Ginsburg would have rather seen the justices make a narrower decision that struck down only the Texas law that brought the matter before the court. That law allowed abortions only to save a mother's life.
A more restrained judgment would have sent a message while allowing momentum to build at a time when a number of states were expanding abortion rights, she said. She added that it might also have denied opponents the argument that abortion rights resulted from an undemocratic process in the decision by "unelected old men."
Ginsburg told the students she prefers what she termed "judicial restraint" and argued that such an approach can be more effective than expansive, aggressive decisions.
May 12, 2013
"The court can put its stamp of approval on the side of change and let that change develop in the political process."
Said Ruth Bader Ginsburg, speaking yesterday at the University of Chicago law school, ostensibly about Roe v. Wade, but inferentially, perhaps, about same-sex marriage (the issue before the Court right now).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
30 comments:
Scalia in drag?
Well, that sounds good.
We're talking an editorial statement.
I thought SCOTUS was supposed to tell us if it's Constitutional.
Since when was being more effective the job of the court.
This makes no sense to me. If (abortion or gay marriage) is a right then the Court should rule. If it isn't a right then the court should stay out of it.
And if she believes the court got Roe wrong has she ever voiced that belief in an opinion?
An activist judge speaks.
inferentially, perhaps, about same-sex marriage
Isn't that what everybody's always really talking about?
I think that by now a lot of people realize that there were a couple problems with Roe v. Wade. First, and foremost, it was pretty much cobbled out of thin air, or, I should say that the privacy line of cases was. More importantly though, with this weak support, it effectively cut off the legislative process. There could be no national consensus, because the American people were never allowed a voice on the subject. Rather, a handful of unelected Justices mandated the result. And, finally, as we have been seeing with the murder trial of the abortion doctor the last couple of weeks, there is a seamy underside to abortion. There is very little difference between late term abortion and infanticide, esp. given that an emergency C-section can deliver a viable baby in minutes throughout essentially the entire third trimester.
I would suggest that if the Supreme Court had not stepped in, and mandated abortion, that within a decade or so, a national consensus would have coalesced. By the time the case was decided, states like Colorado, where I was living at the time, had legalized at least some abortion. Instead, the debate continues to this day, with even less common ground than before.
What a weasel.
Let's just trash the constitution and rule by sentiment. Since our sentiment is outside the mainstream, we'll provide the nudge our sentiment needs to move it toward acceptance.
Appeal to authority.
Speaking of privacy rights why does it seem to apply to woman and only when it comes to abortion? Why doesn't this discovered right apply equally men and woman in other areas?
Given the choice we know which way she decides, regardless
Because the hard work of actually, you know, convincing your fellow citizens to vote a certain way is too much trouble.
oh god lord... Ginsberg does the whole "change is teh wunderful!" schtick?
If she is so enamored of being on the "right side of history" then she should have been a legislator. SCOTUS is not supposed to be some super legislative body!
"a national consensus would have coalesced"
I think Nisbet made the same sort of argument in his book Prejudices (interesting reading, if I remember correctly).
What do you think that consensus would have looked like? How different would it have been from Roe v. Wade, with its increasing regulation per each trimester of pregnancy?
Context. Wouldn't surprise me if, at that time, more Republicans than Democrats favored reproductive rights. The Democrats were a coalition of white Southerners and white urban Catholics. Not much support to be found there unless you could have persuaded Dixiecrats that birth control and abortion applied only to African Americans. Meanwhile, the WASP gentry in the north were still afraid that the Catholics were outbreeding them and bringing up new voters for the machine politicians.
Thus it was that liberals or people whose votes had nothing to do with economics and everything to do with symbolism decided that the courts were the place to "reform" society.
Re: Paco Wove:
What do you think that consensus would have looked like? How different would it have been from Roe v. Wade, with its increasing regulation per each trimester of pregnancy?
I think the "consensus" would have been varying levels of protection for the unborn across the United States. Which is what you'd expect given the cultural differences across the US.
Liberal states might have ended up limiting abortion by permitting permitting on-demand abortions only during the first 12 weeks/3 months -- which seems to be standard in most of Europe.
Ginsburg's too lazy to run for office. Abortion good and guns bad is not a jurisprudence.
Here is a BBC summary of European abortion laws as of 2007. Just to compare with our laws, which strike me as something of an outlier in the civilised world.
Somehow, I don't believe Ginsberg is in favor of judicial restraint except in retrospect when lack of restraint causes continuing problems. I fully expect her to "roll the dice".
And she, a Supreme Court Justice.
Balfegor said... Here is a BBC summary of European abortion laws as of 2007. Just to compare with our laws, which strike me as something of an outlier in the civilised world.
5/12/13, 3:22 PM
I thought the liberal judges belived in looking towards foreign law?
How frequently has she been a vote for a more restrained decision when the decision at hand is a liberal cause?
Darleen said...
oh god lord... Ginsberg does the whole "change is teh wunderful!" schtick?
If she is so enamored of being on the "right side of history" then she should have been a legislator. SCOTUS is not supposed to be some super legislative body!
But certainly since the mid 60s, that's how they've seen themselves.
Re: Bill:
I thought the liberal judges belived in looking towards foreign law?
In case anyone doubted it, justices only look to foreign law to give their prejudices a patina of respectability. The fact that a bunch of European jurists or legislators have decided something one way should carry no persuasive weight whatsoever (apart from maybe some aspects of treaty law, like interpretation of the Vienna Convention on International Sale of Goods or something).
Yes, because being on the side of change is always so good.
You know who was on the side of change?
Hitler
Castro
Mao
Mussolini
Che
It is embarrassing that this woman is on the US Supreme Court
That means by 5-4 (at least) gay marriage will not become a Constitutional right by Supreme Court fiat.
Buyer's remorse?
Or been hangin' with that Scalia dude too long.
Or not long enough.
Is this attitude evidenced in her votes or her opinions?
Balfegor said...
Here is a BBC summary of European abortion laws as of 2007. Just to compare with our laws, which strike me as something of an outlier in the civilised world.
I searched in vain for a state that gave the father the slightest voice in the choice to abort.
Why oh why can't the Supreme Court accept that it's job is to interpret and apply the law, including the Constitution, and not to make social policy based on its own "higher understanding"? Even Ruth Ginsberg can now see that the Court's intrusion into the abortion issue has been a complete FUBAR. But she'll dutifully vote for the next intrusion. And then her ideological descendants 40 years from now will acknowledge that the Court FUBARed again.
Ginsburg said that in her view Roe's legacy will ultimately hold up.
That's very optimistic. It's hard to see how Roe will "hold up," when one political party is determined to overturn it. See Lochner. Eventually the critics get five, and the opinion is gone. Pro-lifers don't have to convince liberals. We just have to convince Republicans.
What's really damning to the Court's legacy is the nature of the attack. Roe will not only be overturned--as Lochner was overturned--but the process of overturning it will expose the Supreme Court as a bunch of baby-killers.
It's not just the lawless, political nature of the opinion. It's the disregard for human life. So when we see Blackmun's arbitrary memo, we don't just think, "that's a man who has disregard for his oath to follow the Constitution." We think, "that's a man who has disregard for human life."
It's the pro-life criticism that is damning. The Supreme Court--including the conservatives--have defined human babies as sub-human property! Everything flows from that. Opinions describing decapitation and dismemberment. Photographs of dead babies. The Dr. Gosnell case. The shootings of abortion doctors. Indeed, the mindset of Dr. Gosnell ("ensure fetal demise") is Orwellian speak that the Supreme Court invented.
Roe is a much bigger deal than Lochner, and the stakes are much higher. Jurists like Scalia have attempted to minimize the importance of Roe. But that just marks Scalia as complicit! He is more concerned with his Court's reputation than with the underlying issue of infanticide.
What Roe v. Wade has exposed is the naked narcissism of the people in power. They are, more than anything, concerned with their own authority. Justice Kennedy upholds Roe in Casey because it would make the Supreme Court look bad to overrule it. Meanwhile, Justice Scalia attacks Roe because it is making the Supreme Court look bad to uphold it. It's as if the two men are debating the best way to save the Supreme Court's reputation.
But people outside the Supreme Court do not share this obsession. We are not, for instance, willing to overlook infanticide in order to protect the people in power. Indeed, if the people in power are responsbile for infanticide, then we begin to look for ways to diminish or constrain their power.
I suspect when this is all over, not only will the Court's little coup d'etat be overruled, but the Court will face a grave and serious attack on its own authority. And they will be forced to acknowledge that "mistakes were made."
Post a Comment