More Judicial Politics

James is right on two issues in his post today on Simpson's op-ed that are directly relevant to the judicial nominations process. The first is that the Democrats have made abortion rights a single-issue litmus test. It is clearly the issue that most upsets Democrats on Estrada, Owen and Pryor (to name a few).

This raises the question of what the Democrats can reasonably expect from a pro-life President. Do they really expect him top send pro-choice nominees to the Senate? The Republicans did not make abortion the sole issue for Clinton nominees (if they had, few would have been confirmed, and while the Reps definitely thwarted Clinton nominees, they did not engage in the outright filibustering techniques of the Dems--if they had, neither Ginsburg nor Breyer would be on the bench—indeed, Breyer was confirmed when the Republicans controlled the Senate).

And this gets to the second part of James' post which is quite relevant: even if Roe v. Wade was overturned tomorrow, abortion would not become illegal. Rather, the power to regulate abortions would return to state legislatures, which is where it belongs, constitutionally speaking (in my opinion, and that is another discussion). Now, at most you would find one or two states (Mississippi and/or Alabama) which might outlaw the procedures outright, but that would hardly result in the utter cessation of abortion in the US.

So, it does beg a question as to why the Democrats fight so vociferously over this issue, when even if they "lost" they still would rule the day policy-wise.

And this is without getting to the real heart of the matter, as to why terminating pregnancies is such a thing to celebrate, but again, that is another conversation.

Posted by Steven Taylor at June 16, 2024 10:27 AM | TrackBack