« Death default -- couldn't happen, right? | Main | Scandal in Germany over Hitler? »

July 31, 2005

'Where are the white women at?'

Here's a headline that makes one go huh??

White women may regret voting for Bush

There is just something about that headline coupled with an article that skews ... well, look here:
The chickens could come home to roost for a lot of white women if it turns out that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts Jr. actually believes what was said in a 1990 legal brief that challenged the right of women to terminate a pregnancy.

"We continue to believe that Roe (the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortions) was wrongly decided and should be overturned," the Justice Department argued in a 46-page brief. Roberts, then an attorney in the solicitor general's office, was the principal architect of that legal document.

The writer then goes on throughout the article, sprinkling stats with no source and making more snarks about "white women's" support of President Bush.
Many of the white women who voted for Bush may have been moved to do so out of patriotism. But in doing so, they put at risk a constitutionally guaranteed right that Bush's right-wing backers hate more than Saddam Hussein.
Oooo! Ahhh! Outside of Wickham's gleeful little admonishments to duped "white" women, the man's grasp of stare decisis leaves a lot to be desired. First he posts Roberts quote on Roe v Wade during his appellate court confirmation hearings
"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land," Roberts responded to a question about the 1990 brief. "There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."
Then, in an apparent "gotcha", Wickham offers
When asked if the Supreme Court's decision to end school segregation — a decision that overturned what up to then was "settled law" — was judicial activism, Roberts answered this way: "I don't think that constitutes judicial activism, because obviously if the decision is wrong, it should be overruled. That's not activism. That's applying the law correctly."
What Wickham either doesn't understand or in an attempt to obfuscate what Roberts was saying that while judges are bound to follow precedence where possible, it does not preclude them from either revisiting the issue or even overturning
The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports.
In other words, the prudent and responsible judge will take care NOT to introduce instability by changing laws based on the personal whim of the judge of "what the law OUGHT to say" but only when the precedence raises questions of the "extent of public and private reliance on it, and its consistency or inconsistency with other related rules of law." It is true that Roe v Wade is supported by the majority of Americans however, it has been the subsequent SCOTUS decisions on abortion that have moved the way the law is applied beyond what most Americans support. NARAL, NOW and other ostensible "pro-choice" groups vehemently oppose any restrictions on abortion, even as Roe v Wade specifically allows for restrictions once beyond the first trimester. At the polling link, 80% of Americans support telling at least one parent about the impending abortion on a girl under 18. And depending on how the question is phrased, 47-68% of Americans favor banning partial-birth abortion.

It is obvious that Roberts is much more "mainstream" on abortion than the "pro-choice" advocates who want no restriction on abortion under any circumstance.

Finally, Wickham makes (intentionally or not) this final mistake:

If Roberts really believes what was said in the legal brief he signed back in 1990 — that Roe was "wrongly decided" — he will give the Supreme Court the conservative majority it needs to deny women the right to terminate a pregnancy.
Nope. Nada. Back the truck up. Even IF Roe v Wade were overturned, that doesn't make abortion "illegal" before the ink dries. It merely puts abortion back at the state level.

Wickham could have discussed the issue in a clear, fact-driven manner, but I guess the opportunity to tee hee over stupid "white" women was just too tempting to pass up.

Posted by Darleen at July 31, 2005 09:12 AM