A fascinating point from David Corn who notes that in John McCain's vision of 2013 he doesn't say anything whatsoever about hot button social issues. I assume John Paul Stevens won't still be on the Supreme Court by then, so as long as McCain is forecasting the future it really would be nice if he could say something about whether or not he believes abortion will still be legal in 2013.
« Should Everyone Go to College? | Main | Real Americans and Lobbying »
Social Issues in 2013
18 May 2008 02:08 pm
Comments (19)
Happy Birthday
Matt,
Why do you repeat the liberal canard that the overturn of Roe would result in abortion becoming illegal?
You're obviously smart enough to know better. The overturn of Roe would do nothing to make abortion legal or illegal as a matter of law. It just removes any claim of there being a "right to abortion" that is contained in the "penumbra" of the Constitution.
The legality or illegality of abortion would be a matter for the people to decide through their elected representatives. If the people of a state want abortion to be legal, it will be. Conversely, if they want it to be illegal, the overturn of Roe would simply mean that such a law does not violate the Constitution.
In either case, the decision should be one that is made by the people and not by judges.
Matt,
Why do you repeat the liberal canard that the overturn of Roe would result in abortion becoming illegal?
You're obviously smart enough to know better. The overturn of Roe would do nothing to make abortion legal or illegal as a matter of law. It just removes any claim of there being a "right to abortion" that is contained in the "penumbra" of the Constitution.
The legality or illegality of abortion would be a matter for the people to decide through their elected representatives. If the people of a state want abortion to be legal, it will be. Conversely, if they want it to be illegal, the overturn of Roe would simply mean that such a law does not violate the Constitution.
In either case, the decision should be one that is made by the people and not by judges.
Chicounsel: Why do you repeat the liberal canard that the overturn of Roe would result in abortion becoming illegal?
Not to burst your bubble, but that is actually literally true for a large number of states. Many states have passed laws that explicitly say that as soon as Roe is overturned, abortion is illegal. So its not just a liberal canard.
Didn't he say he would overturn Catholicism by then?
A few days ago Geraldine Ferraro was on Fox, basically saying McCain wasn't so bad after all, now that he's decided to leave Iraq by 2013. Clear as a bell what she was hinting.
Wonder if this will give her pause...
Can McCain clarify whether or not the Moller SkyCar will ever fly? Or will it simply be safe to continue assuming "no".
I want McCain to tell me if I'll have a personal robot slave by then.
And if that Mayan Calendar thing had anything to it.
Re: Many states have passed laws that explicitly say that as soon as Roe is overturned, abortion is illegal.
Please name these states. Since anti-abortion laws are currently unconstitutional I suspect those laws are not worth the paper they are written on and would hve to be re-done if Roe fell.
I have an equally probable vision of my status in 2013:
1) Both Andrea Corr and Summer Glau will be living with me in a menage a trois.
2) I will have more money than both of them.
3) Matt will have learned to spell and will be praising my insights from my blog on his.
Well, actually only the first one is likely.
It's always enetertaining when faux-sophisticated critics of Roe cite "penumbras" when offering simple-minded critiques of Roe, when not only does the prhase apppear nowhere in the opinion but the holding specifically rests on the dur process clause, not on the logic of the Douglas majority in Griswold. But let's be frank: most armchair critics of Roe have never read the opinion and know nothing about the relevant law.
Weird that he chose 2013. Is hinting that he's only going to run for one term?
(Actually, to retract slightly, Blackmun may use the word penumbra when describing the holding in Griswold, but speficially does not rely on its analysis.)
"Weird that he chose 2013. Is hinting that he's only going to run for one term?"
He has stated at least once that he might only serve one term.
"as long as McCain is forecasting the future it really would be nice if he could say something about whether or not he believes abortion will still be legal in 2013"
Surely it won't matter, since there will be no unwanted pregnancies by then...and cars will run on CO2 and spit nickels out the tailpipe.
I think it would be great if Roe were overturned, but (a) I don't believe Roberts would vote to do it, so at the moment, there are just 3 votes, IMO, and (b) I don't think McCain would ever nominate the fifth vote to overturn Roe. That would be the end of the GOP.
In case anyone believes anything that Scott says, this is from the Roe opinion:
"The principal thrust of appellant's attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); id., at 460 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); or among those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring). Before addressing this claim, we feel it desirable briefly to survey, in several aspects, the history of abortion, for such insight as that history may afford us, and then to examine the state purposes and interests behind the criminal abortion laws."
And:
"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8 -9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484 -485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 -542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453 -454; id., at 460, 463-465 [410 U.S. 113, 153] (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra."
Those of you who are reading closely will find the word that Scott insists isn't there.
Comments closed June 01, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
To do this ad right, Crazypants McCain should have donned a black cape and used a flashlight, a la Conan O'Brien's "In the Year 2000" bit.
He also should have predicted whether he'll even be alive in 2013.
Posted by Woody Bombay | May 18, 2008 2:25 PM