No more Roe v. Wade

[TragicMonkey]

I would like to see the source of the statement you attribute to Roberts.

From the current case before the Supreme Court, via AP.

Roberts, 50, was presiding over his first major oral argument and thrust himself in the middle of the debate. Over and over he raised concerns that states could undermine federal regulation of addictive drugs. He interrupted Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General Robert Atkinson in his first minute, then asked more than a dozen more tough questions.

Roberts said the federal government has the authority to determine what is a legitimate medical purpose and "it suggests that the attorney general has the authority to interpret that phrase" to declare that assisted suicide is not legitimate. Roberts asked three questions of the Bush administration lawyer, noting that Congress passed one drug law only after "lax state treatment of opium."

I see nothing suggesting the comment in the second paragraph is from a different occasion that the case in question. Nor do I see it as "playing devil's advocate", unless you really, really, really want to believe that someone is going to vote the exact opposite of the position they are spearheading. There's no reason to assume Al Gore didn't vote for Bush, eh? You can't know that he didn't.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051006...kOyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

[Ed]

Roberts said the federal government has the authority to determine what is a legitimate medical purpose and "it suggests that the attorney general has the authority to interpret that phrase"

We should all reflect on this very seriously. This logic can be used to advance many social agendas that the right seems to want.

-abortion
-stem cell research
-right to die

This actually sent a chill thru me. I might also point out that certain fertility procedures are frowned upon by some christians. What he is saying, in effect, is that any biological intervention can, contitutionally, be outlawed by the sitting President (the AG reference is a fig leaf), precident and other aspects of the constitution aside.

Be afraid.

 

[TragicMonkey]

We should all reflect on this very seriously. This logic can be used to advance many social agendas that the right seems to want.

-abortion
-stem cell research
-right to die

This actually sent a chill thru me. I might also point out that certain fertility procedures are frowned upon by some christians. What he is saying, in effect, is that any biological intervention can, contitutionally, be outlawed by the sitting President (the AG reference is a fig leaf), precident and other aspects of the constitution aside.

Be afraid.

And remember that contraception used to be outlawed, too. How would that strike people today?

Or, monkeys forbid, suppose a Scientologist got the presidency? No more medicine.

 

[headscratcher4]

We should all reflect on this very seriously. This logic can be used to advance many social agendas that the right seems to want.

-abortion
-stem cell research
-right to die

This actually sent a chill thru me. I might also point out that certain fertility procedures are frowned upon by some christians. What he is saying, in effect, is that any biological intervention can, contitutionally, be outlawed by the sitting President (the AG reference is a fig leaf), precident and other aspects of the constitution aside.

Be afraid.

It also seems to me that it is an idea that goes very much against the grain of more "traditional" conservative thinking on this matter, starting with it undercuts a state's rights. Indeed, this is the kind of thinking that a liberal, "activist" court might propose. My point is, not taking a side on this particualr case, is that if this is a "conservative" non-activist judge's approach to this problem, what is the difference between him and, say, Earl Warren? And, if this is how conservative, non-activists interpret the Constitution and law, than why the big stink about Roe? Or any other "activist" iterpretation of the Constitution.

Ed's points are good ones, it will make this descision interesting to watch...to see if he's playing devi's advocate, puts this theory forth as a conservative non-activist theory or whether he was a judicial activist in sheep's clothing...wouldn't Bush be in hot ◊◊◊◊ with the conservatives then?

 

[TragicMonkey]

or whether he was a judicial activist in sheep's clothing...wouldn't Bush be in hot ◊◊◊◊ with the conservatives then?

Not at all, as long as he was activist only for the conservative hot causes.

 

[headscratcher4]

Not at all, as long as he was activist only for the conservative hot causes.

Something of a given...I note that Thomas has voted to overturn legislative determinations at both the Federal and State levels more than any other justice...

 

[drkitten]

It also seems to me that it is an idea that goes very much against the grain of more "traditional" conservative thinking on this matter, starting with it undercuts a state's rights. Indeed, this is the kind of thinking that a liberal, "activist" court might propose. My point is, not taking a side on this particualr case, is that if this is a "conservative" non-activist judge's approach to this problem, what is the difference between him and, say, Earl Warren? And, if this is how conservative, non-activists interpret the Constitution and law, than why the big stink about Roe? Or any other "activist" iterpretation of the Constitution.

Because as far as I can tell, there are no politically relevant "non-activists" left in the political arena of the United States, any more than there are "small government" proponents. "Judicical activism," like "strict contruction" and "small government" are useful flags for the party that is not in power to wave, but do not reflect the actual beliefs of anyone in national government. (When was the last time a President left office with fewer Federal employees than when he began? 1948?)

The practical question is not whether or not the Federal Government has the authority to do any particular thing. In practical terms, it can do anything it feels like -- if you think the government has passed an unconstitutional law, and the SCOTUS disagrees with you, well, tough noogies. In "moral" or "ethical" terms, there is no longer any effective debate on the issues, in part because "moral" arguments carry precisely zero practical weight.

So the government has the authority to do anything at all. And the people who go into government tend to do so because they want it to do certain things, whether that be invade the Mideast, outlaw guns, prevent their neighbors from burning the flag, or build a bridge in their hometown. The people who elect them to government elect the people who can get things that they want done -- that bridge, "legal" or not, will put a lot of contractors into work and will make my commute much easier when it's done. Anyone who actually wanted to keep the government from doing anything at all would not be able to collect more than a scattering of votes -- witness the electoral performance of the Libertarians over the years.

 

[Manny]

Hey, don't blame the conservatives for Roberts. We freaking begged for a real conservative in the Scalia-Thomas mold, someone who would vote to uphold medical marijuana laws instead of stretching the Commerce Clause to cover them. But noooooooo. Bush had to go pick Johnny Harvard. And now this Meirs person, personally recommended by Harry Reid. If Janice Rogers Brown were CJ she'd whip those guys into a 7-2 and Oregonians could morphine their parents to death all they wanted.

 

[Luke T.]

From the current case before the Supreme Court, via AP.



I see nothing suggesting the comment in the second paragraph is from a different occasion that the case in question. Nor do I see it as "playing devil's advocate", unless you really, really, really want to believe that someone is going to vote the exact opposite of the position they are spearheading. There's no reason to assume Al Gore didn't vote for Bush, eh? You can't know that he didn't.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051006...kOyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

A sentence fragment? This is all you have? A sentence fragment? And from this you make a conclusion?

How about this:

New Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. sharply questioned lawyers on both sides today as the Supreme Court heard the Bush administration's challenge to the nation's only "right to die" law.

U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement argued that Congress gave federal authorities the power to regulate how drugs are used.

"The most natural reading of the Controlled Substances Act is that this falls within the authority of the attorney general," he said.

Roberts and several of his colleagues questioned that premise.

"What's the closest analogue to this?" the chief justice asked Clement, pressing for an example of where the U.S. attorney general overruled the states and their doctors on how legal drugs are used.

Clement paused and then responded that the Food & Drug Administration had objected in the 1970s when several states allowed the use of laetrile as a cancer treatment.

"That's the FDA. What about the attorney general?" Roberts repeated.

Clement could not cite a specific example of where the attorney general had overruled the state medical authorities on the use of prescription drugs. Roberts' question highlighted that Ashcroft was claiming a new power to regulate medical practice.

Read that last sentence carefully and see how your sentence fragment fits now, and try to remember that conservatives strongly favor states' rights.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Read that last sentence carefully and see how your sentence fragment fits now, and try to remember that conservatives strongly favor states' rights.

So, Ashcroft was a liberal? And so is Gonzalez?

 

[Kerberos]

Because as far as I can tell, there are no politically relevant "non-activists" left in the political arena of the United States, any more than there are "small government" proponents. "Judicical activism," like "strict contruction" and "small government" are useful flags for the party that is not in power to wave, but do not reflect the actual beliefs of anyone in national government. (When was the last time a President left office with fewer Federal employees than when he began? 1948?)

The practical question is not whether or not the Federal Government has the authority to do any particular thing. In practical terms, it can do anything it feels like -- if you think the government has passed an unconstitutional law, and the SCOTUS disagrees with you, well, tough noogies. In "moral" or "ethical" terms, there is no longer any effective debate on the issues, in part because "moral" arguments carry precisely zero practical weight.

So the government has the authority to do anything at all. And the people who go into government tend to do so because they want it to do certain things, whether that be invade the Mideast, outlaw guns, prevent their neighbors from burning the flag, or build a bridge in their hometown. The people who elect them to government elect the people who can get things that they want done -- that bridge, "legal" or not, will put a lot of contractors into work and will make my commute much easier when it's done. Anyone who actually wanted to keep the government from doing anything at all would not be able to collect more than a scattering of votes -- witness the electoral performance of the Libertarians over the years.

You're probably mainly right, but the performance of the Libertarian party doesn't really prove anything. They're simply way to far out there, to have any significant success in attracting any but the most hardcore fundamentalists government hatters and perhaps some protest votes. There are on this forum several people with broadly libertarian leanings, who don't vote for the party for that exact reason. To use the Libertarian Party to measure the number of libertarians, is much like using the fortunes of the Constitution Party to measure the number of non-secularists.

 

[Luke T.]

So, Ashcroft was a liberal? And so is Gonzalez?

Ashcroft is not a conservative. He's a neo-con who wants to increase the size and scope of federal government.

But to get back to the point, sentence fragment quotes always make me suspicious. And what I have shown is that there is a good reason to be suspicious. You and several others drank the Kool-Aid over it and came to the conclusions the writers of the article wanted you to come to about Roberts.

The fact is, there is absolutely no way to tell which way a Supreme Court justice is going to go on a case from the question and answer period of the lawyers. A judge might hammer away at one side of an issue and then end up writing an opinion in favor of it.

Taking a sentence fragment from something a judge said and making a conclusion from it is downright stupid. ETA: If your conclusion ends up correct, it will be by pure chance.

 

[davefoc]

drkitten wrote:

Anyone who actually wanted to keep the government from doing anything at all would not be able to collect more than a scattering of votes -- witness the electoral performance of the Libertarians over the years.

kerberos wrote:

You're probably mainly right, but the performance of the Libertarian party doesn't really prove anything. They're simply way to far out there, to have any significant success in attracting any but the most hardcore fundamentalists government hatters and perhaps some protest votes. There are on this forum several people with broadly libertarian leanings, who don't vote for the party for that exact reason.

I agree with kerberos on this, but I think the reasons the Libertarian party doesn't attract more people also goes to the nature of our political system which tends to promote a two party system. The basic idea is that political systems that have regional representation as opposed to at large representation tend towards two party systems. I think that if the US had a system whereby more than two parties could yield power the Libertarian party would morph into a more moderate organization that would attract fiscal conservative, social liberal individuals. As it is now the Libertarian party is like all other small political parties in the US in that it is narrowly focused and attracts only people with non-mainstream views.

As an aside, I have never been sure whether Shanek gets this or not. At times it seems like he believes that the Libertarian party arguments are so right and powerful that the someday the Libertarian party will have real power. But even if the country moved philosophically in the direction of the Libertarian party, the Libertarian party would hardly benefit at all in terms of power. What would happen is that one or the other of the two existing parties would move a little more towards a Libertarian philosophy to attract the hypothetical increase in the number of individuals that have become more libertarian in their outlook and the Libertarian party would remain an almost insignificant factor in American politics.

 

[Kerberos]

I agree with kerberos on this, but I think the reasons the Libertarian party doesn't attract more people also goes to the nature of our political system which tends to promote a two party system. The basic idea is that political systems that have regional representation as opposed to at large representation tend towards two party systems. I think that if the US had a system whereby more than two parties could yield power the Libertarian party would morph into a more moderate organization that would attract fiscal conservative, social liberal individuals. As it is now the Libertarian party is like all other small political parties in the US in that it is narrowly focused and attracts only people with non-mainstream views.

That's definetly a factor too.

As an aside, I have never been sure whether Shanek gets this or not. At times it seems like he believes that the Libertarian party arguments are so right and powerful that the someday the Libertarian party will have real power. But even if the country moved philosophically in the direction of the Libertarian party, the Libertarian party would hardly benefit at all in terms of power. What would happen is that one or the other of the two existing parties would move a little more towards a Libertarian philosophy to attract the hypothetical increase in the number of individuals that have become more libertarian in their outlook and the Libertarian party would remain an almost insignificant factor in American politics.

I'd say he gets this at least some of the way, since I've heard him arguing that one way that third parties can influence an election, is that if they get some succes the major parties will move in that direction, to get a slice of that voting block.

 

[drkitten]

drkitten wrote:
kerberos wrote:
I agree with kerberos on this, but I think the reasons the Libertarian party doesn't attract more people also goes to the nature of our political system which tends to promote a two party system. The basic idea is that political systems that have regional representation as opposed to at large representation tend towards two party systems.

It's not the national vs. regional issue, but the winner-take-all, first-past-the-post voting system that is largely to blame. Under the current system, a vote for a (distant) third party is basically throwing a vote away, because there's no practical benefit to a candidate of drawing 48% of the vote in a riding as opposed to drawing 4.8% or even 0.00048%.

Other systems, most notably Condorcet voting and Single-Transferrable-Vote, to both of which I refer you, have different attributes. In particular, under STV, a vote foran unpopular third party eventually transfers to a vote for a preferred larger party. Under this system, I could vote against Bush, for example, by placing him last in my preference list, reflecting a statement that I would vote for someone -- anyone -- in preference to him.

Another way to avoid the issue is by holding elections for slates of candidates -- if there are fifty seats in the national assembly, and the top fifty vote-getters are selected, then there is a still a definite advantage to getting 48% (which will essentially guarantee you one of the seats). This remains true even if the seats themselves are regional. In the United States, this could easily be done by making all Congressmen stand "at large" for their states (and similarly, Senators would stand "at large" as pairs), with the top N (for Senators, N=2) winning seats. This would still preserve the state-level regionalism, but would give third-parties a better choice.

The most egregious example of this, of course, is in the election of the Presidential Electoral College. As the US Constitution is structured, each state appoints a certain number of electors who cast ballots for the actual presidential candidates. Every state (or every state but one, I think Maine may be unusual) explicitly allocates all electors to the party that wins the state, so a large state (California, say, or Texas) more or less effectively disenfranchises the voters who are not part of the plurality party. If 51% of Texas votes Republican, 100% of Texas' electoral votes go to the Republican presidential candidate. This basically destroys any chance of having a third party president under normal circumstances (and indeed, there has not been one in a hundred and fifty years).

I think that if the US had a system whereby more than two parties could yield power the Libertarian party would morph into a more moderate organization that would attract fiscal conservative, social liberal individuals. As it is now the Libertarian party is like all other small political parties in the US in that it is narrowly focused and attracts only people with non-mainstream views.

Possibly. As you may have gathered, though, I personally disbelieve whether there are enough "fiscal conservative, social liberal" individuals to justify a description of that philosophical position as "mainstream." "Fiscal conservatism" more often seems to be a label one uses to justify not spending money on a project with which one disagrees. Even the most ardent "fiscal conservatives" seem happy enough to get government funding by the trainload for projects they consider to be beneficial in the long-term.

As an aside, I have never been sure whether Shanek gets this or not.

Oh, be sure. He doesn't.

 

[BPSCG]

The number of abortions in America before and after Roe v. Wade did not change. And the number of deaths which resulted from illegal abortions at the time Roe v. Wade was working its way through our legal system was not much more than the number of deaths from legal abortions today, contrary to any scare tactic B.S. you hear from the pro-choice side. The "5,000 deaths a year" you still see on NARAL and Planned Parenthood websites today is a willful, conscious lie.

Luke - I didn't read through the entire link, but I noted something interesting.

For a moment, let's just take a couple of Planned Parenthood's numbers at face value. They claim that before Roe v. Wade, as many as 5,000 women a year died as the result of illegal abortions. They also claim that the annual number of illegal abortions was anywhere from 200,00 to 1.2 million.

Now, if we assume their estimate of "as many as" 5,000 deaths per year is correct, we should also assume the number of illegal abortions was also at the high end of the range of estimates.

Okay, some simple math. Five thousand divided by 1,200,000 = .0042.

In other words, a woman getting an illegal abortion stood less than a one-half of one percent chance of dying from it. Appendectomies are probably more dangerous. Hell, shovelling the snow off your driveway is probably more dangerous.

So here's my question for those who cite the alarming statistics of what will happen if Roe v. Wade is overturned: So what?

 

[drkitten]

Now, if we assume their estimate of "as many as" 5,000 deaths per year is correct, we should also assume the number of illegal abortions was also at the high end of the range of estimates.

Why? This seems like a classic example of cherry-picking data to fit a preconceived conclusion.

In my experience, numbers at any end of a range of estimates, especially a range of estimates about a politically hot topic, are always inaccurate, in part, because they get repeated so often and extended via exaggeration.

 

[davefoc]

drkitten,
I was aware (although not to the degree that you are) of what you posted. I was attempting a brief description of what is complicated. Thank you for your expansion.

I have wondered what percentage of the population would fall roughly into the political bin that more or less describes myself. That is fiscally and economically conservative and socially liberal. My guess is that it is in the range of 20% of the population. A small enough percentage that we as a group don't hold much power. I think, we have lost power in recent years as the Republican party (the party that most of us identified with) has tilted strongly to big spend and social conservatism. I think we make up a much higher percentage of the JREF forum participants, but still less than 50%.

I absolutely agree that the people we elect are almost all spenders regardless of what they claim. It is the nature of human being to want to affect things and there is just about no more fun way of doing this than using other people's money. This coupled with the various corrupting influences guarantees that legislators will spend to the max. The only thing that saves the system, IMHO, is the willingness and the ability of the president/governor to veto the excesses of the legislature. Currently this system is broken down at the national level because of Bush and it was broken down in California because of Davis.


Incidentally Arlen Spector is pro-abortion rights.

 

[BPSCG]

Why? This seems like a classic example of cherry-picking data to fit a preconceived conclusion.

In my experience, numbers at any end of a range of estimates, especially a range of estimates about a politically hot topic, are always inaccurate, in part, because they get repeated so often and extended via exaggeration.

Actually, if you go to Luke's link, you'll see he demolishes the argument that there were 1.2 million illegal abortions and 5,000 deaths per year before Roe v. Wade. Those are Planned Parenthood's and NARAL's figures, or at least figures they were still quoting as recently as 2003. I'm just saying, if you accept their own figures as true, then the death rate from illegal abortions was tiny.

If those figures aren't true, then why do they persist in using them?

 

[Melendwyr]

So here's my question for those who cite the alarming statistics of what will happen if Roe v. Wade is overturned: So what?

The question isn't really how risky any procedure would be if it were illegal - what matters is how great the difference is between the procedure when illegal and when legal. If the legal procedure is even safer, then some number of women would die pointlessly every year if it were made illegal.

There's also the matter of how great the government's power is to step in to protect human life (which we still haven't properly defined) and how great the individual's right to make medical decisions without governmental interference is. Don't underestimate the importance of the philosophical arguments on both sides.