The upside of losing Roe! - Democratic Underground

Stray Roots

(63 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-25-05 11:13 AM
Original message

The upside of losing Roe!

I'm probably going to get flamed for saying there is an upside to this, but there is. For one thing it will be the end of public compacency on the matter.

For another thing, Bush has selected a true stealth candidate, which makes him a done deal. His wife was head of Feminists for Life, but that won't be enough to keep him off the courts. All the democrats have is nitpicking issues like the fact that he says he doesn't remember being a member of the federalist society. Crossposted from http://dameocrat.blogspot.com Dameocrat Blog

"Roberts has burnished his legal image carefully. When news organizations have reported his membership in the society, he or others speaking on his behalf have sought corrections. Last week, the White House told news organizations that had reported his membership in the group that he had no memory of belonging. The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today and the Associated Press printed corrections.

Over the weekend, The Post obtained a copy of the Federalist Society Lawyers' Division Leadership Directory, 1997-1998. It lists Roberts, then a partner at the law firm Hogan & Hartson, as a member of the steering committee of the organization's Washington chapter and includes his firm's address and telephone number.

Yesterday, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Roberts 'has no recollection of being a member of the Federalist Society, or its steering committee.' Roberts has acknowledged taking part in some Federalist Society activities, Perino said."

Ok, yeah, uh huh!

Anyway, I am of the mind that Roe is a goner, and that isn't entirely a bad thing. As http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/ Eric Alterman points out!

Anyway, the Roberts nomination seems to mean we should plan on saying goodbye to thirty-two years of life under "Roe," which is not entirely a bad thing, even for pro-choice advocates. After all, Bush did terrific with unmarried women without college educations. It would be helpful, politically (and democratically) for them to learn just what it was they were voting for. There's a much longer argument to be made here, about how judicially-created and enforced liberalism has weakened its cause and alienated its potential supporters while not gaining terribly much in real world terms. (I'm told much the same can be said for "Brown v. Board--at least the "with all deliberate speed" part of it too, but I've not yet read up on that argument, and it's not nearly so germane.) The implications go far beyond that obviously. Roberts is only 50 and Bush is likely to get two more nominees. We may not recognize the Constitution when he's done. In the meantime, I'll stick to what I know, will cover the nomination fight if something extraordinary happens. If not, there's plenty to keep us all

There is nothing you can do to stop a frieght train, and that is what the Bush administration is. The damage done may lead to important reforms in the end! Particularly if it ends public complacency. I know many people who vote for Republicans based on the notion that the courts will protect them from the religious right. It isn't just working class women who don't have time to read newspapers, as Alterman would lead us to believe. It is also upper middle class married women. The so-called security moms. That will officially end once Roe is overturned.