Ace On Anti-Abortion Laws
I said earlier that I think states’ passing anti-abortion laws and challenging Roe v. Wade is a bad idea, although I sympathize and agree with what they are trying to do. I am not the only one who thinks so; Ace agrees, though his reasoning is slightly different (I’m taking his arguments out of order to make them easier to address):
Furthermore, I don’t see how this actually advances pro-life goals. There are only two confirmed votes against Roe on the Supreme Court– Scalia and Thomas, who both consider the decision a very bad one (which it is, of course) and who are quite willing to overturn it. Kennedy may or may not agree with the original decision, but he believes the debate has been settled, at least as a legal matter, by the opinon, and he is unwilling to disturb Roe.
Which means that even if Roberts and Alito voted to overturn Roe, there would be only four votes to do so. And I’m betting that one or both of them adopts the Kennedy-O’Connor position — it may have been a bad decision, and some additional restrictions are constitutionally permissible, but the core of the decision — that a woman has a right to an abortion under most circumstances, by constitutional diktat — is now protected by 30+ years of stare decisis.
Exactly so. Even if Roberts and Alito both voted to overturn Roe, that’s still only four votes. And it’s extremely unlikely that they could swing Kennedy. I have seen others say (sorry, no links — I don’t remember where at the moment) that by the time these state challenges get to the SCOTUS, another judge will have been replaced, but there are two problems with that line of reasoning. First, it’s nebulous, since there is no guarantee that another judge will, in fact, have been replaced; and second, the replacement could be another “interpretationist” judge who would uphold Roe v. Wade.
And if this challenge fails, Roe v. Wade will be far more difficult to overturn (shades of Silvera v. Lockyer).
So, ultimately, the best the pro-life forces can hope for is four anti-Roe votes– which would actually be the worst they could hope for, as it would immediately show that yes, in fact the next justice appointed to the court will decide the issue, and of course all Democrats (and all moderate Republicans in the Gang of 14) would deem that an “extraodinary circumstance” permitting a filibuster. Indeed, I’m pretty sure that is the one “extraordinary circumstance” they envisioned when crafting the deal.
I had not thought of that, but yes, this would turn the judicial nomination process into a zoo (much more than it is now). Ace is correct here.
I think there’s something of a Pauline Kael effect going on among abortion foes. She famously quipped that she didn’t understand how Nixon had won, as no one she knew had voted for him. I don’t think abortion foes are at that level of disconnect, certainly, and further, I think they would say that doing the right thing is more important than doing the popular thing. But I’m not sure they realize how unopopular a full repeal of Roe would be in the country now.
For 75% of blue-state women, it’s virtually the only issue. That may be overstated, but abortion rights are important to just about every woman who grew up north of the Mason-Dixon line, east of the Mississippi, or west of the Nevada deserts.
Putting abortion in play now will cost Republicans seats in Congress. Blue-state districts that would happily vote for Republicans because of taxes, crime, etc., will now swing towards the Democrats.
I’m not sure I follow here. Repealing Roe v. Wade would not make abortion illegal; it would merely throw the decision back to the states, where it belongs. I agree that many (if not most) pro-abortion moonbats don’t seem to know this, and I agree that there would be caterwauling and yowling and screeching — but we have that already.
Furthermore, Ace is implying that this would motivate the liberals. What he’s missing is that it would also motivate anti-abortion conservatives. I suspect they would cancel each other out.
There is an election coming up. The Republicans are on the ropes, and their one big trump card — national security — seems, at least at the moment, to be in the hands of Congressional Democrats.
Seemed. The Dubai ports deal was surely the stupidest thing this administration has done — and the most dangerous to our chances in the next election. But House Republicans voted against it 62-2 (if my memory is correct), and Senate Republicans will do the same. They are not as politically tonedeaf as the White House seems to be on this issue.
I think we’ve saved the trump card. Let’s hope, anyway.