Comments on: CJR: Here’s What’s at Stake for the Supreme Court . . . If You Completely Ignore History

By: Rich Rostrom

Rich Rostrom — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:47:51 +0000

Of the 12 Justices cited, four were appointed before Roe, and one just after. Of the last six Justices appointed by Republicans, one (Souter) was clearly a mistake, three are known anti-Roe, and two are very probably anti-Roe but playing it safe so far. In other words, Republicans are getting smarter about SCotUS appointments. It isn't absurd to say that the next Republican President would appoint anti-Roe Justices.

By: David Blue

David Blue — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:32:28 +0000

What you say is right: Democrats alway appoint Supreme Court judges who will uphold Roe (and Casey etc.), while Republicans … usually appoint judges who will uphold Roe, and rarely appoint judges who come out clearly against it.

Summing up up as plainly as you did makes hash of what Zachary Roth said.

But it also underlines a dispiriting truth: once in office, Supreme Court judges generally support Roe no matter who appointed them. With Democrats there will be no exceptions, and with Republicans the exceptions will be so rare that Roe will never be overturned.

Pro-life voters keep chasing the end of Roe like a carrot, and fleeing the whip of Democrat-appointed judges. But no matter how much time and money they spend sending Republicans to the White House, they will never get that carrot. That’s how it seems to add up.

By: Karl Lembke

Karl Lembke — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:11:27 +0000

Only three voted against Roe or Casey.
….
So: what’s this “in all likelihood” nonsense?

Elementary! Three Republican-appointed justices voted that Roe is bad law. “All” has three letters in it. Therefore three justices constitutes “All” likelihood.

Democrat math!

(I’d like to think I’m kidding.)

By: Ken Hahn

Ken Hahn — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:50:30 +0000

I think Mr Roth is trying to say that Republican appointees may not have a religious devotion to Roe. No Democrat could consider any justice who did not consider Roe as coming down from Mt Sinai.

By: David M

David M — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:47:43 +0000

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 06/11/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.

By: Diffus

Diffus — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:30:32 +0000

As long as Roe and Griswold remain valid, I can’t help but wonder what other rights emanate from the penumbra of the First Amendment, and whether any other amendments have any penumbrae under which other, as-yet-undiscovered rights, exist.

By: syn

syn — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:06:39 +0000

There sure are a lot of people who are defending a law in which 1) the primary focus of the law ‘fetus’ cannot be defined, and 2) was never legislated.

The deception behind Roe vs Wade is one of the the main reasons why I deplore feminists today, as a young women I fell for the feminist’s lies and manipulation and now regret falling for the wicked witches.

Honestly, I cannot stand my gender’s weak sisterhood.

By: Dafydd ab Hugh

Dafydd ab Hugh — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:36:36 +0000

Patterico:

Let me stick up for Roberts and Alito here for a moment: They might have refused to join the opinion declaring Roe to be bad law for reasons other than believing it was good (or at least settled) law.

It’s possible that they believed the opinion — which they might conceivably have agreed with in the abstract — went beyond the facts of the case in a way they considered inappropriately activist.

I think we’ll have to wait until a case actually comes before them, the facts of which demand a position on Roe. Another “Casey,” for instance.

Until then, I’m skeptical we can really deduce their positions solely from the negative.

Dafydd