Skip to main content

View Diary: What's at stake: The Supreme Court (118 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sure (0+ / 0-)

    Look, forget about the old idea that SCOTUS was left of Congress, and that if we only shored up the idea that SCOTUS could and should decide things behind closed doors, insulated from democratic pressures, then SCOTUS would do all sorts of heavy lifting for our side, it would decide things rightly without our side's Congresscritters having to take any publc relations hits for those decisions.  The shoe is now on the other foot.  Encouraging a blind respect for any fool and unjust decision the five-man junta that controls SCOTUS might make, is now clearly bad for justice, and for our side.

    I think that the particular issue you choose, abortion rights, is an excellent case tending to support the stronger case that it was never a good idea to rely on SCOTUS to do our heavy lifting for us, even when we had a better SCOTUS.  The overwhelming majority of this country is pro-choice, most people really do not want the govt making abortion decisions.  Ask people like Dan Quayle about abortion in terms of who should be making the decision, the govt or his daughter, and even this supposed lifer comes down for choice.  By not making our legislators have this issue out in public with each other, we left it theoretical.  Leave it theoretical, and the easy majority pro-choice position on what should be the law of the land, gets swamped by the anti-abortion, pro-life sentiment of what choice individuals should make.  We almost all (devout Objectivists aside) think that, to choose an analogous situation, if someone else needs a blood transfusion to survive, that we ought to choose to donate a unit of blood to help them survive, but that, absolutely, the law should not require anyone to be forced to donate blood.  But public discourse never frames the issue in those simple terms of govt coercion, where it should and should not be applied, because we've let this issue remain fogged, we've let the other side freely confuse the ethics and sentimental setting of the situation with the question of what sort of decision we should let the govt coerce individuals into.

    Even if our side would lose an up or down abortion rights vote in Congress right now, which I doubt (for one thing, the lifers would insist on no exceptions), forcing publicly accountable responsibility for that decision would allow us to win the next election, and then establish abortion rights on the only secure foundation they can have in a democracy, that of a commonly accepted understanding.  The majority has to be convinced in the rightness of our position.  Letting what we believe to be right rest on deference to the pseudo-technical opinions of a judicial elite is not nearly so secure a way to get the right to prevail, as the present makeup of the SCOTUS majority should have convinced you.  They're the wrong elite, and they have no qualms using pseudo-technicality to mask naked partisanship.

    I am not so confident of the outcome in every state lege, and to allow variance among the states on this issue would be disastrous, because we would soon find that this nation cannot stand half choice and half anti-choice.  Our side needs to pass a federal statute nationalizing abortion rights, because your SCOTUS that you want all of us to kneel to without question, is probably going to return this issue to the states soon, unless we take it from the courts and legislate about it in Congress.

    We should have destroyed the presidency before Obama took office. Too late now.

    by gtomkins on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 01:27:39 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site