"... although the effect was smaller than among self-identified liberals. In other words, the news that the Supreme Court appears poised to overturn Roe may have made a higher share of panel participants think that Americans want to keep those protections, regardless of what they personally think about abortion.... [T]he perception that the court's action is out of step with public opinion could embolden people on the left to protest and talk to their neighbors about the issue — which could, in turn, reinforce the perception that the court’s action is far more conservative than many Americans want. And ultimately, that could be dangerous for the Supreme Court...."
Writes Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux in "How Overturning Roe Could Change The Way Americans Think About Abortion/And the Supreme Court" (FiveThirtyEight).
Dangerous? This piece was published today. Considering what seemed like an attempt at assassination of a Supreme Court Justice last week, I would have chosen a different word.
Anyway, what Thomson-DeVeaux is talking about is what also happened after Roe was decided. A decision amplifies the voice of its opponents. What's the argument that Justices should factor in who's going to object, how strongly these people will be activated, and how the dialogue about rights will play out over time?
Do a survey about that. I think most of us want the Justices to follow a judicial method that isn't majoritarian. And part of the judicial method is that many things are left to the majority to work out for ourselves.
In the case of abortion, the issue is whether abortion is a right, to be exercised by the individual or whether it is to be controlled by majoritarian politics. If it is not to be a right anymore, then it is left to the majority. And then why would the Court feel threatened by the majority wanting something else or — more abstrusely — by the majority believing that there's a majority that wants something else? The democratic branches of government can just legislate that right back into existence.
I think Thomson-DeVeaux has got hold of a big canard.
पोस्ट्स
५५ टिप्पण्या:
Why ARE democrats SO AFRAID of democratic action on Abortion?
According to democrats.. The Overwhelming Majority of people, are TOTALLY IN FAVOR of Abortion!
And, because of THAT; Abortion must NEVER come to a vote..
Am i missing something?
Democrats constantly assert “majority” when there is none. It’s one of their ( racist, sexist, Nazi false smears being the others ) political sloganeering.
Once again leftist writers deliberately obfuscating the difference between X is a Constitutionally guaranteed right or not vs X is good or bad.
The best thing in the world can be 100% unconstitutional, and that doesn't make it worse. The worst thing in the world can be 100% constitutional, and that doesn't make it better.
For God's sake this is like 5th grade level civics here
'I think Thomson-DeVeaux has got hold of a big canard.'
Or a big, fat canard...
"In the case of abortion, the issue is whether abortion is a right, to be exercised by the individual or whether it is to be controlled by majoritarian politics. If it is not to be a right anymore, then it is left to the majority."
Actually, in the case of abortion, the issue is whether the American Constitution, as written, provides an individual right to abortion not controlled in any way by majoritarian politics. More specifically, the issue is whether such a "right" was fabricated arbitrarily by unelected judicial overlords in absurdly reasoned cases. More broadly, the issue is whether any SCOTUS majority at any time can fabricate such a right, bypassing the actual constitutional process of amending the Constitution by supermajorities.
Obviously a case of duck and cover.
You can't put individual rights AND majoritarian choice in first place. There's the idea that the majoritarian choice is for the individual to decide, and the majority could make that a right by getting a statute enacted. So let's see if that happens.
The article is trying to say something like: If the Court withdraws the constitutional right, more people will believe abortion should be left to individual choice, and that's a reason why the Court should refrain from withdrawing the constitutional right. But why?! If the majority really wants abortion to be an individual right, it can get statutes passed making the erstwhile constitutional right into a statutory right. But, the article implies, that might not happen because there isn't really that majority. People just happen to a have distorted perspective and THINK that there is. But so what?! How does that work as a reason for the Court to change what it's doing?
Is the article trying to say that anti-abortion people might REGRET finally annihilating the abortion right because it will change politics as various conservatives get the feeling that a lot of people prefer that there be an abortion right? That's a pretty weak basis for regret, and there's unlikely to be any regret from the people who think abortion is murder.
Abortion is an issue authorized for legislation at the state level. Had the Dems legislated this federally in the first place, even though lacking the Constitutional authority to do so, I doubt the Supreme Courts of the previous 50 years would have overturned that legislation, or that states would have fought. Strangely enough, representative democracy operating under the rules of our republic affords the public enough of a say in policy and legislation to garner consensus, or at least acquiescence, to laws passed openly and/or with bipartisan input.
... the issue is whether (something) is a right ... or whether it is to be controlled by majoritarian politics.
The democratic branches of government can just legislate that right back into existence.
There's the canard. Judges are creatures of the government, appointed and confirmed by politicians, and in some cases, such as various state courts, by voters themselves. *All rights* are controlled by majoritarian politics. We may subject certain laws to higher scrutiny based on the activity falling into more or less clearly defined categories that intersect with Constitutional provisions but there is nothing that is off-limits to some form of majoritarian control, including the ultimate control of amending the Constitution.
Re: gilbar:
According to democrats.. The Overwhelming Majority of people, are TOTALLY IN FAVOR of Abortion!
And, because of THAT; Abortion must NEVER come to a vote..
Am i missing something?
I think Democrats -- at least, Democratic leaders -- realise that the democratic process will likely result in some level of abortion being available pretty much everywhere in the US (albeit with regional variation), but outside of a handful of ultra-liberal states, there's roughly zero chance it's going to be as permissive as the framework in Roe or Casey. In most of the country, after it all shakes out (probably after episodes of both Democratic and Republican overreach) it'll probably only be legal on a discretionary basis up to maybe 12~18 weeks, after which there will be limited carveouts for maternal health, rape, etc., rather than the 23-24 weeks contemplated under Casey, or whatever "viability" means today, and differences among jurisdictions as to how those carveouts are defined.
There's some slippage in what it means when voters say they are in favour of allowing abortion. They definitely are, but in a much more limited sense than pro-abortion activists want it to mean. The victory pro-abortion activists won in Roe v Wade was significant precisely because it enabled them to seize ground they could not have won through the democratic process. They don't want to give that ground up. And I think Democratic leaders have that understanding.
Dangerous? This piece was published today. Considering what seemed like an attempt at assassination of a Supreme Court Justice last week, I would have chosen a different word.
The big canard is that the majority is with the Democrats on every one of their issues.
It's not so, but they keep printing and repeating it on a daily basis.
Thus everyone in opposition is "thwarting the will of the people" and must be stopped for the good of "democracy".
See also: When Dems don't win the elections are "stolen".
It's a holy blessing and a moral responsibility. On the political side, it's a football.
Who wants to compare a helpless infant with a football?
But, there we are.
The crazy man didn't attempt assassination he just planned it and then got cold feet before he could make his attempt. The important thing is that the would be murderer and lunatic was free to buy whatever weapons he needed to get er done. It's a win-win
When was the last time you read an article written on abortion that actually didn't come at it from the advocation of a position, but instead from a desire to rationally balance out the politics, culture, and legal implications nationally and locally.
You know journalism has fallen a long ways when your answer isn't "Oh, this one major publication did a really good piece a month ago...." but instead "I don't know if I've ever read such a piece."
"Leave the Cliche, Take the Canard"
-Literary Godfather.
It'll be hilarious, if the SCOTUS opinion ends up supporting Roe v. Wade.
Anyway, what Thomson-DeVeaux is talking about is what also happened after Roe was decided. A decision amplifies the voice of its opponents. What's the argument that Justices should factor in who's going to object, how strongly these people will be activated, and how the dialogue about rights will play out over time?
What she's talking about is how much of a moron and / or liar she is.
Roe "amplified the voice of its opponents" by putting them in the place where the only way they could get what they wanted was a huge national fight to change the composition of SCOTUS to get honest people on it who would toss Roe / Casey.
Dobbs tossing Roe / Casey means that now everyone gets a voice, and a choice. You want abortion uber allies? Move to a State that has that, or else campaign to get your State to have that.
You want no abortion? Ditto
What Dobbs has the power to do is remove abortion as a Federal issue. And wheile that will make some junior league fascists unhappy, almost everyone else will appreciate that.
now, what else will happen? People will discover that actually dumping Roe just lets them get their State laws to be what they actually want, which for a majority of Americans is abortions during some or all of the 1st trimester, and almost no abortions after that.
Will there be political fights about abortion? Of course!
But they'll be at the State level.
And any attempt to bring it to the Federal level will either be nuked by the lower court judges, or will "rocket [docket]" to SCOTUS, which will have 6 members saying "what part of 'it's not a federal issue' do you not understand?"
Yes, 6. Because once Roe / Casey are gone, Roberts will vote not to bring them back
If it's a real right, It can't be taken away by legeslation. If you require majority approval, it's a privilege subject to whims. Rights are eternal.
Ann Althouse said...
You can't put individual rights AND majoritarian choice in first place.
That depends on what level you approach things.
The creation of individual rights that bind the government, and prevent government action, is quite properly the domain of majoritarian choice.
Because anything else is dictatorship
But the level of "majoritarian choice" needed to create / change that meta level where the majority decides what things future majorities aren't allowed to do by definition and reason must be greater than a mere bare "majoritarian choice", otherwise "rights" appear and disappear at whim, and there are in reality no government recognized rights.
So there's:
1: I think people should have the "right" to do X, and so I will favor laws that allow that
2: I think it's a fundamental human right that people be allowed to do Y, and so I will work to get that larger necessary majority to enshrine this right in a way that it will be very difficult to overcome
Most rights are, and should be, decided at the first level. That's why 16 and 17 year olds in Wisconsin have the right to carry a loaded rifle in public, because the State of WI passed laws giving them that right
"got hold of a big canard"
What? No Althouse riffs on ducks? Is Thomson-DeVeaux ducking or just quacking? What is the earliest use of canard in the OED?
You would think that the states will adopt abortion statutes with all sorts of variations, as you would expect in a federal system. But our partisanship has become so rank that some states will permit abortion up to infanticide (Kermit Gosnell's Pennsylvania practice caused no stir among the illuminati) and other states will ban it completely. And if the Dems (aka The Party of Death) keep control of the Senate, House, and presidency, they may adopt a national law ending all restrictions on abortion.
And let's face it--both parties do fund-raising from Roe/Casey. Neither wants it to go away, but they'll manage to keep the dollars coming in from the abortion issue.
First, abortion was legal in California in 1969, four years before Roe v Wade.
Presently, courtesy of the court, America has the most extreme abortion laws in the world. Ralph Northam (a doctor !) discussed infanticide on radio as an option.
the democratic process will likely result in some level of abortion being available pretty much everywhere in the US (albeit with regional variation), but outside of a handful of ultra-liberal states, there's roughly zero chance it's going to be as permissive as the framework in Roe or Casey.
I agree.
There is a problem with this sort of thinking- the court isn't going to ban abortion.
A convenient canard, indeed. The wicked solution is neither a good nor exclusive choice.
No mystery in sex and conception. Four choices, and an equal right to self-defense through reconciliation.
Roe, Roe, Roe your baby, granny... will not be overturned, but we could at least match the legal standard of viability at both ends of human evolution, of baby ("our Posterity") and granny ("the People"), striving to conserve human rights from conception (i.e. beginning of the evolutionary process or "life"). Baby steps.
That said, society has a compelling cause to discourage elective abortions/homicides for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes, a particularly rites that are performed in darkness. The Pro-Choice "ethical" religion denies women and men's dignity and agency, and reduces human life to negotiable commodities. History repeats itself in rhyme.
We just want the Supreme Court to read the words that are printed in clear and obvious intent right in front of their faces:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of
certain rights, shall not be construed to
deny or disparage others retained by the
people”
“The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively...”
The words are right fucking there.
You cannot miss them unless you are completely against any sort of Judicial Principles and want 9 unelected Priests legislating.
The Supreme Court needs to stop legislating and do it's Job.
The Mississippi legislature wrote a good law that protects everyone involved in a way that is consistent with the vast majority of what Americans want.
It is only fringe radicals on either side that want bans at conception or partial birth abortions and baby part auctions.
The Supreme Court needs to butt the fuck out.
"Dangerous? This piece was published today. Considering what seemed like an attempt at assassination of a Supreme Court Justice last week, I would have chosen a different word."
Gee, Ann. Do you think they're trying to get someone hurt?
I mean, Senator Chuck Schumer isn't accusing Kavanaugh and Alito of "reducing rights for women."
He accuses them of "waging war against women." A war. You know, where people shoot each other and die for causes. WAR! To arms! TO ARMS!
My suspicion is that there are people on the left who are absolutely trying to animate people to violence, to threaten, to harass, to hurt, and yes, to kill. That kid they arrested for attempted assassination of Kavanaugh was carrying not just a pistol, but a tactical knife, a hammer, zip ties, duct tape, etc. He wasn't there to just kill. I highly suspect Kavanaugh wasn't the only target either. Wouldn't put it above them tying the family up and forcing them to watch the murder.
Anyway, welcome to the party. The bowl of Red Pills is right over there.
Be prepared. The cork is about to blow, and it isn't going to be pretty. It IS coming.
Overturning Roe could change the way Americans think about abortion?
Americans don’t think about abortion. The only time they think about it is when they are asked and expected to give the pat answer.
While overturning Roe might boost Dem fundraising, I see it as having a more electoral effect on Republican candidates. No more can you ignore the radical total abortion ban candidate secure in knowing early abortions are safe due to the court ruling. After overturning, the hard total abortion "Republican" will be a clear threat if put in office.
A far safer outcome for Republicans would be for the MS law to be upheld but Roe not overturned. Then states can institute the 12 week limitations, and still permit 93% of abortions, without voters fearing a total ban.
No one in Democratic leadership cares about abortion. Just like they don't care about blacks or trans or women. They care about finding a lever or issue that will keep them in power. Every one of their pet interest groups now find their lives degrading under D governance and there are polling signs that the D pets, especially the Hispanics and Asians, are waking up. Blacks too, though they are late to the party, I fear. Their only secure Black constituency is the Corporate America/Governmental/Academic black affirmative action subset. Your average work-a-day black is starting to see them as the Uncle Tom in the room at this point, shocking the D leadership.
The abortion lever is just an attempt to hang onto the suburban white woman who is seeing her gas bills skyrocket and her children being taught sexual and racial craziness. That's all the D's have left.
None of these levers are working, which takes us to a scary place. D leadership is scared silly. Do the Dems create riots in the streets, like 2 years ago, to create chaos in the electoral process again? And what are the R's doing as a preventative measure, like Trump should have done? There should be lawyers at every voting booth in toss up states, at the least.
No one in Democratic leadership cares about abortion. Just like they don't care about blacks or trans or women. They care about finding a lever or issue that will keep them in power. Every one of their pet interest groups now find their lives degrading under D governance and there are polling signs that the D pets, especially the Hispanics and Asians, are waking up. Blacks too, though they are late to the party, I fear. Their only secure Black constituency is the Corporate America/Governmental/Academic black affirmative action subset. Your average work-a-day black is starting to see them as the Uncle Tom in the room at this point, shocking the D leadership.
The abortion lever is just an attempt to hang onto the suburban white woman who is seeing her gas bills skyrocket and her children being taught sexual and racial craziness. That's all the D's have left.
None of these levers are working, which takes us to a scary place. D leadership is scared silly. Do the Dems create riots in the streets, like 2 years ago, to create chaos in the electoral process again? And what are the R's doing as a preventative measure, like Trump should have done? There should be lawyers at every voting booth in toss up states, at the least.
mikee said Had the Dems legislated this federally in the first place, even though lacking the Constitutional authority to do so
In 1973 the Democrats controlled house was much more conservative then the Democrats of today are. Nothing as radical as Roe could have escaped the House of Representatives 50 years ago. It is simply hard to overestimate the effect that ruling has had on our politics, just one example think of the numbers of traditional Catholics who shifted from being Democratic mainstays to solidly Republican or evangelical white southerners, for that matter.
"If it's a real right, It can't be taken away by legeslation. If you require majority approval, it's a privilege subject to whims. Rights are eternal."
You could say that about constitutional rights. But there are also rights that are established by statutes (such as the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of pregnancy or the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of age). This is very basic constitutional law material, and I taught it for many years, so, seriously, you can take my word for it.
The words "right" and "privilege" are very important in law, and it's important to be accurate here.
“ I think most of us want the Justices to follow a judicial method that isn't majoritarian.”
But of course the decision will be majoritarian— it will just be a majority of the bozos who happened to be appointed to the Supreme Court, rather than a majority of us. Anyway, once Roe is overturned, the decision will devolve to the states, who hopefully will devolve it to the counties, etc. Because your basic human rights should depend solely on the bozos in your Zip code.
A day or two ago there was some commentary as to whether or not psychology is a true science.
I was prepared to join in and offer a limited support for the field (my major by default!), but procrastinated
Thank God.
After reading about the methodology of the survey discussed here, the selection of the subjects, and the wording of the questions and answers, I am now prepared to support burning down all schools that offer advanced degrees in Psychology. We can start with Princeton.
What nonsense.
Ann Althouse said...
"If it's a real right, It can't be taken away by legeslation. If you require majority approval, it's a privilege subject to whims. Rights are eternal."
You could say that about constitutional rights. But there are also rights that are established by statutes (such as the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of pregnancy or the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of age). This is very basic constitutional law material, and I taught it for many years, so, seriously, you can take my word for it.
The words "right" and "privilege" are very important in law, and it's important to be accurate here.
It is fun to watch you fall back on the "I am an Expert" argument without actually posting anything that supports the Roe decision.
It was pure legislation from the bench and a complete usurpation of our constitutional system.
I am betting 45 to 48 states pass similar laws to what Mississippi passed which is a much more mainstream solution.
A few radical fringe states keep the baby part auctions going for you.
“ It is fun to watch you fall back on the "I am an Expert" argument without actually posting anything that supports the Roe decision. ”
I didn’t say one word about that let alone rely on my being an expert about it.
I’ve spent many classroom hours teaching the text that is Roe, and I never taught it as something that was “correct.” But it was a real decision that had the effect of being binding precedent.
Michael K said...
First, abortion was legal in California in 1969, four years before Roe v Wade.
Presently, courtesy of the court, America has the most extreme abortion laws in the world.
In every way Roe v Wade was a terrible absolutely radical act by the court.
No country in the first world allows you to murder a baby in the birth canal except the US.
Roe v Wade was so far outside what we want the court to do. All of those justices should have been thrown in jail for the damage they did to our country.
Elective abortion and other homicidal choices are indeed a human right, typically exercised in darkness (if you can get away with it), at the Twilight fringe, but civilized societies attempt to discourage the Choice with religious (i.e. moral, ethical, legal) incentives and penalties. Following the apologies for Roe et al, the issue seems to be an article of faith that forced a meandering standard based on age, but has since progressed and is ripe for liberalization (i.e. divergence) a la diversity, inequity, and exclusion (DIE) doctrine.
After overturning, the hard total abortion "Republican" will be a clear threat if put in office.???????
This why every two years we have to endure the Democrats pronouncements that: "Republicans want to put gays back in the closet, Black people back into the fields and women back into the kitchen."
Unfortunately for the rest of us, this message works on the Democratic base.
Both those laws you cite are rights established by the Equal Protection Clause.
We were always told that since driving a car is a privilege we must give up our fifth amendment right to self incrimination or else we lose that privilege. Then, witnesses pleading the fifth amendment to the bill of Rights claim it on the advise of their lawyer as a privilege.
Clear as mud by design I suspect.
You could say that about constitutional rights. But there are also rights that are established by statutes (such as the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of pregnancy or the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of age). This is very basic constitutional law material, and I taught it for many years, so, seriously, you can take my word for it.
The words "right" and "privilege" are very important in law, and it's important to be accurate here.
I wonder how many fans of Casey know that that decision said the Court should go out of its way to defy public opinion.
And let's face it--both parties do fund-raising from Roe/Casey. Neither wants it to go away, but they'll manage to keep the dollars coming in from the abortion issue.
Schumer proposed a bill in which abortion is allowed up to the day of delivery. He needs to be extreme in order for the Democrat base to see Republicans as being totally against abortion, at any time.
A large majority of Americans would be happy with a European-style law allowing abortion in the first 15 weeks or so for any reason. However, the parties cannot do a lot of fundraising off that moderate position.
The Left debates on the extremes because it fools moderate suburban White women.
In the case of abortion, the issue is whether abortion is a right, to be exercised by the individual or whether it is to be controlled by majoritarian politics.
I appreciate how carefully you are commenting on the article and in your replies to some of the comments. May who oppose legal elective abortion would say there's a third option, namely, the "right to life" of an unborn human fetus.
I recognize (1) not everyone looks at it that way (which is fine, and that's not how you frame it) and (2) it's not that simple. On this very blog someone gave me pause when he argued that even if the unborn human fetus has a right not to be destroyed that's in conflict with the right of the mother to decide what to do with her body. It was a good argument, although recently I discovered it's a form of the Violinist Argument.
My point is that most opponents of legal elective abortion wouldn't grant that abortion is controlled simply by majoritarian politics. They'd say majority or not, the unborn fetus has a right to life (not to be destroyed) that takes supersedes the general right to control one's own body.
However pro-lifers (or abortion opponents) realize is that given a choice between (1) Roe and Casey or (2) majoritarian politics they'll take the latter. That's where we are (or will be soon). Option (3) would be either a Court decision "recognizing" a Constitutional right not to be destroyed (which applies to the human fetus) or a Constitutional amendment. And that ain't gonna happen.
"In the case of abortion, the issue is whether abortion is a right, to be exercised by the individual or whether it is to be controlled by majoritarian politics."
Would you say the same legal issue arises with other forms of murder? Like, what if your neighbor plays his stereo real loud at two o'clock in the morning. And like, you really need your sleep! Is killing him and his entire family an individual right, or does some outdated religious proscription apply?
Howard said...
If it's a real right, It can't be taken away by legeslation. If you require majority approval, it's a privilege subject to whims. Rights are eternal.
Who decides that it's "a real right"?
God?
5 members of SCOTUS?
You?
What is the mechanism for enforcing "real rights"?
What qualifies the "enforcers of real rights" to be able to do so?
Your claim is either boneheadedly stupid, or politically irrelevant. Which is it?
Howard said...
Both those laws you cite are rights established by the Equal Protection Clause.
-> such as the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of pregnancy or the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of age
Really, Howard?
When were those rights "established by the Equal Protection Clause"?
When that clause was passed, every State discriminated based on age, for deciding who can vote.
Every State still discriminates on age, for the vote, for purchasing and ownership of firearms, for purchasing alcohol.
There are companies / positions in the US that have mandatory retirement ages, which is an absolute violation of a "right against age discrimination"
Your claim is insanely stupid, even for you
canard-canard-oie
-> such as the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of pregnancy or the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of age
Rights and privileges of "the People" and "our Posterity" from conception to death.
As such, both planned parenthood and planned parent/hood are gross violations of civil rights. And only under an equal right of self-defense through reconciliation can either a man or woman elect to abort another human life. The Constitution, and civilized society, do not tolerate "heroes" and rites performed for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes.
The Twilight Amendment ("emanations from penumbras") or rule by consensus, dictatorial/democratic duality. Slavery, then diversity, and political congruence, now rites. Interesting choices with equal opportunity to progressive corruption.
Pretty sure it’s the Dems who have been sputtering: safe, legal and rare that are going to breath a sigh of relief. They won’t have to plead deaf, dumb and blind over the use of the sacrament of abortion as birth control or cry that the Church doesn’t belong in the bedroom.
Canard: a small winglike projection attached to an aircraft forward of the main wing to provide extra stability or control, sometimes replacing the tail.
So, a lot like a canary in a coal mine, after all.
They go: we go.
How many Pregnancy clinics will the Baby Killing Progressives bomb today??
We are all created equal, Howard.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
You could say that about constitutional rights. But there are also rights that are established by statutes (such as the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of pregnancy or the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of age).
If that were so, why was abortion illegal until 1969? Try harder, Howard.
Roe v Wade was not even a law passed by the Congress. If it had been there would have been far less anger. The Warren Court discovered it in a "penumbra."
Along with his passionate and vocal defense of child sexual grooming by democraticals, Howard is having a difficult day.
I am willing to chalk it up to the utter collapse of the US economy under the democraticals policies, which everyone recognizes and is no longer debateable.
The Supreme Court isn't supposed to do things like Roe v. Wade, or the other varied and sundry idiocies it has performed, over the years.
There are some public policy decisions that should be decided by consensus, and consensus openly arrived at through agreed-upon means and methodologies. You try to force things that belong in the legislatures through via judicial fiat, well... It won't last.
In a counterfactual alternate history, had the Supreme Court said "This isn't our decision to make; take it to your state legislatures or Congress...", the Court would have retained its authority over its proper purview, and the legislators would have had to work all this out without involving the courts. Which I suspect would have generated a lot less controversy, and left us in a better place than we are.
Unfortunately, the Supremes of that time wanted to be legislators, and here we are dealing with the resultant mess. I would submit to everyone that similar stupid examples of them exceeding their constitutional authorities helped to build up the tensions that led to the Civil War, and we may get something similar to that out of the current situation.
Abortion isn't something that should have ever been decided in the courts. Period. Courts impose rulings on questions of law, and if they are suddenly making original law that changes things that society hasn't already worked out? Bad, bad things follow.
On the question of abortion, I'm ambivalent. I see the arguments on both sides, and I think that they're universally tragic. No matter how you look at it, you're ending a potential human life, which is not something you should be doing without careful thought, care, and consideration. People who use abortion as birth control are not treating life itself with sufficient reverence, in my opinion. Nor are those who demand that women bear whatever child fate imposes on them any more right... But, the fact remains: You're ending a life when you abort, and that's a slippery slope to stand on. Something a lot of the euthanasia enthusiasts should remember when the time comes. If it's an abortion for convenience of the mother, what stops other people from euthanizing her, when it's convenient...?
Prof. Althouse: "In the case of abortion, the issue is whether abortion is a right, to be exercised by the individual or whether it is to be controlled by majoritarian politics."
I'm a physicist, not a lawyer. IMO, the issue facing Americans as a nation of free People is, does a newly conceived human have the same rights, including the right to life, as humans nine months or more older.
The Declaration of Independence, in making the case for creating the nation of people called America, states that America was formed to embody certain self-evident truths, among them the right to life.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"
Given the stated purpose and values of America, the question of abortion is, in America does a newly created human being have the rights America was founded to protect from "destructive" government, including the right to life, yes or no?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा