Why we should care about reconfiguring the Supreme Court

-Allmusic- · 09-14-2008, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Roe v. Wade has been established law for 35 years; the right to choose is now a part of our culture. A decision to overrule it would not only disrupt and polarize the nation; it would also threaten countless doctors, and pregnant women and girls, with jail sentences and criminal fines. As Ginsburg has also urged, Roe v. Wade is now best seen, not only as a case about privacy, but also as involving sex equality.

No one should disparage the convictions of those who believe that abortion is an immoral act. But after more than three decades, a decision to overrule Roe v. Wade, and to throw an established domain of human liberty into turmoil, would be anything but conservative. It is relevant here that many people, including McCain running mate Sarah Palin, believe that abortion is unacceptable even in cases of rape and incest, and there is little doubt that if Roe is overruled, some states will enact that belief into law.

For the future of constitutional rights, there is a broader point, which involves the fragility of many constitutional principles. Of course the Supreme Court tends to move slowly, but some conservatives who speak of "strict construction," and of "legislating from the bench," have something quite radical in mind.

For them, these are code words. They seek to appoint judges who will overturn not merely Roe, but dozens of other past decisions. For example, they want judges to impose flat bans on affirmative action, to invalidate environmental regulations, to increase presidential power, and to reduce the separation of church and state. Some Republican appointees to the Supreme Court have already called for significant changes in constitutional law in these domains.

-snip-
It is inevitable that the principal debates between McCain and Democratic candidate Barack Obama will involve the economy and foreign policy. For most voters, the Supreme Court is simply too abstract. But we should not overlook a crucial point: The fate of Roe v. Wade, and of countless principles in constitutional law, is now hanging in the balance.

The fate of Roe v. Wade and choice - The Boston Globe

barrons · 09-14-2008, 08:08 PM

There will always be NY and California. Abortion is murder. That's it in a nutshell.

zoosermom · 09-14-2008, 08:13 PM

Allmusic, in your real life are you as frantic about this election as your posts would lead one to believe, or is it just the limit of the medium that makes it seem that way?

cptofthehouse · 09-14-2008, 08:13 PM

Whoever becomes the next president will have a great deal of control of who will go on the Supreme Court with two, possibly three vacancies coming up. We currently have a court that is split with one swing vote regarding RvW and other liberal situations. It is a Republican mission to overthrow RvW and McCain has made it clear that he will move and do what he can to do so. If this is an issue that is of prime importance to a voter, he should vote accordingly.

I have not like the idea of a single issue such as RvW to steer my vote. Personally, I think that technology will take care of the issue as we are saving preemies at younger and younger ages, and freezing embryos. There will soon come a time when the fetus can be removed from the mother without ending its viability. So that is not the most important stance to me.

vicariousparent · 09-14-2008, 08:13 PM

Allmusic, I think the battle has already been lost. The current Supreme Court is already hostile towards a lot of these liberties. I think the the end it will take acts of Congress to legislate these liberties, and hopefully amend the Constitution to make them explicit. The life expectancy of these young and ultraconservative judges is pretty long.

Also, at this point in time, the general public thinks (incorrectly) that the right to choose will always remain intact even if some curbs are put in place. What I expect is that the matter will be sent back to the States and in many parts of the country abortion will become unavailable. Eventually the pendulum will swing the other way, but there will be some bad times before that.

cartera45 · 09-14-2008, 08:20 PM

Good timing on this thread - Scalia is being interviewed on 60 Minutes right now.

-Allmusic- · 09-14-2008, 08:23 PM

That it is, VP.

And Cptothehouse, it is also true that we save micropreemies, well before the age of viability now. Of course, no one wants to discuss THAT elephant in the room, of the millions and millions their NICU care costs, and then the millions their special education costs; these costs, of course, are passed onto the rest of us through higher insurance premiums and town education budgets already stretched too thin.

Always seems that life is really important to conservatives while it is still in the womb, but less so when the costs of astronomical care drives up the cost for the government or for the rest of us, as is quite often the case.

zoosermom · 09-14-2008, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Of course, no one wants to discuss THAT elephant in the room, of the millions and millions their NICU care costs, and then the millions their special education costs; these costs, of course, are passed onto the rest of us in higher insurance premiums and town education budgets already stretched too thin.

Those lives are very important to us and we think those costs are worth it.

Zoosermom
(Micropreemie from the days when survival was almost impossible)

odyssey · 09-14-2008, 08:26 PM

This is the most important issue to me - Supreme Court nominees, because of the lasting nature of Supreme Court decisions. I'm very worried about this, but not just because of Roe v. Wade. If the case turns on a constitutional issue, Congress can't just legislate away a bad decision, and if it is something that can be overturned with legislation, a conservative President will be vetoing it anyway. Amendments to the Constitution are so difficult to obtain.

-Allmusic- · 09-14-2008, 08:28 PM

Oh? But when all those indigent inner city teenagers are delivering micropreemies, are you happy to pick up the costs?

Because I have not noticed that conservatives are happy to pick up the costs on anything, except defense, that doesn't affect their lives personally, so I find this view of ZM rather amusing.

zoosermom · 09-14-2008, 08:30 PM

Yes I am allmusic. It's easy to forget which poster is which. But as has been posted repeatedly, I spend an enormous amount (thousands and thousands of hours over decades and thousands of dollars in contributions every year) in volunteering. How dare you presume to know otherwise? I wonder if you spend as much of your time and money as my daughters and I do. We also live in a mixed neighborhood and my daughter attends a predominantly black school. I deal with, live with and love those inner city teens on a daily basis. Do you?

That was a remarkably personal attack by you involving no actual information. That says a lot.

xiggi · 09-14-2008, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Why we should care about reconfiguring the Supreme Court

Indeed! Let's hope the next POTUS will be able to replace a couple of the ossified left wingers out and ensure a stronger adherence to the Constitution.

Dbate · 09-14-2008, 08:32 PM

I really hope that Roe v. Wade is overturned. And I hope we increase funding for foster homes and programs to help mothers take care of their children when they are young.

Allmusic, I hope the conservatives who are likely to care about overturning Roe v. Wade are the ones who probably care about chlidren as well, or at least I am.

Dbate · 09-14-2008, 08:33 PM

Quote:

"Oh? But when all those indigent inner city teenagers are delivering micropreemies, are you happy to pick up the costs?"

So, is the arguement that it is cheaper to kill babies than to pay for them?

-Allmusic- · 09-14-2008, 08:33 PM

ZM, considering that you know absolutely nothing about me either, I would suggest that you leave your snide remarks at home. Thanks.