![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
I can't believe I only just heard about this -
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/25/national/25abortion.html?ex=1141534800&en=f37d74ca97c89e43&ei=5070&emc=eta1
My mom told me about it and I was alternately speechless and sputtering; I just can't quite comprehend the arrogance of it.
And frankly, it's the stupidest move the pro-lifers could make. Casey said states could chip away at abortion rights with minimal justification and the Court would look the other way, but nothing pisses judges off faster than a blatant assault on their authority, which this would be.
And it could easily backfire. Even with O'Connor gone and Roberts and Alito in place, there are still five justices who believe there's a constitutional right to abortion; some of them just think a state has some significant rights to regulate it. But what South Dakota wants to do - ban it outright - so does not fall into justified regulation. So if this passes, you'll have five annoyed justices saying look, we already said you couldn't do this in Casey; but unlike in Casey there won't be anything for them to do with the law but strike it down. So, this time the pro-lifers walk away with nothing, and even if Roberts and Alito both dissent, doesn't do them much good, does it? With this firm a smack-down, the pro-lifers feel cheated and betrayed, since the media led them to believe that Roberts+Alito=Roe instantly overturned, when the real Roberts/Alito threat will actually have a much more subtle and gradual fruition. But nevertheless they're all terribly disheartened & with any luck, take time to regroup. And maybe the "victory" will get the rest of us out of our collective state of self-pity and capitalize on the sense of validation, which we've been sorely lacking.
Or, you know, Ann Coulter will make good on her "joke" and Stevens will keel over into his lunchtime bowl of clam chowder and goodbye Roe. But otherwise, really, South Dakota, you're stupid. You gave yourself away with your obsession with a drugstore but thanks for the final confirmation, it's appreciated.
(Keeping in mind that 1.5 semesters of constitutional law does not a constitutional law scholar make, I recognize that my confidence could be TOTALLY UNFOUNDED, and will proceed, after posting this, to knock wood.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/25/national/25abortion.html?ex=1141534800&en=f37d74ca97c89e43&ei=5070&emc=eta1
My mom told me about it and I was alternately speechless and sputtering; I just can't quite comprehend the arrogance of it.
And frankly, it's the stupidest move the pro-lifers could make. Casey said states could chip away at abortion rights with minimal justification and the Court would look the other way, but nothing pisses judges off faster than a blatant assault on their authority, which this would be.
And it could easily backfire. Even with O'Connor gone and Roberts and Alito in place, there are still five justices who believe there's a constitutional right to abortion; some of them just think a state has some significant rights to regulate it. But what South Dakota wants to do - ban it outright - so does not fall into justified regulation. So if this passes, you'll have five annoyed justices saying look, we already said you couldn't do this in Casey; but unlike in Casey there won't be anything for them to do with the law but strike it down. So, this time the pro-lifers walk away with nothing, and even if Roberts and Alito both dissent, doesn't do them much good, does it? With this firm a smack-down, the pro-lifers feel cheated and betrayed, since the media led them to believe that Roberts+Alito=Roe instantly overturned, when the real Roberts/Alito threat will actually have a much more subtle and gradual fruition. But nevertheless they're all terribly disheartened & with any luck, take time to regroup. And maybe the "victory" will get the rest of us out of our collective state of self-pity and capitalize on the sense of validation, which we've been sorely lacking.
Or, you know, Ann Coulter will make good on her "joke" and Stevens will keel over into his lunchtime bowl of clam chowder and goodbye Roe. But otherwise, really, South Dakota, you're stupid. You gave yourself away with your obsession with a drugstore but thanks for the final confirmation, it's appreciated.
(Keeping in mind that 1.5 semesters of constitutional law does not a constitutional law scholar make, I recognize that my confidence could be TOTALLY UNFOUNDED, and will proceed, after posting this, to knock wood.)