|
November 01, 2005
Lessons in dissent
Once the "Scalito" business settles down, it will be interesting to see what the so-called "talking points" against Judge Alito turn out to be -- and how well they'll resonate with voters (and, of course, Democratic senators). Whether he has an inside line to Democratic strategy or whether's he's just prescient, Dick Polman has a pretty good knack for issue spotting. Right now he's leaning towards abortion and guns: ....Democrats, goaded by liberal interest groups, may nevertheless decide that Alito's conservative ideology warrants a filibuster. (In 1991, Alito said that wives should be required to notify their spouses before having an abortion; in 1996, he tried to curb Congress' power to ban possession of machine guns.)A machine gun toting maniac who wants women subordinated to their husbands? I can just see the cartoons. Remember, the best "talking points" are those things most easily reduced to a graphic stereotype that any idiot can understand. Most people are not going to spend their time reading Alito's dissent in U.S. v. Rybar in which he interpreted the Commerce Clause strictly, and didn't (gasp) display hostility to the Second Amendment. The details are here (Alito dissented because he did not think that "the purely intrastate possession of machine guns, by facilitating the commission of certain crimes," had "a substantial effect on interstate commerce.") But I really doubt the type of person who'd be persuaded by a cartoon of a machinegun-waving judge would read Alito's dissent. The abortion issue is of course more complicated. As Orin Kerr points out, the "talking points" focus is on Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which conveniently avoids focusing on another case -- in which Alito concurred with "striking down New Jersey's partial birth abortion statute." (Links via InstaPundit.) If anything, such a record provides better fuel for activist pro-lifers against Alito than activist pro-choicers against him. Notwithstanding the "talking points" will focus on Casey. On this, liberal pundit Polman and conservative blogger Patterico would seem to agree: Democrats will, of course, distort Judge Alito’s dissent. They will say: "Judge Alito thinks that women should have to consult with their husbands before having an abortion. Evidently he views married women as nothing more than their husbands’ property. Also, he is insensitive to the fact that battered women aren’t going to get an abortion if they have to tell their husbands about it first. If Judge Alito is confirmed, the right of married women to obtain abortions will be severely restricted.”This tortured view of Casey would have people substitute Alito's own view for that of the legislature which passed the spousal notification provision. If I didn't know any better, I'd swear that Alito's willingness to defer to the Pennsylvania legislature and sustain the provision is being seen as, well, judicial activism! Certainly, it will be spun as if the guy was deliberately advocating judicial interventionism in order to "turn back the clock" on women's rights. (Men, of course, have no rights and nothing to say about the fate of babies they've helped create. Only responsibilities! I'm only surprised they're not also compelled to pay for the abortions they're not allowed to be told were to be performed. Regardless of whether abortion should be legal, doesn't even an impregnated egg have two parents?) Lost in all of this will be Alito's actual reasoning, which is accurately reflected by his statement that "whether the legislature’s approach represents sound public policy is not a question for us to decide." I think part of the problem is that activists see everything as activism -- especially anything that might threaten gains achieved by activism. Thus, if Alito defers to the legislature about spousal notification, he's a male supremacist actively trying to overrule Roe v. Wade. And if he opines that the Commerce Clause doesn't extend to intrastate possession of a gun, he's a machinegun waving activist. Well, I long ago learned that if you don't want to be called an activist, you must never disagree with an activist. That's because if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
Hmmm.... But wouldn't that make the Democrats who voted to confirm Alito part of the problem? posted by Eric on 11.01.05 at 07:48 AM
Comments
Lost in all of this will be Alito's actual reasoning, which is accurately reflected by his statement that "whether the legislature’s approach represents sound public policy is not a question for us to decide." Sadly, this is all too typical of a political culture that views the court as little more than "Supreme Referee." It is troubling to me that people who should know better often don't bother to correct such misconceptions, especially when it is politically expedient not to do so. The Bostonian Exile · November 1, 2005 07:11 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Holiday Blogging
The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth! My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
The Democrats won't tolerate any judge who is not for abortion without limit of any kind and subsidized by the government.