Kakki wrote:
>But it's been a Supreme Court decision that has been in place for almost 30
>years. It is well-established case law. Even with a conservative majority
>on the Supreme Court, I still cannot see them messing with this, if for no
>other reason than it would be highly controversial, provoke riots, provoke
>calls for their impeachment, threats to their well-being and so on. You may
>not think some conservatives are very enlightened but they are not that
>stupid, especially at the Supreme Court level.
During the presidential primaries, I was taking trip to North Carolina,
where I saw a broadcast of Bush in South Carolina at a press conference.
At the press conference, he asked a woman who worked at a local "clinic"
to stand up and discuss the kind of business she ran. She explained that
she was at a pro-life clinic, one which served the "Word of God" by
delivering the message of Jesus Christ to women who might otherwise opt
for abortion. Bush then explained that his policy of compassionate
conservatism would aim to provide government support to such "clinics."
Now, I'm not about to say that someone should be castigated simply for
being pro-life. But government funds distributed to a pro-life
Christian organization seems to be indicative not only of Bush's position
on abortion, but also the position of the cronies he wants to appoint to
his cabinet and (potentially) to the Supreme Court. It also seems to
violate separation of church and state, but then Republicans have shown
little concern for the constitutional import of this part of the Bill of
Rights.
Kakki, you've mentioned in several of your posts that maybe you are just
being naive for giving Bush, et al., the benefit of the doubt, and though
you have proven yourself time and time again to be a fair-minded,
articulate commentator, I think on this subject, you really are being
naive. Several "state's rights" decisions from the Supreme Court even
under Clinton have destroyed aspects of civil right's law that have been
on the books and had been ratified in past court decisions for decades.
Also, remember that Plessy v. Ferguson, the court case sanctioning
separate but equal school systems, had been around since 1896 and was only
overturned by Brown v. Board of Education. Thank goodness that sometimes
the courts act with bold, deliberative strokes! But if you are
pro-choice, you should be aware that Reverend Vince's warning about the
Supreme Court becoming more conservative is real. The Brown v. Board
justices were also subject to popular resistance, violence, and threats.
But it is precisely because the Supreme Court is ultimately above and
beyond popular review and accountability that makes it such a powerful
part of the government. YOU need to prove to ME that policy can't change
overnight, because history shows that in fact it can. And indeed, the
Republican party in general wants to change certain policies, including
the legality of abortion, so what makes you think that between Bush,
Ashcroft, and a potential sea change in the Supreme Court that Roe v. Wade
won't be overturned?
--Duane
