Why Is It Always About Abortion?

NARAL - that's the National Abortion Rights Action League - has put out a really calm and sensible ad in opposition to John Roberts for the Supreme Court.  So calm and sensible, in fact, that even the former solicitor general under former President Bill Clinton is dismayed.

This week the National Abortion Rights Action League launched a television advertisement against Supreme Court nominee John Roberts that paints him as complicit in violent, anti-abortion crimes.

"I'm reluctant to criticize any organization that has done and continues to do as much for the important protection of women's reproductive rights as NARAL does," Walter Dellinger III, former solicitor general for President Bill Clinton, told ABC News. "But I think this ad is unfair."

What did Mr. Roberts do?  As deputy solicitor general under the first President Bush he argued against the use of an anti-KKK measure from 1871 against abortion clinic protesters.  Oh, the humanity!  I can definitely see the similarity.

While I understand that there are violent individuals that have done reprehensible things to the clinics and the people who are using and staffing them, there are already laws in place that can be used against such violent individuals.  Even Justice Souter agreed in the 6-3 decision.  That's right, six of the current Justices, including Justices Souter and Kennedy, concurred with the government's (Roberts') position.

According to NARAL, agreeing with a strong majority of the court in this decision makes Roberts unqualified to be a member of the court.  If that's the case, then isn't it reasonable to think that agreement with the original Roe v. Wade decision could also be considered by another group to make someone unqualified for the court?  If you can be "unqualified" simply for agreeing with a decision that an activist group disagrees with then it renders meaningless the concerns expressed by such as Senators Schumer and Kennedy about how Mr. Roberts would support precedent.

This is all about politics (I state the obvious).  All the ramblings about "deferring to precedent" and "settled law" are designed to get a commitment not to overturn Roe v. Wade.  It's increasingly clear from their fixation on this issue that even the left now believes it was wrongly decided, that the Tenth Amendment should have applied, and the issue should have been left to the states.

They're perfectly entitled to take the positions they have, to defend a "right" that they think is important.  But it's quite clear, based on their own argument above, that agreeing or disagreeing with "precedent" is immaterial as to whether Mr. Roberts is "qualified."  It also renders meaningless Senator Schumer's list of questions.  Sorry Chuck.

8/11/05 1500: Sister's been all over it.

8/11/05 1900: Jammin'.

Comments

[jpe]

It's increasingly clear from their fixation on this issue that even the left now believes it was wrongly decided, that the Tenth Amendment should have applied, and the issue should have been left to the states.

The better inference re: the left is that they're convinced that the right is bent on overturning Roe - hence the fixation. To whit, I think Roe was correctly decided, yet I'm pretty fixated on the issue, myself - and precisely because I know that most on the non-libertarian right think it was wrongly decided.

[jpe]

Even Justice Souter agreed in the 6-3 decision.

Because I'm nitpicky: Souter's reading of the law is vastly different than the majority opinion, and flatly rejects Roberts's argument.

[jpe]

(sorry about the multiple posts)

I was totally wrong about the Souter opinion - he did agree w/ roberts. my bad.

[Giacomo]

I see your point in the first comment, but it has still always seemed that the pro-choice/pro-abortion side was a bit too frantic, panicky, and aggressive about the 'right' to an abortion. If it really was a 'right', and not some vague emanation of a penumbra of a hint taken from imprecise wording in the constitution they would likely be less so.

Hey, you win an award for admitting a mistake on a weblog. Nobody ever does that. I wouldn't have picked it up - it would've been too much like being a lawyer to go read the opinions myself.