In the last 48 hours there has been a lot of chatter about Roe v. Wade --- not a lot of it has been well-informed --- even less has been very informative
As long as there are "unwanted pregnancies" --- there will be a demand for therapeutic intervention of some kind --- and there will be a debate as to whether and/or to what extent such therapeutic intervention should be regulated, or possibly in some instances prohibited
Right now, the "Left" --- and the Democrats in particular --- are having a pretend melt-down over all of this >>> it's all part of a well-rehersed dog-and-pony-show intended to distract everybody from their real melt-down caused by the abject failure of the national government almost completely controlled by Democrats.
This leak of the Supreme Court's possible undoing of Roe v.Wade is just the latest bright shiny thing for the media (even though evidence indicates that key players on the Left had possession of the leaked document for quite some time --- when did a "May Surprise" ever win an election --- leaving the question, why release it now).
For now, Republicans should >>> let the Democrats chase after their bright and shiny Roe v. Wade thing all by themselves. (For a moment put yourselves in the Democrats' shoes --- just say to yourself, "With Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer in charge, what could possibly go wrong ???") Biden's speech earlier today is a promise of more of the same to come, so what more needs to be said --- certainly nothing in response --- just let him keep talkin'.....
There will be time enough for victory laps if the GOP wins big in November, and if the Supreme Court actually does overturn Roe v. Wade......
UPDATE & BACKFILL: THE "WHEN IS A DECISION NOT A DECISION --- AND WHEN IS A PRECEDENT NOT A PRECEDENT" EDITION
ReplyDeleteTHERE HAVE BEEN TWO PARALLEL QUESTIONABLE PROPOSITIONS PUT FORWARD SINCE THE LEAK OF THE ALITO DRAFT --- THE FIRST IS THAT THE ORIGINAL "ROE V WADE" DECISION IS WELL ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT OF MORE THAN FIFTY YEARS THAT SUBSEQUENT COURTS HAD TO FOLLOW --- THE SECOND IS THAT WHAT THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT WOULD BE DOING IN OVERTURNING "ROE" IS IMPROPER AND UNPRECEDENTED.....
--- NEITHER IS TRUE ---
"Roe v. Wade" was never universally accepted as well reasoned or well-established precedent. From the moment that it had been handed down, "Roe" had been widely criticized in many circles throughout the legal community, including by some that held "pro choice" positions. Furthermore, its effect was specifically limited by the U.S. Suprem Court in several subsequent decisions, most notably in "Planned Parenthood v. Casey" --- which based upon the Alito draft is also likely to be struck down, to the extent that it did uphold "Roe v. Wade".....
There is nothing improper in the U.S. Supreme Court's striking down precedent of fifty years or longer. Long time precedent was completely overturned by the High Court in several cases; perhaps the most notable was "Brown v. Board of Education" --- which overturned over fifty years of precedent.
It needs to be noted that it's still possible that the Alito draft will not be the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court. Former USAG William Barr doubts that five U.S. Supreme Court Justices would sign-on to Associate Justice Samuel Alito's draft decision. And nobody should everr forget the last second switcheroo of Chief Justice Roberts on the case upholding Obamacare.