It's confirmed: Bush will formally announce his nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr., a man who has weighed in on abortion:
"We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. As more fully explained in our briefs, filed as amicus curiae, in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 110 S. Ct. 2926 (1990); Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989); Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986); and City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), the Court's conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."
(I analyze the insantiy after the cut)
Let's assume for a moment that Roe v. Wade is not actually about a person's individual rights in relation to his or her body. Let's pretend for a moment that the pecedent doesn't really work the way it does and Roe v. Wade can be rolled back with no additional meddling by the government in people's personal affairs. Let's assume Roe v. Wade gets overturned and abortion becomes an issue for the states and is not made illegal by the federal government to satisfy the shrill cries of an organized minority who wants to see this nation become a theocracy. Let's just take all that baggage off the table and see what's left:
Enviromental regulation. Roberts has often, both in his public and private work, taken a position against government environmental regulation. Roberts argued against the private citizen's right to sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations in Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation.
Here's a person who believes the federal government is above the law. Imagine, not being able to seek compensation when the law has been broken--for there to be no justice. If we take this man's arguments to their illogical conclusions, then the federal government can do as it pleases in relation to its citizens while the citizens must constantly strive to do that which upholds and glorifies the government.
Is it just us, or does that sound remarkably like Fascism?
(source: Wikipedia)