Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
While this isn't a push-button issue for me, and while I agree that we are not likely to see Roe or Casey overruled ouright, I think we very well could see their application limited. The Court has shown itself to be quite willing to respect stare decisis by not overruling precedent outright while limiting the effect of that precedent to the point that it might as well be overruled.
So I wouldn't discount the possibility of the Court chipping away at earlier decisions.
|
And this is my hope/expectation with the judicial appointments that I'd like to see. And really, it's what I think would be the best resolution to the abortion issue and one that would probably reflect the views of most Americans. There seem to be relatively few people at both ends of the abortion rights spectrum: from all abortions legal at any time to no abortions legal at any time for any reason, and yet, the issue is almost always discussed in these terms.
ETA: Interestingly, this was linked on Instapundit today and seemed topical. It's about abortion not being as much of a political issue:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/09/i...ncreasing.html
So, I suppose I ignore any promises to ban all abortions but I hope for appointments more likely to restrict it in some cases.
Basically, I ignore most of both parties' platforms. Up until W and the Republican congress during his administration, I regarded the Republicans as less likely to assume that domestic government bloat and intervention were the answers to every issue. (Obviously, I had to be willing to ignore drug policy during my whole life and a few other social issues to maintain this delusion.)
Now, I'm looking at judicial appointments and whether I think a candidate recognizes that military strength (and resolve?) is probably the most important aspect of foreign policy. ETA: I'm interested in American economic strength as well but both parties have strengths and weaknesses on that, I think.
Threaded Mode
