Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Alito on Abortions 12

Journal by pudge

I have no confidence whatsoever that Roberts or Alito would vote to overturn Roe any time soon. A conservative, originalist, justice is mindful of precedent and the effects of rulings, and are not quick to overturn rulings even if they are, to their mind, terrible and wrong.

I hope Alito and Roberts will eventually help to reverse Roe. It's a terrible decision on its own, and abortion is a terrible tragedy that should be, in the general case, illegal. But slavery was a terrible tragedy too, and Abraham Lincoln didn't push for its abolition, until the main obstacles to doing so -- disunion and the Constitution -- were no longer issues, as the war had begun so disunion was moot, and it also gave him a backdoor to the Emancipation Proclamation: defense of the union.

(By the way, Abraham Lincoln used the same argument in justifying the Emancipation Proclamation that Bush is using with the wiretapping: that it is necessary for the defense of the union, and therefore falls under his executive authority. Not too many people complain about what Lincoln did, though.)

But back to the point: you don't risk great turmoil by overturning longstanding precedent. If Alito or Roberts rules against Roe, I imagine it will only be because they are in the minority and know they can get away with it. I doubt either would cast the deciding vote striking down Roe any time soon, not until the country is ready for it.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Alito on Abortions More

Alito on Abortions

Comments Filter:

  • Aborttion and Justice Kennedy (Score:3, Informative)

    by ces ( 119879 ) * <christopher.stefan#gmail.com> on Thursday January 26, 2006 @04:28PM (#14572030) Homepage Journal
    Well you have to remember that the Rhenquist court pretty much rewrote Roe in the Casey decision. So more properly the court would have to overturn Casey which is on a bit more solid foundation Constitutionally than Roe.

    In any case my guess is Roberts is probably less likely than Alito to vote to overturn either Roe or Casey. Also until another justice retires abortion rights have at least 5 votes in favor (Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter, and Kennedy).

    My concern with both Alito and Roberts isn't so much how they will vote in abortion cases but the sort of cases where O'Connor and Kennedy would split on 5-4 decisions.

    BTW for those of you who haven't been paying attention Justice Kennedy is now the key swing vote on the court.
  • And still might. The Oregon Euthanasia decision was really bad for social conservatives and neoconservatives in three ways:

    1. State's rights prevailed for now- narrowly- against an overreaching Attorney General. This is bad news in the wiretapping case, which can also be interpreted as "not what Congress Intended in giving up executive authority to conduct foreign espionage to the Executive Branch."
    2. The dissenting opinion basically said that the federal government trumps state's rights in matters of
    • And still might. The Oregon Euthanasia decision was really bad for social conservatives and neoconservatives in three ways:

      Neoconservatives are usually in *favor* of federal power. Did you mean something other than "neoconservative"?
      • Neoconservatives are usually in *favor* of federal power. Did you mean something other than "neoconservative"?

        Nope- see #1, this decision was directly *against* federal power. Social conservatives hopes are dashed with #2 and #3.
        • Neoconservatives, as a whole, do not have a coordinated view of domestic social or political policy. They are unified pretty much only on security issues, where this decision does not apply.

          Also, too many people focus on states vs. federal. That's not how an good conservative, originalist, judge looks at things. They look at the Constitution, which means some powers belong to the federal government, and the rest belong to the states. For a judge to come down on the side of the federal government simply
          • The argument against Roe V. Wade is a state's rights issue; because states have control over punishment for murder. Oregon's Euthanasia law expands this to all right to life issues; but the court hasn't decided on that yet.

            Interesting though that you see the neoconservative position as being pro-security, where I see them falling down on this issue specifically. The lack of border control, the fact that we attempt trade with people that we really should have no contact with, invading other countries, the
            • The argument against Roe V. Wade is a state's rights issue; because states have control over punishment for murder.

              That's one argument. It's not mine. Abortion is a federal issue because it is a civil rights issue. And I am more concerned with the courts violating of the federal Conrgess' authority than the states'.

              Interesting though that you see the neoconservative position as being pro-security, where I see them falling down on this issue specifically.

              That's because you have two problems: you don't kno
  • Abraham Lincoln used the same argument in justifying the Emancipation Proclamation that Bush is using with the wiretapping

    Yeah, because those are exactly the same. One promotes freedom, the other destroys it.

    The precedent you should cite is the supension of Habeas Corpus by Lincoln. If that's what Bush wants to do, he should come out and say it, so we can have a real, honest debate over dictatorial Presidential power.

    • Yeah, because those are exactly the same. One promotes freedom, the other destroys it.

      Lincoln was far worse than Bush: Lincoln destroyed a right guaranteed explicitly by the Constitution, by Executive fiat. How is that not destroying liberty? And he did it all with only one justification: defense of the nation.

      Of course, today, we all agree slavery is evil and wrong. But so what? The Constitution allowed it, and he took away the right of people to keep slaves. He destroyed a freedom to create another f
  • What you say doesn't bode well for getting Southern Pacific vs. Santa Clara County - corporate personhood, overturned.
  • I can't believe you are defending domestic wiretapping without serious court or congressional oversight (and the argument that people knew is bogus as has been shown again and again).

    If Clinton would have approved domestic wiretapping in the wake of Oklahoma City, no one would defend it. In fact, every measure that Clinton took to increase the ease and use of survelliance was widely (and rightly) criticized. And don't give me that BS "after 9/11, we live in a different time" crap. We have always lived in
    • I can't believe you are defending domestic wiretapping without serious court or congressional oversight

      I can't believe you believe that I am.

      I have stated in a previous journal entry that I am against it in principle, and specifically, that even if the President does have that authority, that I want more meaningful Congressional oversight.

      However, I also think that many on the left are ignoring the fact that there are some strong legal and historical arguments that favor what Bush did. I don't know -- and

Slashdot Top Deals

The cost of feathers has risen, even down is up!

Close