Bush Courts Another Souter

Words I can't recall saying before: I agree with Ann Coulter and Charles Krauthammer. In John Roberts, President Bush has nominated another David Souter, a jurist without a public record that would justify the confidence Republicans are expressing in his approach to the Constitution.

Perhaps he'll prove to be a reliable member of the Scalia-Thomas bloc, but evangelical conservatives who returned Bush to the White House for a full assault on Roe v. Wade ought to be wondering why the president snuck another stealth candidate forward. The GOP's in solid control of Congress largely because of religious voters who care about no issue more than the criminalization of abortion. Roberts could perch atop the Constitution for 30 years. How much of a governing majority does a pro-life Republican president need before he'll nominate an explicitly anti-Roe jurist to the court?

My cynical suspicion is that Bush wants abortion to be safe, legal, and rage-inducing for the GOP base. A Roe overturn would provoke a strong backlash -- a majority of the country is pro-choice, according to recent polls. A return to back-alley abortions turns a significant number of those people into strong single-issue voters while giving the GOP's most loyal voters one less reason to go to the polls.


With all due respect, Rogers, that's hogwash. First, the Republicans hardly have solid control of the Senate. If they did, they would be able to find more creative ways to overcome Dem filibuster threats rather than threaten to rewrite the rules.

Second, a substantial minority of those Republican Senators are not there due to religious conservatives and would not go along with an explicitly anti-Roe jurist, which have to know. Add to that the conservative Sens who want a shot at 2008, and the whole idea is a non-starter.

But, more importantly, is this what we really want? Do we want Bush nominating an explicitly anti-Roe justice and some future Democratic president nominating an explicitly pro-Roe justice?

Finally, your last paragraph falsely implies that overturning Roe would make abortion illegal. In fact, it would simply return it to the states (where it belongs, IMO) and you would see a patchwork of laws from states where its outright illegal, to states where it is completley legal.

Brian..to assume that a court so inclined as to oveturn Roe v. Wade would not also be of a mind to trash State's rights, particularily if encouraged by Congressional action, is highly presumptious.
If they'd do one, they'd most certainly attempt the other.

Roberts should be nominated for reasons none other than that he seems unlikely to become activist in any movement to overturn. That's a hedge..but in this slanted environment, more than may have been expected.

You are both wrong. If the Roe v Wade law is abolished, or if a constitutional amendment is written to declare marriage as between a man and woman - the GOP would no longer have a leg to stand on.

In otherwords, they'd have nothing to BARK about during campaigns.

They wouldn't even be able to demand a balanced budget or complain about the democrats 'big government' and 'spending bills' because they've spent more in the pass 10 years then the previous 40 years of Democratic rule. They've also increased the size of government.

No - abortion and marriage will stay the same in the news headlines - else the GOP would lose BIG TIME during elections.

This is a great business opportunity for CDNians to open abortion clinics in Niagara, Windsor and Vancouver, the truly free country north and south (Windsor) of the border ;)

By the way, that's a joke. We have our own health issues in the great white north.

I'm with Rogers on this one. With a majority of America supporting limited, legal abortions, actually "winning" on the abortion issue would lose the fired-up conservatives who vote about abortion and create enemies from those who think abortions should be legal and available, even if limited.

The abortion issue is here to stay. So, I think, is the abortion status quo.

I don't believe the repeal of Roe v. Wade would simply push the issue to the states. The Supreme Court that found growing marijuana in your backyard for medicinal purpose is interstate commerce can surely find a way to prevent blue states from keeping abortion legal.

the repeal of Roe v. Wade

Is never going to happen. Ever. Not in my lifetime and I bet I am the youngest person contributing to this discussion.

No matter how many "little Vinnies and Debbies a conservative Christian murders when he ejaculates in his pants" over the thought of Roe v. Wade being overturned.


I have to disagree with you here, Brian. Remember that when Oregon passed our right-to-die act, the federal government pulled out all stops to keep it from being implemented. This under a Democratic President, no less.

A repeal of Roe v Wade would be a disaster. I agree that it should be a state decision but I don't think there's a chance that Washington would ever leave it at that.

Add a Comment

All comments are moderated before publication. These HTML tags are permitted: <p>, <b>, <i>, <a>, and <blockquote>. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA (for which the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply).