I agree with you 100% that much political jockeying has taken place to ensure a certain outcome. I’d even agree that Bush was in on that jockeying. What I don’t agree with is that, based on a given judicical outcome, you can conclude that the justices were taking part in that jockeying, too. If you weren’t claiming that, so be it, but that’s how I read your post.
Maybe I’m being unfair to you by assuming that you don’t differentiate between your own political beliefs and how you think the SCOTUS should rule on a given issue. If you were seated on the SCOTUS, could you see yourself ruling in a way that conflicted with your political beliefs? Could you say “I really believe in X, but the constitution doesn’t say X, so I have to rule against it”?
Man, you lawyers are tough! Yes, you are correct. But what I’m really trying to get at is:
It would be wrong to insist that they must have arrived at their decision based on their personal, political beliefs.
Please keep in mind that I was originally responding to this:
Now, if he wants to further clarify and accept that they may in fact be making their decisions based on “legal precedent”, and not on their own political views, then fine. However, I’m reading that to mean that he thinks their legal arguments, if they overturn Roe, will be little more than a cover for advancing their own political agenda (ie, to make abortion illegal).
I can’t read the Supreme’s minds any more than John can, but I feel completely sure that the Justices were nominated by a right-wing President seeking to appease a religious right constintuency, and that they have given assurances to someone in private (which is what all the wink-wink-nudge-nudge from Dobson was about during the Alito hearings) that they would vote to overturn or severely restrict Roe v. Wade. Whatever their legal cover for doing so, and whether or not they honestly buy that cover, doesn’t matter. The fix is in.
What Gadarene said. I think it’s foolish to think that one’s personal values can’t affect his jurisprudence. In fact, I think it’s absurd in the philosophical sense. All we are is a collection of our views on stuff; what other basis exists?
No, because of the phrase or severely restricted. A complete overturning of Roe v. Wade would very likely energize the female vote and the middle of the road and swing them radically toward the Dems and away from the Pubs, so I consider it entirely possible that what is being sought here is not a dramatic overturning of RvW that will mean political disaster to the Pubbies, but nibbling away at it bit by bit until abortion is a de facto impossibility in the US. That might energize the middle too, or it might not. Overturning RvW outright would do it, if anything would.
If two-thirds (67%) of American women want abortion laws to be more restrictive than they are now (with 51% wanting to ban all or almost all of them), which way would the overturn of Roe v. Wade “energize the female vote”?
Let’s stick to the facts. I agree that most Americans want more restrictions on abortion, but I think you have to cherry-pick to find a poll that shows 51% of women wanting to ban most abortions. Here’s a bunch if abortion polls.
“What is your personal feeling about abortion? (1) It should be permitted in all cases. (2) It should be permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than it is now. (3) It should be permitted only in cases such as rape, incest and to save the woman’s life. OR, (4) It should only be permitted to save the woman’s life.”
You have 50% (33% + 17%) who want almost all current abortions prohibited, an additional 15% who want greater restrictions, and 5% who want no abortions. That’s 70%.
And in addition, what Cliffy said. It’s just ridiculous that it’s a FUCKING COINCIDENCE that four socially conservative Catholics can be nominated to the bench and not have strong opinions on abortion. Are our brains not supposed to function or what?
That’s men and women, not just women. And if you look at the poll right below it, it shows only 40% for basically the same categories. Like I said, you’re cherry-picking. And you moved the goal post to include men.
Wouldn’t you agree that most people have strong opinions on abortion? The problem here seems to be not that they have personal opinions, but that their personal opinions may not be the same as yours.
I believe that the law should protect the right to life of unborn children.
If I were a judge, however, I would not find that the Fourteenth Amendment confers a due process right to live on the unborn. I would find that the Constitution is silnet on the issue of abortion.
Are my personal values influencing my jurisprudence? I don’t think so.
No, the problem is that there was a very extensive vetting process by the right designed to ensure that nominees had the correct opinion on abortion. They used to cliam the left did “litmus testing” on Supreme Court nominees, but the lengths the right is going to is more like that stuff they used to do in China durin the Cultural Revolution …
He wasn’t putting words in your mouth, he was trying to find some intellectual consistency in what you were saying. You supported a claim about the FEMALE vote being energized or rather, not energized, by Roe v. Wade, by citing a survey that included both males and females, when we know that there are signirficant differences between men and women’s opinions on this issue.
Yes, you are correct. But what I’m really trying to get at is: