evolution

First, some more links:

» The Art of the Blog heard a wondrous event on NPR — a balanced report. The key quote to remember, when you hear leftists hyperventilate (as they are already doing) about Roberts’ stance on abortion:

As deputy solicitor general during the administration of the first President Bush, however, he signed a legal brief in 1991 arguing for the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that established a women’s right to abortion. But Roberts was arguing on behalf of his client, the U.S. government, so it is not clear if this is his personal view. Democrats will no doubt try to ascertain that during confirmation hearings.

We’ll get to what he actually said later.

» Iowahawk provides the “principles” that fuel most opposition to Roberts. He’s a good judge who is well-liked by reasonable people from both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, that reasonableness doesn’t raise money for interest groups, particularly for NARAL, which is predictably in full freak-out mode.

» More from groups who represent Democrats. Barbara Boxer is also in full freak-out mode, citing medical research from 1936 Germany that was done before niceties like penicillin, modern sterilization techniques, and “the pill.” It’s not quoted in any story I can find, but I heard Boxer speak in an audio clip on Glenn Beck’s radio show: she also claimed in her comments that “rights to contraception” hang in the balance. What? Are you kidding me?

» Malkin’s roundup.

» In the Agora examines possible lines of leftist attack. Read it before you start the hysterics on the “french-fry case.”

» Patterico with more on the “french-fry case.”

» No Pasaran! must be French for “Bingo.”

» And, finally, more peace and tolerance brought to you by Classical Values.

Here are some of my thoughts on this, after reading all morning. First, about what Roberts said above: He was presenting the best case he could on behalf of his client, which — wait for it — he is compelled to do by legal ethics canons!

Anyway, this is what the brief he signed as part of the legal team he was on said:

We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled . . . [T]he Court’s conclusion[] in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion . . . find[s] no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution.

There are several online copies of the Constitution. Search one for the word “abortion”. You’ll get “sorry, no results.” It isn’t there. He doesn’t say that abortion should be banned. He merely says that the Constitution doesn’t guarantee it. Guess what? It doesn’t. [Note: If you want to learn my position on abortion, do a search. I've written about it before.] Roe was decided on the “right to privacy”, which is also not mentioned in the Constitution. I’m not arguing against the right to privacy, which I feel strongly about, but for a body which is supposed to make its decisions based on the Constitution, it’s a bad decision. [A good one, however, could be read from the Ninth Amendment, where rights not enumerated in the Constitution are granted to the states and to the people.]

He’ll be asked about it. He won’t answer the question. Why? Because he can’t. If he does, and a case of this nature comes before the Court, he’ll have to recuse himself from it, because then it can be shown that “outside forces” had influence in his decision. His silence, though, on this question is what leftists want. It’ll keep their gravy train running on time.

In fact, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — a former lawyer for the ACLU — said:

“The law was changing. Women were lobbying around that issue. The Supreme Court stopped all that by deeming every law – even the most liberal – as unconstitutional. That seemed to me not the way courts generally work.”

She’s right. Roe is a bad decision because it takes away rights that rightfully belong to the people and the states. That’s the point that Roberts appears to be making. Also, And overturning Roe [which, it bears noting, the Court cannot do on a whim] does not equate to a global ban on abortion, although it might be banned in some places.

Leftist Senators and interest groups — one and the same — don’t care about any of that. If they aren’t seen in front of the cameras hyperventilating about something or other, then they won’t raise money and hence won’t be able to keep dipping their snouts in the public trough. Remember that when you see coverage of the hearings. And whatever you do, don’t get between a Senator and a TV camera.

UPDATE [10:25]: And buy stock in hair-care products.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 20th, 2005 at 09:35 and is filed under politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.