Why Run From Overturning Roe?
I was listening to Mary Matalin on the Sean Hannity show yesterday. They were discussing the Roberts nomination. Matalin was summing up the Democrats position on Roberts as an attack pro-Life positions without cause. The entire conversation struck me as odd, since the hard core base of the party wants Roe vs. Wade overturned and abortion made illegal.
Roberts has two public positions on Roe: 1) when working for the Bush-41 Justice Department he helped draft a brief outlining why Roe should be overturned and 2) during his appellate confirmation hearings he said that Roe was decided law and he saw no reason why he would rule differently. He (correctly, IMHO) pointed out that the first position was when he was working for a client.
So, Matalin is holding him up as a die-hard Conservative that the Democrats shouldn’t filibuster because he there’s no reason to on the abortion issue. That tells me the Republicans are admitting defeat on abortion. The Republicans can’t win on the issue in the opinion polls, so the only way to overturn Roe is by doing what they say they hate: legislating from the bench.
Now, I don’t have a problem with overturning Roe, but more on Constitutional grounds than moral ones. There is no federal jurisdiction over medical procedures. Like medical and insurance law, this should be a state issue.
I, for one, would like to see Roe overturned, on constitutional and moral grounds. But I with you that seeking a Supreme Court nominee solely for purpose of legislating from the bench the end of Roe, is hypocritical.
Comment by Diane — July 23, 2005 @ 6:45 pm