February 2008

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29

We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.

-James Madison

Replacing O'Connor

There has not yet been any white smoke from the little chimney on the roof of the White House. Once there is, it will indicate a decision has been made on a new Supreme Court Justice to replace Sandra Day O’Connor. Who exactly will replace this woman on our highest court? Every political action group, special interest, journalist, blogger, and wannabe is chiming in with their opinion, but your opinion and $2.95 will get you a coffee in Foggy Bottom.

All I know for certain is that we have spoken for years in this country about Roe v. Wade as the litmus test for the court appointments. Would this person uphold it or overturn it? But should this particular litmus test matter? If SCOTUS were to overturn Roe v. Wade, would we in fact descend into the dark ages, as we are led to believe by activists championing “women’s issues”?
Apparently, we would not. The Life Legal Defense Fund has a state-by-state breakdown of the laws that would govern women's bodies if the pope himself were to fill Justice O'Connor's vacancy.

In sum, only seven States—Louisiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Wisconsin and probably Arkansas—would have enforceable laws on the books that would prohibit most abortions in the event Roe, Doe and Casey are overruled.

So why the sensationalism at NOW (“Justice O'Connor Resigns ... Women's Lives on the Line!”) or the DNC?

At least the DNC takes a moment to give props to the first woman on the Supreme Court – NOW just jumps straight in to tiresome partisan flailing that makes most of us apathetic to politics – accompanied by demands that the Bush administration not stoop to exactly that level.

Sigh. How many cases have been decided by a 5-4 margin in the last 10 years? That’s the information I would want if I were sitting in the Oval Office, preparing to make a decision. Abortion is but one issue – even if you feel it is the most important one, it’s just one of so many in this nation. Let’s think big picture, and keep our heads, please.

Posted by Wulf on July 10, 2005 at 12:23 AM

Comments

Addendum: according to the Economist (A Hard Seat to Fill, 7/7/05)
"Even without her vote, though, a five-justice majority remains in favour of (abortion rights), so her resignation does not directly imperil Roe v Wade."

Women's lives on the line?

Posted by: Wulf at July 10, 2005 11:47 AM

I am not sure of the exact numbers overall, but a quick search of ruling results from 2003-2004 from the Supreme Court showed there were quite a few 5-4 results.

If you check out this site (tried to paste the results but they were way too long)
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922654.html

You will see that of the 15 cases referenced, 9 of them were 5-4, while the other 6 were not really close.

Some very interesting rulings in this list ("Under God" voted 8-0 to remain in the Pledge) and the ban on the Child Pornography law was extended, thank goodness)

I personally feel that the replacement for Sandra Day O'Conner can have a huge impact, but probably not as big of one as people suspect. Justices have come and gone, and our country continues to chug along with its efficient and morally charged legal system.

My vote would be to put Donald Trump on the Supreme Court. Now that would make for some good Court TV episodes.

Posted by: Boon at July 13, 2005 10:22 AM