Annoyance at a dishonest debating tactic...

[johnpalmer]

I am not yet stating that I support or oppose the recent SCOTUS nominee. Nevertheless, there is one dishonest tactic being used that angers me.

The argument goes that Judge Alito should not be judged as anti-abortion because he cited and held to SCOTUS decisions about abortion, so he he clearly accepts Roe vs. Wade.

It sounds like a sound argument... to someone who knows absolutely nothing about the court system.

Appeals courts are *obligated* to follow SCOTUS decisions. An appeals court judge doesn't have the authority to overrule a decision of a higher court. All an appeals court judge could do is argue that the Supreme Court's decision did not apply for some reason, and the Supreme Court does its best to make sure its decisions are clear to avoid that kind of problem.

Yes, he obeyed orders as an appeals court justice... that does not mean he beleives that Roe vs. Wade should be upheld. Will he uphold Roe by the principle of stare decisis? We don't know. We do know we have reason to be suspicious.

Comments

[lblanchard.livejournal.com]

You mean the Pennsylvania "notify the spouse" thing?

This will take the comments on John's journal a bit afield, so John is welcome to jump in and tell me to go rant on my own LiveJournal. But it seems to me that a society that argues, rightly, that a man has a legal and moral obligation to support his progeny (i.e., child support) also should have the right to know if he's about to lose potential progeny. That, to me, is simple justice.

"What if the child isn't his?" Well, shame on her, then, for compounding a presumably clandestine extramarital affair with poor birth control planning and seeking to hide the consequences. I say this as someone who has a dimmer view of poor birth control planning than of so-called "adultery", which as you know I think is best left to each couple to define.

[kightp.livejournal.com]

In the best of all possible worlds, people will talk to their partners about these things, children will talk to their parents and abortion will be safe, legal and rarely used. Hell, in the best of all possible worlds there would be no need to "legalize" abortion in the first place, as it would be considered a private medical procedure of no concern to anyone but the parties directly involved and their doctors.

But this is not the best of all possible worlds, and people's real lives are so complicated that women still need the weight of law to support what, in the end, must be their personal decisions about whether or when to bear children.

Sorry, but the situation of "women in trouble" pre-Roe is still very much alive in my memory. I fear we're heading back there, and it's clear that the most extreme anti-choice forces believe that too, or they wouldn't be wetting themselves in glee over this appointment.

[lblanchard.livejournal.com]

I remember the "women in trouble" era as well, since it's one of the factors that made me so very cautious that I was on the pill for two months before I became, ummm, active.

I like the conversation between johnpalmer and nsingman going on elsewhere in this thread.

[kightp.livejournal.com]

Yup, John and Noah are a great example of the possibility of civil discourse between people who disagree. (We are, too, I think, although I'm a little prickly on this particular subject and that tends to push me more toward the rhetorical than I usually am; sorry about that.)

[lblanchard.livejournal.com]

Well, it's a fraught subject. No need to be sorry -- we were both direct and vigorous in laying out our views and I understand that we are far from eye to eye on this one, where the definition of "choice" can be so troublesome.

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

We're actually screaming at each other in email, and exchanging naughty photos of our significant others. The pleasant exchange is just to throw Jez off the scent.

No, I'm just kidding. Thank you for the kind words, and you too, Jez. :-)

[blackthornglade.livejournal.com]

As a product of the "woman in trouble" pre-Roe, it's pretty near and dear to my heart, too.

It's why I'm strongly pro-life in my *personal* life. It's also why I'm strongly pro-choice in my *political* stance, which confuses people to no end. So does the fact that I'm pro-life and was doing clinic escorts for a while.

I think, also, that we're right to be concerned that the anti-choice people are gleeful. It's a warning sign. However, I don't necessarily think that it's a slam dunk that he's anti Roe v Wade.