|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Roe v. Wade Question
There's a good article in this month's GQ about Phill Kline, the Attorney General of Kansas who's zealously pro-life. In it, the author makes the following observation:
"Roe came at a time when abortion was being hashed out in the country's state legislatures. If it had remained there, our nation's laws would have reflected what polls have shown year after year- that most Americans want to keep abortion legal but restricted.....Instead, Harry Blackmun and his concurring justices stopped that democratic process in its tracks and imposed a national solution that went beyond what all but the most fanatically pro-choice Americans were wishing for..." Is this a valid description of Roe v. Wade? I was not alive when it was decided, and most of the discussion about it today is useless. I was under the impression that it was a controversial decision, but one that came with a groundswell of support; this article makes it sound like judicial activism at its worst. The article also implies that abortion was a relative non-issue (at least when compared to today), and this decision basically created our present controversy. Do any pro-choicers feel that Roe v. Wade was a poor decision, and/or would they support overturning it if it were replaced by measures that could keep abortion legal (by, say, making it a state issue instead of a federal one)? Any replies are appreciated. Thanks. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Roe v. Wade Question
[ QUOTE ]
Is this a valid description of Roe v. Wade? [/ QUOTE ] No. Look around. There are a wide variety of restrictions on abortion, not a "national solution". What courts have held is that there are some restrictions that are constitutionally impermissible. Setting a floor is not a "national solution". [ QUOTE ] Do any pro-choicers feel that Roe v. Wade was a poor decision, and/or would they support overturning it if it were replaced by measures that could keep abortion legal (by, say, making it a state issue instead of a federal one)? [/ QUOTE ] The decision wasn't a model of jurisprudence. That having been said, I would not support the Supreme Court "overturning" (i.e., overruling) the essential holdings of Roe and Casey (the real operative decision now), for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the damage it would cause to the Supreme Court as an institution. I would support a carefully written Consitutional Amendment that has the simultaneous effect of permitting states to outlaw abortion (subject only to as-applied constitutional challenges) BUT ALSO absolutely prevents any federal restriction of abortion and any state criminalization of travel for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Roe v. Wade Question
Inventing an imaginary "right to privacy" in the Constitution IS judicial activism at its worst.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Roe v. Wade Question
[ QUOTE ]
Inventing an imaginary "right to privacy" in the Constitution IS judicial activism at its worst. [/ QUOTE ] To be clear to the orignal poster: do not take what I said about Roe not being a model of jurisprudence as an endorsement of the extreme view quoted above. The "right to privacy" predated Roe, and was not "created" for that case. These types of simplistic views make for good soundbites but poor analysis. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Roe v. Wade Question
Thanks to everyone for the replies. Now I need to look into the Griswold case and Lawrence v. Texas to figure out where to go from here, I suppose.
[ QUOTE ] These types of simplistic views make for good soundbites but poor analysis. [/ QUOTE ] While I can't say whether this quote truly applies to anything posted here, I think it perfectly sums up the problems I have with using what currently passes for discussion to inform my decision. That's why I came to the good people at 2+2. (I also get the majority of my news from the Daily Show, if that tells you anything.)(I'm only half-joking.) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Roe v. Wade Question
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks to everyone for the replies. Now I need to look into the Griswold case and Lawrence v. Texas to figure out where to go from here, I suppose. [ QUOTE ] These types of simplistic views make for good soundbites but poor analysis. [/ QUOTE ] While I can't say whether this quote truly applies to anything posted here, I think it perfectly sums up the problems I have with using what currently passes for discussion to inform my decision. That's why I came to the good people at 2+2. (I also get the majority of my news from the Daily Show, if that tells you anything.)(I'm only half-joking.) [/ QUOTE ] Side note... Lawence v. Texas I believe has more to do with Equal Protection and Due Process under the law rather than Right to Privacy. My comments are that it should be argued under the "general" right to privacy. Griswold is the real deal... -Gryph |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Roe v. Wade Question
[ QUOTE ]
Inventing an imaginary "right to privacy" in the Constitution IS judicial activism at its worst. [/ QUOTE ] Devil's Advocate... I think the "right to privacy" is an "implied" right. Old white guys, given their background and experiences, wanted fed-drul gummint to be small and unobtrusive. Nosey kings, monarchs, etc. had controlled and/or butted into any and all phases of their lives. Also, they included a certain amount of lattitude for later interpretations. Again, just my buck and a half. (inflation's a bitch) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Roe v. Wade Question
[ QUOTE ]
Inventing an imaginary "right to privacy" in the Constitution IS judicial activism at its worst. [/ QUOTE ] Yea! They're trying to tell me I have a right to privacy? What a terrible thing! Truely, if there could ever be a worse form of judicial activism, I could not imagine it. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Roe v. Wade Question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Inventing an imaginary "right to privacy" in the Constitution IS judicial activism at its worst. [/ QUOTE ] Yea! They're trying to tell me I have a right to privacy? What a terrible thing! Truely, if there could ever be a worse form of judicial activism, I could not imagine it. [/ QUOTE ] This is my point. Your judicial philosophy is results oriented. If the decision reuslts in a "better" result, it is good. If it disagrees with what you like, it is bad. Judges are not appointed to give personal opinions. They are there to interpret the law. If someone passes a crappy law, overturn it through the legislatures. If someone passes a law that violates the Constitution, use the courts. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Roe v. Wade Question
Judges are there to both interpret and create law. Suggesting otherwise ignores the common-law system that we have in our country.
|
|
|