11 Responses to “Gonzales Has Roe Reversal?”

1. PlacidPundit Says:
   July 27th, 2005 at 2:20 am

   The question remains, does anyone want to touch this political third rail?I would. But not for the reason most might think. My problem with Roe v. Wade is that it takes morality national. This is a gross twisting of the purpose of our Central Government, which was created as a way to solve issues with currencies, tariffs, and treaties. And the Constitution very strictly limits the power of the Central Government to this realm. (Don’t bother with incorporation under the 14th–it’s simply not there in the text, the intent, and history. Additionally, it’s completely irreconcilable with portions of the document the 14th leaves intact.)The problem, both on Left and Right, is those who believe that their moral principles both can and should be enforced from on high, and must be universally accepted immediately, with no effort.

2. PlacidPundit Says:
   July 27th, 2005 at 2:22 am

   Whoops, your comment software doesn’t like HTML. :-)

3. Justin Gardner Says:
   July 27th, 2005 at 2:45 am

   It doesn’t? I thought it did.

   Does this link to anything?

4. PlacidPundit Says:
   July 27th, 2005 at 3:45 am

   Well, it liked my <em> tag but swallowed my <p> tag without a trace. We’ll soon find out if it comps down on character entities…

5. Michael Totten Says:
   July 27th, 2005 at 4:22 am

   Justin, changing your mind is fine. Hopefully we all change our minds at least once in a while. The problem with Kerry was that he “changed his mind” back and forth repeatedly over and over again. It was impossible to nail his ideas down. He did that on purpose in a transparent attempt to unite the left and the center. It didn’t work.

6. Pouncer Says:
   July 27th, 2005 at 1:22 pm

   I suspect a few people reading the news about this are drawing an incorrect inference.

   Gonzales says there’s a difference between what an appellate court judge may do and what a Supreme Court Justice may do. (Duh!) A judge on any lower court is bound to apply the guidance and precedents of the Supremes. (As best he is able, at least) In particular District Courts Judge nominee Roberts said he would treat Roe v. Wade as settled law, even if he personally disagreed. On the other hand, if Supreme Court Justice Roberts is presented with a new case regarding abortion, (based on a conflict of interpretations among lower courts, potential new evidence over-turing the 1970’s era medical understanding of “trimesters” during pregnancy, or some other grounds for appeal which legitimately raise questions about this “settled” law.) then the Supremes as a group have already agreed that “Roe” is insufficient to settle the question. Just taking the case is admisision that Roe provides insufficient direction to lower courts. And this might be because the case was “wrongly decided” — meaning the reasoning and assumptions are either not clear or are clearly flawed. Upon what basis then does a Supreme Court judge rule? He has to consider the particular case anew, and let his own understanding of the CURRENT trends of medicine, state law, federal law, international practice, biblical tradition, personal prejudice, and astrological forecast all combine to suggest to him. Her. Whatever.

   I don’t think this counts as a ‘flip flop”.

   His

7. Justin Gardner Says:
   July 27th, 2005 at 3:14 pm

   Good points all around. Here are my responses.

   I think this is a national issue, not a state by state issue. I understand some are strict constitutionalists and they want true state’s rights, but I think that fractures our union down dangerous ideological lines. Especially when you’re talking about something like a woman’s right to choose. Personally, I see this as a civil rights issue for all women, so I don’t think you can legislate something that important state by state.

   Moving on, very good point pouncer, but I still think it counts even if there’s a difference between the level of judges. If you change your mind on something (which, like Michael, I encourage given the right circumstances) the comparison is apt. Note, I’m using it the way they defined it in the campaign commercials and speeches. Their logic was just as simplistic as my comparison, if not more so. That’s the context I’m using it in, not how Michael is using it.

   However, I agree that John Kerry and his team weren’t very skilled at dealing with this meme. They could have quashed it early, but they didn’t.

   Also, to Michael’s point about Kerry’s strategy not working, he’s right if you’re looking at it from an all or nothing POV. But Kerry also got 9 million more votes than Gore did in 2000 and 12 million/15 million more than Clinton in 1996/1992. A think a little perspective is needed when saying something “didn’t work.” National politicians usually try to project a more centrist view during campaign years and then speak fire and brimstone to the faithful. That’s just the nature of the beast. Hopefully, at some point in the future, they’ll actually mean the “centrist” part.

8. PlacidPundit Says:
   July 28th, 2005 at 1:07 am

   I think this is a national issue, not a state by state issue. I understand some are strict constitutionalists and they want true state’s rights, but I think that fractures our union down dangerous ideological lines. Especially when you’re talking about something like a woman’s right to choose. Personally, I see this as a civil rights issue for all women, so I don’t think you can legislate something that important state by state.

   :-)

   This has been the primary argument since 1861. One side says the purpose of government is to enforce moral truths (like civil rights), while the other side says the People must enforce moral truths.

   The facts are stubborn things, however: the purpose of the Founders for the Central Government was a very thin and lightweight layer around the State governments. The initial conception was that States would take care of all important issues, including moral imperatives such as the one under discussion now. Only a few administrative responsibilities were granted to Congress. All other powers were “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” by the 10th amendment.

   Over time, people have gotten the (false) idea that the Central Government is tasked with the protection of rights enumerated in the first 10 amendments. This is backward. The Bill of Rights was a limit on Federal power–not a request for aid in fighting abuses.

   Unfortunately, moral crusaders on both sides have decided that they have been granted authority over moral justice and purity for people in other States.

9. Justin Gardner Says:
   July 28th, 2005 at 1:34 am

   1861. Exactly my point. What is your position on letting the states have rights on that specific year?

   Again, for me, this is about civiil rights. And giving the state governments sway over what women can and can not do with their own bodies frightens me deeply.

10. PlacidPundit Says:
    July 29th, 2005 at 1:45 pm

    1861. Exactly my point. What is your position on letting the states have rights on that specific year?

    The Constitution says the States retain all powers not granted to the Central Government. Period. It’s the law, it’s always been the law, and no amendment to the Constitution has changed it.

    I think you may be suffering from a traditional fallacy: something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done. Just because trashing the Constitution looks like a good way to achieve a policy objective doesn’t mean it is *the* way to achieve a policy objective.

    For the same reason, I oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment, Prohibition, national religious funding, and other perversions of the law.

11. Justin Gardner Says:
    July 29th, 2005 at 1:54 pm

    I think you may be suffering from a traditional fallacy: something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done. Just because trashing the Constitution looks like a good way to achieve a policy objective doesn’t mean it is *the* way to achieve a policy objective.

    I’m not sure what you’re saying? So we should have just left slavery up to the states? I understand your point, but you ignore the reality of a chaotic world that no document could ever anticipate. You call it trashing the Constitution. I call it the reason we have amendments in the first place. Was the civil war not a “just” war?

    In other words, absolutes never live up to their status so we shouldn’t pretend as such.

Leave a Reply

Related Posts:

• Captain’s Quarters On Gonzales
• Gonzales Resigns
• Bush Gives Clue To SCOTUS Nominee