Andrew McCarthy (no, not the one from "St. Elmo's Fire") has this piece on National Review Online, on the propriety of questioning Supreme Court nominees on their views on Roe v. Wade.
Gotta agree with McCarthy on this one. Granted: the GOP line is more out of a lack of testicular fortitude as to being anti-abortion than it is about a principled position. Indeed, I'm perfectly willing to accept a candidate who favors abortion as public policy, but who would reverse Roe and throw the matter back to the states, where it was until 1973 and where it belongs, since I'm willing to live with the resolution of this issue through the proper processes. The question is one of the proper role of judges in a democratic republic. Indeed, one can be pro-abortion but anti-Roe, as was the late, great legal scholar John Hart Ely.
Sadly, the pro-abortionists lack the honesty to seek their constitutional changes the honest way, and instead rely upon judges willing to contort the Constitution to achieve their policy ends. It's what happens when you can't win at the ballot box.
No comments:
Post a Comment