Roe & Nomination Hearings
The Chicago Tribune has a pretty good article analyzing the role of abortion in Supreme Court nomination hearings. Obviously, abortion is the primary focus of such hearings, even though abortion comprises but a small portion of the Court's docket.
"It takes the focus off what the Supreme Court really does," said Lee Epstein, a law and political science professor at Washington University in St. Louis. "We don't get questions on what's maybe half of the court's docket on economic disputes. We don't get questions about anticipating future cases--the future in terms of technology and science. Nobody's thinking about them. The intense focus on abortion is distracting."Roe v. Wade has become such a major issue because, since the civil rights movement, the courts have been viewed as the guardians of social issues such as abortion. The courts play what Senator Obama calls a "critical counter-majoritarian role," i.e. they perform the role of limiting the power of the majority as expressed in legislation. Democracy is founded on the rule of the majority, but the majority cannot always be counted on to choose correct laws, i.e. laws in agreement with the Constitution. Therefore we have the courts to oppose the power of the majority when necessary.
posted by Doc at 7:45 AM
2 Comments:
"Democracy is founded on the rule of the majority, but the majority cannot always be counted on to choose correct laws..."
Okay, so far I can see your point.
"... i.e. laws in agreement with the Constitution."
*blink, blink*
Bwahahaha! You think that Roe was in agreement with the Constitution? Then kindly point me to the provision of the Constitution that provides for an abortion right.
Supporters of Roe should (and the more sophisticated advocates generally do) argue that Roe is necessary because it's morally right. When you claim that it was an example of honest legal reasoning, you stretch everybody's credulity.
Well, no. I've posted my views on Roe v. Wade a few times on this blog. (Do a simple search for a few postings.) I was trying to comment on the proper role of the courts, which Roe v. Wade overshot by a mile. But many on both sides of the political spectrum do not trust the majority to do the right thing, so they turn to the courts to enforce some "correct" view of things, regardless of what the people want.
Roe v. Wade took abortion out of the hands of the people, where it belonged, and put it in the hands of the courts. So liberals, as Obama said, have an over-reliance on the courts that has ultimately undermined their cause. Rather than making their argument and gaining popular support, they rely on judges to make things right.
Some conservatives, it seems to me, are moving in exactly the same direction. Rather than relying on the people through their representatives to pass restrictions on abortion that comply with the rules laid down by the courts, they are trying to do the same end-around to get past the people. They know most Americans support legalized abortion and so they have to pack the courts with those who will do the right thing.
Post a Comment
<< Home