10.19.05

Prediction revisited: Miers Once Vowed to Support Ban on Abortion

Posted in at 8:44 by RjZ

So, like I said before, Miers Once Vowed to Support Ban on Abortion.

I don’t claim that her campaign promises aren’t potentially different than her role as a judge, but it seems clear to me what she is likely to do.

One thing I don’t understand from the comments to my first post on this is why people think it isn’t likely that social conservatives will attempt to bring such a case to the Supreme court.

5 Comments »

  1. tim rohrer said,

    October 19, 2005 at 14:17

    While I agree that Meiers is now looking even more likely to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, I still think that stari decisis may require the court to adminster a death by 1000 cuts rather than an outright overturning. I don’t think the court cares too much how divisive its decisions are, though they surely care somewhat.

    I certainly do agree that the social conservatives will try to get it overturned, and then try to outlaw it many states–Texas, Missouri, the South will do it. Will Colorado? But the social conservatives aren’t the court, and the court being bound by, law, it may again decide the case in an unexpected way that is not a clear win for either side.

    What is even more interesting is what she said about Griswold V. Conneticut to Senator Specter. First it was a matter of settled law, then it wasn’t. Imagine–the court overturns the constitutional right to birth control! States like Texas and Missippi and Alabama already have such laws on the books I believe… It could be the beginning of the end for the right wing–I can see the headlines now “The right criminalizes condoms!” “The right criminalizes vibrators!” “The right criminalizes sex.” Oh wait a minute–the radical right already thinks that!

    Maybe what we really need is a freedom of pleasure amendment to the constitution to supplement the current bill of rights…

  2. RjZ said,

    October 19, 2005 at 14:33

    Stari decisis is a very good point and one I hadn’t thought much about. If I understand you, you’re saying they won’t overturn Roe v. Wade because, well, they’d have to find the law itself unconstitutional to reject it. Alright, that seems like a strategy that would only please voters, for it’s chance of success is low. But, “death by a thousand cuts” which is already in practice, would make (those) voters almost as happy and might work.

    Thanks!

  3. tim rohrer said,

    October 19, 2005 at 15:11

    Nope, not that the law itself would be unconstitutional. Stare decisis (standing by prior decisions) here would probably be standing by the principle of the constitutional right to privacy underlying the Roe v Wade decision, but sharply limiting it which would then be a de facto rolling back of the Roe v. Wade right to abortion. The states would likely further restrict abortion then.

    I think it is much less likely that they overturn it outright. But if Miers and enough other Supreme Court conservative justices want to reopen Griswold v. Connecticut then they really would be seeing no right to privacy at all in the constitution–which, if they are successful means that they could overturn both Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v Wade.

    Now that’s unlikely without maybe yet one more justice–I count Thomas, Scalia, Miers and Roberts as favoring readdressing that decision, though Roberts denied it in the Senate hearings–but if Bader-Ginsburg were to die or retire unexpectedly…or the dems were to lose again to another radical rightwinger in 2004…it might actually come about…and then the fit would hit the shan.

    But that’s why her comments on Griswold v. Connecticut are so important. Check the entry on Wikipedia for more info.

  4. RjZ said,

    October 19, 2005 at 15:46

    Well, this will certainly get me in trouble. See, I would agree if the court decided to overturn a law they felt was unconstitutional. I am also fine with the principle of stari decisis. At the risk of sounding like some rabid republican (although democrats have frequently made the same claim) I am not in favor of activist justices.

    I read the wikipedia entry on Griswold v. Connecticut and without having read the actual court opinions (and without being a lawyer) I hope the arguments for are strong, because I certainly see the point of the dissenters. It is not the role of the court to comment on the sensibility of laws our legislators pass, but rather on their constitutionality.The Connecticut law was absurd and I would be surprised if justices can’t find a way that government passing laws on such private matters isn’t protected against, but if they could not, then it falls to the legislature to pass a law and eventually an amendment to make it so.

    If our founding fathers forget to protect individuals rights this way, then we have a system that allows us to add to the constitution. The Supreme Court is not the intended tool to that end.

    This blog describes it better.

    We better start voting for people who protect our individual rights (like Libertarians :) ) and stop hoping the Supreme Court will simply uphold the status quo where we like it and repeal it where we don’t. Seems sketchy and pretty dangerous in light of the recent appointments by the Bush administration.

    Oh, and I get how dangerous what I am saying is to rights which I hold dear. Again, I am shocked and disappointed if the constitution can’t be seen to protect these rights to privacy. The jury’s still out, I propose. But I still insist that judges are meant to interpret the constitution, not add to it.

  5. tim rohrer said,

    October 26, 2005 at 8:06

    http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_3151426

    this article actually has the gall to suggest Miers is a Libertarian with respect to abortion. I’ll have some of what the author is drinking.

Leave a Comment