Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, May 22, 2019

Supporters of abortion rights are fond of saying that Roe v. Wade is "settled law." The phrase is supposed to convey a certain irrevocability. But, of course, what the Supreme Court gives, the Supreme Court can take away. That appears to be the reasoning behind the new laws passed in Alabama and Georgia, which would virtually outlaw abortion.

These laws will be challenged by abortion-rights activists and struck down by lower courts, whereupon Alabama and Georgia will appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. And shortly thereafter, the country will probably find out just how settled Roe v. Wade really is.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

She makes an interesting argument.

This is the part that resonated with me:

This view of evolving constitutional interpretation works precisely as long as you happen to agree with the judicial interpreters. When the other side of the political spectrum gets wise and starts stocking the courts with judges who share its opinions -- Catastrophe! Ruination! Citizens United!

Which makes this a good time for the left to step back and ask whether it was ever a good idea to urge such sweeping powers on unelected judges. The benefit of going the judicial route is that you can occasionally achieve outcomes you could never obtain through legislatures; that is how America, a center-right nation, got one of the most liberal abortion regimes in the world. The problem with going the judicial route is that it short-circuits public debate and forces the opposition to take radical action -- like, say, a decades-long project to fill the courts with right-leaning judges -- to amend that "settled law."

The consequences of the counterreaction can go well beyond the issue at hand. If not for Roe, the conservative-court project might have been less urgent, and the decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller on gun rights or Citizens United on campaign finance might never have happened...

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-22 03:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Did allowing women to have a basic human right found in nearly every civilized country in the world backfire on liberals?

Who knows? What a mind scrambler. Really gives one something to think about.

Seriously, how else were women going to be allowed to have the right? Roe v Wade has been the only thing striking down anti-abortion laws for decades since.

#2 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2019-05-22 03:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I've said it before: Even with the Court's current conservative tilt, CJ Roberts will not vote to overturn Roe under his watch.

The Left better pray the RBG stays healthy and on the bench, because if Trump gets one more Justice, all bets are off.

#3 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-22 03:45 PM | Reply

"Which makes this a good time for the left to step back and ask whether it was ever a good idea to urge such sweeping powers on unelected judges. The benefit of going the judicial route is that you can occasionally achieve outcomes you could never obtain through legislatures; that is how America, a center-right nation, got one of the most liberal abortion regimes in the world."

^
This is a disturbingly false narrative.

America had an even more "liberal abortion regime" when the nation was founded that it does today. Abortion was legal in every State in the Union, long before the Fourteenth Amendment was a twinkle in Abe Lincoln's eye.

And characterizing freedom of choice as a "regime," when the alternative is no freedom of choice, is an Orwellian misuse of language in its own right.

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-22 03:46 PM | Reply

"The Left better pray the RBG stays healthy and on the bench, because if Trump gets one more Justice, all bets are off."

Why wouldn't you pray for that?
You don't want abortion to be legal?
???

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-22 03:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

#2 | POSTED BY DEREK_WILDSTAR

It's pretty obvious you didn't read the embedded piece.

Your comments don't address any of the points she articulated.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-22 03:59 PM | Reply

Headline should read:

Did Marbury v. Madison Elevate The Judiciary Above Other Branches Of Government?

Because that's what she's arguing.

Abortion is just a convenient example.

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-22 04:10 PM | Reply

I would only support abortion if the child was born with its eyes open, a full head of hair, and teeth, speaking Latin.

#8 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-05-22 04:25 PM | Reply

I would only support abortion if the child was born with its eyes open, a full head of hair, and teeth, speaking Latin.
#8 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

Then you don't know what an abortion is.

#9 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-05-22 04:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#9

This seems to be conservative's biggest issue when discussing abortion.

They really haven't got a clue about it.

#10 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-05-22 04:32 PM | Reply

I don't know about it backfiring on liberals as it has yet to be seen

But I do know jeffyjs 8 years of hyperbole and lies about OBAMA sure did

And I do know all his predictions about Kansas was humiliating

And the time he swore all the immigrants would be given citizenship

And even yesterday playing slaughter the source after proclaiming he didn't "play slaughter the source"

All of that we did get to see

#11 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-05-22 04:53 PM | Reply

The Left better pray the RBG stays healthy and on the bench, because if Trump gets one more Justice, all bets are off.
#3 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

The left, but, not you, cause you're Rightocenter.

Could I conclude from your statement that the right is praying for RBG to die, so Trump can appoint another lunatic conservative judge to the bench, in order to over turn women's rights?

Conservatives, if they're not actively making other people's lives worse, they're not satisfied with life.

#12 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-05-22 04:53 PM | Reply

The following year, the justices gave the country a new right to abortion. It is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, but apparently had been lurking there undetected for the better part of two centuries before the justices coaxed it into the open.

Stopped here.

Anybody who uses this childish, absolutely retarded argument isn't worth engaging.

#13 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-23 12:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

that is how America, a center-right nation, got one of the most liberal abortion regimes in the world."
^
This is a disturbingly false narrative.

Actually, it is not. The narrative is not comparing laws today to those from 200 years ago, as you did. It is comparing our abortion laws to the rest of the world. You can read a synopsis of world abortion law here:

www.politifact.com

#14 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-05-23 08:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Oh boy, mucky is getting all "New World Order" on us

#15 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-05-23 11:16 AM | Reply

Anybody who uses this childish, absolutely retarded argument isn't worth engaging.

#13 | POSTED BY JPW

How is she wrong?

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-23 03:06 PM | Reply

Did giving women the right to vote backfire? Did civil rights backfire? Did marriage equality backfire?

If you mean did it enrage racists and bigots so they campaigned to install judges to deny human rights, then yes, doing the right thing did backfire.

#17 | Posted by bored at 2019-05-23 06:15 PM | Reply

##5-12

I like RBG, I hope she sticks around for another decade or so.

*foom foom*

-Snoofy and Clowny's heads

#18 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-23 06:26 PM | Reply

"I hope she sticks around for another decade or so."

No prayers?

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-23 07:23 PM | Reply

"The narrative is not comparing laws today to those from 200 years ago, as you did."

That's why it's false.

The narrative of abortion in America starts when America starts.

And that narrative is we had an even more liberal "abortion regime" in 1789 than we do today.

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-23 07:26 PM | Reply

"Did giving women the right to vote backfire? Did civil rights backfire? Did marriage equality backfire?

If you mean did it enrage racists and bigots so they campaigned to install judges to deny human rights, then yes, doing the right thing did backfire."

Did electing a black President backfire? :)

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-23 07:27 PM | Reply

The following year, the justices gave the country a new right to abortion. It is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, but apparently had been lurking there undetected for the better part of two centuries before the justices coaxed it into the open.

Stopped here.

Anybody who uses this childish, absolutely retarded argument isn't worth engaging.

#13 | Posted by jpw

And anyone who doesnt understand what the sentence is saying is stupid and ignorant, and not worth engaging.

#22 | Posted by boaz at 2019-05-23 07:42 PM | Reply

"It is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, but apparently had been lurking there undetected for the better part of two centuries before the justices coaxed it into the open."

^
Exact same thing happened with gay marriage.

Gays and women, two groups with a history of being politically marginalized in America.

That's not in the Constitution either.

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-23 07:45 PM | Reply

And anyone who doesnt understand what the sentence is saying is stupid and ignorant, and not worth engaging.

#22 | POSTED BY BOAZ

I understand what it's saying.

That's why I think it's a dumb argument that signals the user is a moron not worth debating on the topic.

You can't possibly expect a 230 year old document to specifically address and cover modern questions or challenges.

#24 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-24 12:35 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort