is already in the Constitution, as affirmed by RvW and 2) Keeping the fight in the courts allows many Catholic Democrats like Cuomo and Kerry to play both side by stating that they are personally against abortion but do not want to impose that belief on others. If they had to actually vote to ratify an amendment, that position would be a lot harder to justify.
Relax folks politics, economics and many other things are cyclic. I am not thrilled with the direction we are heading at the moment either. Just as the pendulum of politics is now swinging to conservitive it will swing towards liberal ideals again as well.