While the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization will go down in history as a 6-3 decision with only the three Democrat-appointed justices dissenting, Chief Justice John Roberts actually did not support a full reversal of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. His concurring opinion, which argued that the Court should uphold Mississippi’s ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy without entirely abolishing a constitutional right to abortion, represented a path not taken by the other five conservative members of the Court.
When the Court held oral arguments on the Mississippi law last December, the conservative majority’s determination to redeem Donald Trump’s promise to reverse Roe v. Wade was quite clear. The only ray of hope was the clear discomfort of Chief Justice John Roberts, as New York’s Irin Carmon noted at the time:
“It seemed obvious that only Roberts, who vainly tried to focus on the 15-week line even when everyone else made clear it was all or nothing, cares for such appearances. There had been some pre-argument rumblings that Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh might defect, perhaps forming a bloc with Roberts to find some middle ground as happened the last time the Court considered overturning Roe in 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey. On Wednesday, neither Barrett nor Kavanaugh seemed inclined to disappoint the movement that put them on the Court.”
Still, the Casey precedent offered a shred of hope, since in that 1992 case some hard and imaginative work by Republican-appointed justices determined not to overturn Roe eventually flipped Justice Anthony Kennedy and dealt a devastating blow to the anti-abortion movement. Just prior to the May leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft majority opinion (which was very similar in every important respect to the final product), the Wall Street Journal nervously speculated that Roberts might be undermining conservative resolve on the Court, or change sides as he famously did in the Obamacare case.
In the wake of the leak there was some reporting that Roberts was indeed determined not to go whole hog in Dobbs; one theory about the leak was that it had been engineered to freeze the other conservatives (especially Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who during his confirmation hearings had said many things incompatible with a decision to reverse Roe entirely) before the chief justice could lure them to his side.
Now it appears Roberts tried and failed. His concurrence was a not terribly compelling plea for “judicial restraint” that left him alone on the polarized Court he allegedly leads:
“I would take a more measured course. I agree with the Court that the viability line established by Roe and Casey should be discarded under a straightforward stare decisis analysis. That line never made any sense. Our abortion precedents describe the right at issue as a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. That right should therefore extend far enough to ensure a reasonable opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further certainly not all the way to viability.”
Roberts’s proposed “reasonable opportunity” standard is apparently of his own invention, and is obviously vague enough to allow him to green-light any abortion ban short of one that outlaws abortion from the moment of fertilization, though he does seem to think arbitrarily drawing a new line at the beginning of the second trimester of pregnancy might work. Roberts’s real motivation appears to be upholding the Court’s reputation for judiciousness, which is indeed about to take a beating:
“The Court’s decision to overrule Roe and Casey is a serious jolt to the legal system — regardless of how you view those cases. A narrower decision rejecting the misguided viability line would be markedly less unsettling, and nothing more is needed to decide this case.”
In his majority opinion (joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett, along with Kavanaugh) Alito seems to relish in mocking the unprincipled nature of the chief justice’s temporizing position:
“There are serious problems with this approach, and it is revealing that nothing like it was recommended by either party …
“The concurrence would do exactly what it criticizes Roe for doing: pulling “out of thin air” a test that “[n]o party or amicus asked the Court to adopt …
“The concurrence asserts that the viability line is separable from the constitutional right they recognized, and can therefore be “discarded” without disturbing any past precedent … That is simply incorrect.”
One has to wonder that if Merrick Garland had been allowed to join the Court in 2016, or if Amy Coney Barrett had not been rushed onto the Court in 2020, Robert’s split-the-differences approach eroding but not entirely abolishing the constitutional right to abortion might have carried the day in Dobbs. But that’s like speculating about where we would be had Donald Trump not become president in 2017 after promising conservatives the moon — and an end to Roe.
As of “flip-flopper”: Remember that it worked last time around. They called it “reinventing himself” and it was devastating. Dubya makes much of his “staying the course”. He never takes back anything, no matter how wrong or stupid it might occur. That’s the reason why he will never throw out Cheney or Rumsfeld.
The sad thing is: The electorate seems to have liked this stubbornness so far. Fortunately there are some indications that this is changing. But I wouldn’t bet on it. The “reinventing”-charge against Gore only fully blossomed in September und October.
It looks like someone finally polled Colorado but it is not yet on their web site. Survey USA says Colorado is tied 47-47. I saw this at 2.004k.com.
Looking at 2 sites that give good state by state data we find that Kerry is doing better than expected in AK, TN., VA, WVA, OH and now NC.
Kerry’s choice of Edwards could now be made to pay off big time if Chris Lehane would schedule Edwards on a continuous circuit of travel that covered AK., TN, NC, western VA, WVA and south east OH. Those are areas where Edwards’ populist politics flavored with his religious values will resonate.
Even if such a stategy were not entirely successful, it would move the numbers and grab enough media attention to force the Bush campaign to respond with money and Bush’s time. Bush doesn’t need that.
Ahh Ed..
You cant let the likes of Bush and the other “christians” in the white house determine your thoughts, feelings and perspectives on christianity. If you are a Bible reader or a reader of the life and times of Christ, you will quickly realise that Judas had his close moments with Christ too but… alas, the money. I dont think that many people deliberately fashion their christianity off of Judas’ but because of greed and a distinctly singular purpose in life, some become replicas of Judas. They will lie, cheat, steel and deceive to obtain their purpose. If you are following these elections, you will know exactly what I mean. I dont need to spell out anything here.
So Bush’s style should not affect your style, just like it didnt affect Peter and James and John and the other members of the crew.
And then there is the Thomas approach where a person need answers and evidence. In the eyes of some, this is a wishy washy christian, however in the eyes of others, Thomas might more fit the researcher/scientist mold. Its about perspectives, purposes and causes.
So naaaaaah…. dont let him make you wonder what christianity is… you didnt let Judas, so why Bush. We cant let people mislead us with this born again phrasing. The excellent thing about Christianity is that its a life style and hence you know people by how they walk. You also know how you are progressing by how you walk and what makes it even more excellent is that people walk differently and hence we will have differing approaches to the same subject. Ask Peter and Paul (EX-SAUL).
What I also love about Christianity is that it suits humble people really well, cause it allows you to make mistakes, to totally screw up and then take a step back, review the last move and try again.
For the arrogant and the fundamentals however, its a rigid, stiff, do or die thing. So you live in this proverbial straight jacket and you try to commit suicide everytime you mess up and in this life you will mess up billions of times. Ask Peter.
So keep trucking Ed.. Dont let your spiritual eyes rest on Bush and his “born again” phenomenon. Keep the focus… and you know where.
Cheers
“Its this brand of christianity which causes people to be sympathetic to evil and evil doers.”
This is so true with me! I thought things were going to be special with Bush because he was a “born again” Christian. And then, I guess it was a few months, after 911 my attitude changed about him and now I have serious questions about just what Christianity is?
Hey Mimiru… I catch your strong objection but it was meant to imply Bush’ style of christianity, where he shakes hand with the truth from an eternal distance.
I cant quite grip why they dont understand that thinkers wont hold fast to the flip/flopper thing on elections day.
Lets face it, who would prefer a perpetrator of terminological inexactitudes to a flip flopper? I am sure the filp flopper wins everyday. Its so hard to trust a person who lies constantly and its worse when that person juggles the lies perpetually and hence never confesses. You cant want a worse person… How frightening.
Is sure does amaze me though that the evangelicals who support the GOP so strongly are not “christian” enough to come out and declare that this administration does not wallow in the truth. I just cannot comprehend how they can sit so stoically on TV and proclaim the gospel, reaching souls for Christ and still support an administration and a person that appears so evil.
Its this brand of christianity which causes people to be sympathetic to evil and evil doers. Its because they cant find the line that divides the righteous from the unrighteous and as such they cant tell who they should be supporting. Its a pity.
I have posted a few times that this brand of Christianity is such a debgerous tool in the hands of a master like Bush. It makes it even more dangerous because the evangelicals support him and they have such huge followings in the US and across the world that they can quite easily create a mass following which can make this earth and even more dangerous place to live.
Change is essential. It cant be pleasant to have this kinda thing happening to the world. I support Christianity but I like the style that Chirst portrayed. So until we get someone with that level of balance lets keep Bush away from being a perpetrator.
“but directly with Bush’s christian approach to truth”
I object to that pretty strongly. Don’t tar all Christians with a single Bush, er brush. Many of us object to Bush, its just the vocal crackpots who get all the press.
Bel,
Re “flip/flopping” – you are taking the rational, adult attitude. The sorry truth is that any dumb ass negative label will do – the point is to find something that sounds bad, not to find a reason that stands up to rational analysis. I remember when I was eleven years old and our whole class was calling each other “nose-breather!” “oh, yeah? well you’re a mouth-breather!” That, unfortunately, is often the level of debate we will get in american politics.
I could never understand this “Flip/flopper” thing either. I remember GW’s Daddy doing that with Clinton, weeks upon weeks of staged rallies with everyone waving little American flags and daddy Bush calling Clinton a flip/floppper. It didn’t work then either. I seem to remember, during Kerry’s primary campaign, Barbara Bush saying something to the affect that she is seeing the same thing happening to her son that happened to her husband in the loss to Clinton. I don’t know what exactly she meant by that but maybe she knew something that we will find out.
I am always examining Kerry’s approach and wondering this and that about his campaign. While I may only comment on Kerry’s approach, I do take good long looks at Bush’s approach too.
From what I have seen for the past 6 – 8 months, I am of the distinct impression that Karl Rove and crew are actually painting Bush into a corner. They are removing his attack capability and are not providing any defense for him.
They have limited Bush to attacking Kerry on small and almost insignificant issues, have not taken the time to hoist any new programs onto the political platform, have not created the positives out of Bush’ record and have not given him something about himself to market. When I do the analysis, I can see that their approach is going to leave Bush doing a hop scotch in order to move himself from the acute and sharp angles of that corner.
I am not sure why they decided to brand Kerry as a flip flopper because people reserve the rights to change their minds on any issue as many times as they see fit. Especially if conditions and times warrant such. So targetting Kerry’s voting patterns over the past 20 years cannot be a genuine reason not to vote for him. He must have won his senate term on more than one occassion over the past 20 years and as such, people must know how he votes by this time. I dont think its possible to find a single candidate who voted in exactly the same manner over the past 20 years. If such a person can be found, I would be bold enough to declare that such a person could not be representing the people’s interest unless the electorate never changed, times never changed etc.. etc.. In this regard every candidate would have voted in different modes from time to time and in some instances in a non-partisan manner. To me therefore, its wasted energy to keep harping on a flip flopping Kerry. It seems elementary, infantile and blatantly childish.
With regard to Iraq, I am sure that the electorate recognised a long time ago that Iraq is indeed a complex issue. Notably, they will have recognised that its complexity has nothing to do with Saddam or WMDs but directly with Bush’s christian approach to truth. In this regard, then the electorate does not expect Kerry to act in any manner contrary to the information given. I am pretty certain that his vote is reflected in the varying degrees of indecision exhibited by most of the other senators. So I am sure that when the analysis is done, it will show that he voted in similar vein to the core of senators.
Its really an insult to challenge the record of someone who actually found themselves in the line of fire because the Commander in Chief sent them. Its almost reprehensible that those who didnt get the opportunity to serve in the way that Kerry served can find the courage to challenge his record of service in the military. There will come a point when the electorate will recognise the “red-herring” that this challenge really is and will move on, leaving Bush with the red-herring in his hand, wondering what really happened.
I have also noted in another post that the anti-kerry issues which Bush has raised over the past 8 months have not really taken hold on the ground. In the recent past, the swift boat issue has not really taken off and it has left Brit Hume on Fox lamenting that the main stream media did not take up the swift book story and run with it. Of course they did take it up but they did not do the kinda home run which he was expecting.
In like manner, the direct question that Bush posed on Iraq to Kerry seems to have fizzled also. I agree that Kerry’s answer is still being deciphered, translated, extrapolated, studied etc.. etc. but the focus is no longer on Bush as a challenger but on Kerry in trying to clear his position on the issues. From just about every report that I have read, the writers all seem to be wanting Kerry to give a simple answer and move along. Alas, Kerry has not yet had his meeting with simple answers, so for now, he muddles things, smile and walk away.
I also think that Karl and crew did not make plans for a stalwart challenge from groups such as move-on.org and hence they are not responding to these groups successfully.
Finally, Karl and crew never did get around to finding a new agenda for George. Unfortunately, this has relagated him to rehashing old programs. I cant wait to hear the output from the coming convention.
I am not sure what the GOP plans to do but at this very moment, they are painting poor George into a corner and I suspect that he will be upset with quite a few people very soon. We may see some changes in the team before election day.
By the way… what has become of Mrs. C. Rice and Mr. C. Powell? The Don is surfacing again but this might not be a good idea.
Cheers
“Beforeth the Fall, goeth Pride.”
Be very wary, we are against an Enemy who knows no bounds.
Maybe this one check it out.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
One by one the Battleground States are falling into Kerry’s lap and the ‘new’ Battleground States are those that use to be solid red. There’s an Electoral Vote Map page I’ve been following in which Ohio and Florida went from Barely Bush to Weak Kerry in the last week. Sorry, I don’t have the URL handy but it should be pretty easy to Google.
This is great. I moved to MA from NC but kept my residence in NC so I can vote there. Now it seems like my vote might actually count.
Yeah it close, a dead heat…if you don’t count the undecided. I can just see Giuliani, Shwarzenegger and McCail swaying those undecided voter – “George Bush is not as bad as you thought, four more years of this.”
Well, let us not get overconfident.
Kerry’s advantage in current polls is very slight,
and Bush has plenty of chance to make it up with
his convention coming up.
This is just incredibly good news. If this keeps going on like that it will mean unfavorable press coverage in the fall for Bush, no matter how close the national polls. “Why does he have to campaign in this red state, why in that red state?” and so on.
Let’s hope we’re still standing on Monday, September 13th. (I’m confident, though. It’s terribly difficult for Bush to exploit 9/11 for political reasons.) And I hope Kerry studies the Gore debates carefully (sigh, sigh..)
NC has been becoming more and more open to dems.
There are a lot of military families there, there are a lot of transplants from points north and west…I think they should definitely spend some time there.
I just went down to see my family, and I noticed at least one Kerry sticker, several support our troops get rid of Bush type stickers and as far as my father is concerned -a lifelong republican, voted for Bush last time- he’s not sure what he’s going to do this election. He’s thinking voting Libertarian or not at all!
I hope Kerry’s campaign takes advantage of this positive polling news, and keeps fighting for those southern votes. The south doesn’t belong to Bush, unless you assume it does.
I have to think that campaigning in North Carolina in September was pretty high on Unka Karl’s list of Things We Don’t Want To Have To Do.
More and more good news for Kerry. One important thing to note is that many of the undecideds will give Kerry a hard look and the majority will vote for him. That inherent nature translates into an even bigger lead for Kerry.
Look at the electoral college… the swing states are poised to go for Kerry and he may pick a few red states off as well.
As it stands now, Kerry has a solid lead in that there seems to be little hope of Bush gaining any ground. I wish the election would end sooner rather than later, though!
I noticed that this poll says that there is 7% undecided. So, if it is true what they say about undecided voters usually voting for the new man Kerry would be on top in North Carolina.