Republicans Stuck in the Past?
According to Deborah Orin, polling suggests that Americans believe John Roberts should be confirmed whatever his views on abortion -- but that they would like to know what his views are.
Although it's clearly unethical for a judge to pre-judge issues that may come before him, as usual, the American people's view is a sensible one. After all, John Roberts may have a lot more to do with what will happen to abortion in the United States than even the president will . . . yet abortion can be a central part of a presidential campaign but not a Supreme Court hearing. And Republicans seem happy with that system -- sometimes I wonder if they are stuck somewhere in the mid-70's or '80's, when admitting to a more pro-life view on abortion spelled political trouble. Interesting world.
Although it's clearly unethical for a judge to pre-judge issues that may come before him, as usual, the American people's view is a sensible one. After all, John Roberts may have a lot more to do with what will happen to abortion in the United States than even the president will . . . yet abortion can be a central part of a presidential campaign but not a Supreme Court hearing. And Republicans seem happy with that system -- sometimes I wonder if they are stuck somewhere in the mid-70's or '80's, when admitting to a more pro-life view on abortion spelled political trouble. Interesting world.
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:42 AM
1 Comments:
I think that Americans would like to know what John Robert's views are. On many subjects.
Not only will Roberts had a say in what happens with a woman's right to her medical care, but whether or not married couples can have access to birth control (i.e., Griswold vs. CT). Many Republicans feel that this was another case gone "terribly wrong" and they are going after this case as well.
One can be pro-life and still respect the privacy of another human to make their own choices.
Post a Comment
<< Home