Monday, September 15, 2008

Wade In The Waters

The issue of Roe v. Wade has been in the news a good bit recently, especially after Senator McCain's Veep pick, Sarah Palin. As anyone with a pulse knows by now, Sarah Palin is against abortion. She does believe in birth control, and even the Morning After pill, but abortion? No. This continues to be the big stick with which Democrats are trying to get those recalcitrant Hillary supporters and believers in DEMOCRACY to toe the line and support Obama. Oh, yes - if we let those nasty Republicans anywhere NEAR the White House, all is lost. Apparently, they have forgotten that George Bush has had almost 8 years to dismantle Roe v. Wade, and has been unsuccessful. And, they seem to forget, or never acknowledge, or are ignorant of, the fact that Senate Majority Harry Reid is equally anti-choice. Oh, shucks - there I go again interjecting facts into the argument!!!

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.


Mike J. said...

I found it remarkable that Obama campaign TV ads about Roe v. Wade only say what they allege McCain/Palin will do, but without committing Obama to anything in regard to protecting abortion. I think this is the typical Obama "this has been my position all along" obfuscation. The ad *implies* Obama is for keeping abortion legal, but in the absence of an explicit commitment (a recurring theme on pretty much every issue) Obama leaves the door open to adopting an anti-abortion position under a more moderate guise.

I have posted comments on Talk Left until they instituted their pro-Obama policy. BTD was one of these people who mystified me. On the one hand he finds Cass Sunstein and much of Obama's coterie highly disagreeable, hence his "tepid" support. But a vote is still a vote, tepid or not, and every time Obama does something that crosses some threshold BTD previously identified as a breaking point (the FISA vote was one, if memory serves), BTD just picks himself up and identifies a new breaking point further down the line.

I think they are so heavily invested in their candidate, their ego is so engaged, that Obama could pretty much do anything he wanted to without alienating people like BTD. As president he could privatize Social Security, nuke Iran, put all women in burqas, and BTD and his ilk would still "tepidly" support him because to break with Obama at that point would be to admit they were wrong all along.

Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy said...

Hey, Mike -

I used to hang out at TL myself, until Jeralyn said they would go with whomever was the nominee - of course, it was a bit presumptive, but whatever.

And I had noticed the same thing abt BTD. His big thing for supporting Obama was that his policies weren't that different from Clinton's (of course not - he STOLE them from her), and he was more electable, despite EVERY poll showing the exact opposite. No matter how many polls showed Clinton beating McCain, and McCain beating Obama, he maintained that line. ANd yes, he sure did say the FISA thing was over the line. But he is still there...

Yes, their egos do seem tied up in him. I think it is that whole "projection of self" thing so many people have with Obama. That is why they don't care that he is more secretive than Bush. That he wants to return to the foreign policies of Bush I, etc., etc. They don't hear it because it doesn't fit with what they WANT him to be, so rather than seeing him for who he is, they see him for who they WANT him to be. I'm telling you, Mike, my siblings who support him know next to NOTHING abt him or is record (or lack thereof), yet they are NUTS for him. Any info they find out abt him, like just HOW he got elected, goes in one ear and out the other because they think he is so dreamy.

And you are absolutely right - he will capitulate on choice issues depending on which way the wind blows. If someone calls him on it, he'll WORM, and tell them they MUST have misunderstood him. Sigh.

How did he become so untouchable??

I'm sorry abt TL - I know that's hard. It was a good place...