No. of Recommendations: 6

There are currently only 3 members of the Court who favor overturning Roe v. Wade: Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas. Rehnquist is the one who is sick, so assuming he leaves, and is replaced by a conservative, it's still 6 to 3.

Assuming Stevens (who is old, and in my opinion, losing it) and O'Connor leave in the next four years, and Bush nominates, and the Senate confirms, two more conservatives, then the Court may overturn Roe.

So far, anyway, there isn't a single Supreme Court Justice who is willing to say that an unborn baby is a person who is entitled to the equal protection of the laws. So the prospect that the Supreme Court would overturn a state statute allowing abortion is pretty remote.

In other words, the liberals are attempting to impose their will on the people by unelected fiat. The conservatives are just trying to ensure that democracy prevails--that blue states have abortion rights and red states do not.

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, then all that means is that the availability of abortion will be debated and determined at the state and/or federal level, and candidates will run and be elected (or not) depending on their position on this issue. Which is where we are now, pretty much, except that instead of having somebody like Kerry who says that he will nominate judges who support Roe v. Wade, we will have somebody like Kerry who says he supports abortion.

Roe v. Wade has, among other things, completely poisoned the judicial process, to where prospective judges have to make campaign promises (or at least wink and nod) to get on the court. It's never been a legitimate opinion in the sense of being based on written law--you can't read the Constitution and point to the abortion clause--which is why supporters of abortion rights get so hysterical whenever a judge is about to be confirmed.

Instead of going through all this hullabaloo about whether a Supreme Court Justice might (horror!) follow the written Constitution, why don't you just acknowledge that abortion isn't in the Constitution, that some forms of abortion (early-term abortion, cases of rape) are more popular than other forms of abortion (late-term abortion, killing retarded infants), and this whole debate is much better resolved by statute, rather than by unelected people issuing whatever rules they deem to be great policy.

Hugo Black, by the way, was a very liberal Senator, one of staunchest New Deal Democrats we ever had. But he was nonetheless a person who took the written Constitution seriously--as law to be followed--and he thought the so-called Constitutional right to abortion was dishonest and dictatorial. (Black refused to recognize a constitutional right to birth control). It would be nice to have principled liberals like that today, who respect the democratic process, as opposed to unelected people dictating rules.

Print the post  


What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.