Arlen Specter Targeted by Christian Right for Pro-Roe v. Wade Comment

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mactastic, Nov 8, 2004.

  1. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #1
    Story

    Will Roe v. Wade see a serious challenge before the end of the decade? At this point I would have to guess that it will, and perhaps will be overturned. If Stevens and/or Ginsberg retires, the right wing will control the court for 30 years easily.
     
  2. MacFan26 macrumors 65816

    MacFan26

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco, California
    #2
    I don't think we'll see Roe v. Wade overturned, but I can imagine that they will try to do it. The Supreme Court was one of the biggest issues in this election I think, and people still blindly voted for Bush. Who knows.
     
  3. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #3
    This is but one of the reasons I voted for Specter this election.
     
  4. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #4
    The current court isn't going to overturn Roe v Wade and I really wonder if gw is going to spend his "capital" on something like this so early on or at all. I think that he and rove are doing all they can to create a legacy and what it comes down to is not gw's own beliefs but what they're going to get the most mileage out of. I think he'll try for a ban on gay marriage first as he knows it won't win, therefore appeasing the right by trying yet not pissing off the pro-gay moderates by losing.

    I had a conversation with a friend the other day and we both agreed that simply finding moderate or left-leaning judges is way more difficult than it was 20 years ago. I don't see much hope for any moderate appointees but I do see more appointees like Clarence Thomas and that scares the heck out of me. Enough that by the end of gw's reign, if not before, I'll probably say farewell to America. I don't see the point in remaining in a country where my civil rights are secondary to those who believe in the word of a god.
     
  5. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #5
    You don't have to worry about running out of spending money when you own the bank.

    Bush says, "I intend to spend it."

    I expect Bush to spend it all, then borrow more.

    Taking a page from his fiscal policy, of course.
     
  6. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #6
    Even Karl Rove backed off on the issue of abortion, I think that the gay marriage amendment is going to be a compromise.

    Roe v. Wade has been challenged many times and it would be a major blow to Stare Decisis for that to be overturned.The political damage would be pretty heavy as well as it would turn a lot of women voters against the party.

    If Stare Decisis is thrown out the window, it brings into question the validity of the Supreme Court who are supposed to be above the political process and there to interperet the Constitution.

    Though there have been distinguishable periods concerning how the Supreme Court has voted over the years, they will rarely overturn a decision that has been reaffirmed so many times.
     
  7. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #7
    I believe at least two members of this court have made it abundantly clear that they believe in precedent only insofar as it advances their activist agenda. And since George Bush has signaled numerous times that these two justices will be the model for his appointments to the court, I don't think it's going overboard to predict that the essence of Roe will be history within the next few years.
     
  8. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #8
    It would be a dangerous thing to do all around. To go against decades of precedent and the fact that the case has been reaffirmed over and over would make the conservative judges more 'activist' than any that have sat on the Supreme Court to date.

    The conservatives can expect to lose power again at some point, elections are a cycle and the balance of power goes back and forth. If they were to set this example and laugh in the face of long settled Supreme Court rules, it would be a free for all basically.

    As soon as the balance of power changed, all of the laws would change again.

    I can't say that it will not happen, but it would seriously undermine the validity of the Supreme Court as far as being one that does not consider the 'Political Question.' What I will predict is this, such an act of activism (and that is what it is to go against centuries of precedent) will certainly hurt conservatism more than it will anything else. They will have no argument for when the other side regains power, and it will happen.
     
  9. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #9
    The Supreme Court Decisions in question

    Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey

    [/QUOTE]Justice O'Connor, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III, concluding that:


    1. Consideration of the fundamental constitutional question resolved by Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, principles of institutional integrity, and the rule of stare decisis require that Roe's essential holding be retained and reaffirmed as to each of its three parts: (1) a recognition of a woman's right to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State, whose previability interests are not strong enough to support an abortion prohibition or the imposition of substantial obstacles to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure; (2) a confirmation of the State's power to restrict abortions after viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies endangering a woman's life or health; and (3) the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. Pp. 1-27.[/QUOTE]

    Stenberg v. Carhart

    [/QUOTE]The Constitution offers basic protection to a woman’s right to choose whether to have an abortion. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113; Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833..... Held:* Nebraska’s statute criminalizing the performance of “partial birth abortion” violates the Federal Constitution, as interpreted in Casey and Roe. Pp.*3—27.[/QUOTE]

    Reading why the SC Justices decided how they did is quite interesting. But overturning this law would be a huge act of judicial activism as far as precedent and Stare Decisis go. It would basically open the door to politically based interpretation of the Constitution, and unless conservatives are planning on holding power forever, it weakens the system that has been established over the years.

    But, history will show that it was their actions that led to it. It really undermines the system, but you are right when you say that it can be done. It's just a really bad idea in my opinion.
     
  10. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #10
    The entire idea that liberal judges are "activist" and conservative judges "follow the law" is a complete fiction created by the right for the very purpose you have correctly identified as dangerous.

    The court doesn't need to explicitly overturn Roe. They can quite readily render it a meaningless shell by blowing holes into it at every opportunity.
     
  11. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #11
    Unfortunately, the Democrats didn't consider the need of getting the message out and sat on their hands when it became evident that there was a massive push to remove them from power by any means.

    If history is any precendent, things will go to hell for a period, people will wake up and liberalism will come back and make even more progress. It's just a shame that this cycle has to continue.

    Who would imagine that from the days of FDR to now, liberalism would go from being perceived as good to almost completely evil.

    Who would imagine that people would start getting all of their opinions from pundits on the radio?

    Remember all that talk about what liberalism was like when JFK was president? More B.S.

    Doesn't sound like it has changed much at all. Except that Liberals stopped talking to the part of the community that does not pay all that much attention to anything and are therefore easily mislead.

    I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that liberals have been asleep at the wheel for much too long.
     
  12. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #12
    Read the decisions, there are central holding which have been well defined. Supreme Court Justices are among the brightest in the world.
     
  13. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13

    While I am unconvinced that the right will ever be successful in actually overturning Roe v. Wade, I do believe that one of the outgrowths of a Congress that is more and more conservative (and not in a fiscal sense, but rather a moral one) will be the crafting of laws that would eviscerate Roe v. Wade. With ideologically driven members of the court backing any new laws they wouldn't have to overturn Roe v. Wade to render it meaningless. Specifically the adoption of legislation relating to the person-hood of a fetus would go a long way towards gutting Roe v. Wade.
     
  14. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #14
    It may happen, but eventually that will be reversed. I guess I am a little pessimisstic at this point, because so little has been done and this new ideology has become so entrenched. But hopefully lessons will be learned from it. With the definitions that have been laid out, there is only so much that can be done.

    "Parents Rights" seem to be the most recent attempt at this. But that is not an invitation for rebellion I don't know what it.

    Basically, people don't like to be told what to do. And if they do try and flood the nation with morality laws, it will inevitably backfire. Prohibition was the same kind of crap, and look where that got them.

    I just don't see any quick fixes for the current situation. The Democratic Party really needs a major overhaul.
     
  15. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #15
    I don't honestly understand why anyone would be even remotely optimistic about the future of Roe. The last decision upholding it, which was Webster I believe, was decided on a 5-4 vote. Scalia's opinion went beyond a dissent and into a scathing, bitter denunciation of the court majority. More justices who think just like Scalia are on the way. Bush's reelection sealed the fate of Roe.
     
  16. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #16
    I'm not optimistic about it at all, I am just being realistic about what has happened with this last election. It's happened over and over. I read Howard Zinns history book as apart of a class that I took and everytime you have a religious resurgence like the current one, conservatives come to power and it serves as a platform for them to have their way in the free market. After a while they get so abusive or mess up the system so bad people reject them completely for long periods of time. I'm just disappointed that it has to go through this process at all.
     
  17. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #17
    What I find interesting about this story is that Specter merely mentioned that passing anti-abortion judges through the Senate might be difficult. Not that he was against them, or that he would fight them, just that they might not work out in the long run. And the fundies are calling for his head. These people are nuts! Just the thought that someone might question their ideology and they react violently? (no comments from the peanut gallery :p )
     
  18. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #18
    this is my feeling, as well. all it takes is one of the 5 to retire, a state legislature to pass an anti-abortion law, and a challenge. the court will vote 5-4 that abortion issues belong to the states, effectively overturning roe v. wade.

    then, in the other 49 states, there'd be legislation introduced to ban abortion in those respective states. it's anyone's guess as to how many would pass. i'd guess nearly all.
     
  19. SPG macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #19
    After seeing the supremes come down in bush v Gore, I will not put anything past them. It became clear at that point that the modern GOP has set it sights on winning at any cost. The prestige and respect of the supreme court was trashed that day and if anyone thinks that conservatives will pass on any opportunity to advance a part of their agenda simply to appear more moderate or appeal to any other constituency has obviously not been paying attention these past few years.
    As far as Specter, he has proved that any Democrat who considers splitting their vote to any republican because they think that they are "moderate" is being extremely foolish. The most moderate republican on record has caved and lined up behind the leadership so fast you'd think he wants to rip up Roe v Wade himself.
     

Share This Page