In yesterday's Boston Globe, then, we have this statement on "">The Fate of Roe v. Wade":
Those who seek to preserve the right to choose ought to be prepared to make some distinctions. As it was written in 1973, Roe v. Wade was far from a model of legal reasoning, and conservatives have been correct to criticize it. The court failed to root the abortion right in either the text of the Constitution or its own precedents.
Moreover, it ruled far too broadly. In its first encounter with the abortion question, the court failed to focus on the particular abortion restrictions at issue, some of which were unusually draconian, forbidding abortion even in cases of rape. Instead, the court took the highly unusual step of a setting out a series of rules for legislatures to follow.
It is no wonder that millions of Americans felt, and continue to feel, that the court refused to treat their moral convictions with respect. Nor is it surprising that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg - the most important women's rights lawyer in the history of American law, but also a judicial "minimalist" - has sharply criticized Roe for doing so much so fast.
Holy CRAP - they are starting already!!!
Except that isn't the McCain/Palin team. This comes courtesy of Cass Sunstein, one of Obama's advisors. Alert reader Andy sent in this story from TalkLeft today, "Roe: With 'Friends' Like Sunstein, Who Needs Enemies?" by Big Tent Democrat (BTD). BTD, like Sunstein, is an attorney, and had this to say about Sunstein's comments above:
This is nonsense in my opinion, particularly Sunstein's statement that Roe was not rooted in the text of the Constitution and the Supreme Court's precedents (Roe particularly followed Griswold to its logical conclusion.) Sunstein is entitled to his opinion, but he is not entitled to serve in a Democratic Administration or to be a Supreme Court appointee of a Democratic President.
Gee, BTD - why don't ya tell us how you REALLY feel?! BTD took particular umbrage at the following quote by Sunstein from the Boston Globe article above:
But it is one thing to object to Roe as written in 1973. It is another to suggest that it should be overruled in 2008. American constitutional law is stable only because of the principle of stare decisis, which means that in general, the Court should respect its own precedents.
To which BTD said, "Say Whaaaaa???" No, not really. This is what he actually said:
To Sunstein, Roe is only defensible as an act of stare decisis. Thus, on a woman's right to privacy and to choose, he is like Chief Justice Rehnquist was to Miranda, upholding Miranda on stare decisis grounds, instead of on the merits. We do not need, indeed, can not afford, a Cass Sunstein in an Obama Administration or on the Supreme Court.
And now is when I remind everyone that BTD has consistently, if tepidly, supported Obama.
Andy's response to BTD's insight was:
BTD's post proves me that BO is only pro-BO and that is his sole interest. He is no Democrat and has adopted liberals stances when it suited him to win the base only. But he couldn't care less about the people: BO serves at the pleasure of BO political career only.
This is what I fear the most: BO would govern against the (true) Democrats interests
and Congress will not be able to stop him (Social Security, Health Care and SCOTUS? --after all he was pro-Roberts before Pete Rouse told him to vote no
b/c of the primaries).
Yep. That's pretty much what I have been saying, too. Barack Obama is for Barack Obama. Love her or hate her (I love her), Hillary Clinton is devoted to serving the people. Love him or hate him, John McCain is a devoted public servant, like Hillary, having given his entire adult life to that service. When people keep saying that the only way to protect Roe v. Wade is to elect Barack Obama, I ask them what in the WORLD makes them think Obama is going to stand up for women NOW when he hasn't his limited time in office? I have written about this a number of times before, but one needs to look no further than this statement from Obama:
My only point is that in an area like partial-birth abortion having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously. It can be defined through physical health, It can be defined by serious clinical mental-health diseases. It is not just a matter of feeling blue. I don't think that's how pro-choice folks have interpreted it. I don't think that's how the courts have interpreted it and I think that's important to emphasize and understand."
Uh, yeah. All I know is that anytime a woman has to have an abortion, at least the ones I have known, they are in "mental distress." Or how about his ridiculous statement from the Saddleback Forum in which he said this:
Oh, you know I couldn't resist using that one (maybe it's funnier to me, living here in SC, which is from where the young woman in the clip hails - she was in the Miss Teen USA pageant. That should tell you all you need to know about the education system here!)!! Yes, he is SOOOO eloquent! What a great speaker!! Ahem. If you want a more serious one, click HERE.
Wow. Add in his "adviser," Cass Sunstein, and I think it is less a matter of Wade-ing in the waters than MUDDYING the waters on Roe v. Wade. THIS is the person you are trusting to uphold a woman's right to choose?? Yeah, okay - good luck with that! I sure hope you aren't holding you breath on this one. I know I am not.