Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elphaba
The following article proposes an interesting theory that the GOP would prefer leaving Roe v. Wade intact and some good supporting arguments are made. This is at least as tricky as nominating Gonzales. (I am having way too much fun in all of the speculation.  )
If Ax Falls on Roe, It May Also Split GOP
By Peter Wallsten
The Los Angeles Times
---Article clipped for length--- |
Interesting article, but I'd like to give what I'd consider my concurring view of it. I don't see the problem being so much splitting the Republican party, but one of losing a key rallying point. As long as Roe v. Wade is on the books, it's a quick hook to get many conservatives to rally, and were it to go away there would have to be another rallying point, which I'm not sure there is. On the flipside, it might also serve as something for liberals to rally around, and could lead more to actually turn out at the polls.
And something else that was only briefly touched upon in the article-why is it controversial for a Justice, whose job is to determine the constitutionality of laws, to be a strict constitutionalist? If other justices aren't following the constitution, what are they basing their decisions off of? This feeling is where I think that the right's opposition to so-called activist judges comes from. I think that it would be perfectly reasonable for a judge to rule one way based on the law, but in the opinion state that they feel that that portion needs to be changed for the good of the country, instead of giving specious legal arguments for legislating from the bench.