Litmus Test
John Kerry promised a litmus test for judges if he was elected. Namely, they must support Roe v. Wade.
Since there was no horrified outcry from the NYT, having a litmus test must be OK. You could argue the President shouldn't have one, of course. Bush says he doesn't but perhaps you don't believe him. So let us assume he does have a litmus test just like Kerry.
If it is ok for Kerry to have his litmus test, it is also appropriate for Bush to have the opposite litmus test. And Bush won the election.
OK, I disagree with Roe v. Wade. I think it was the worst SOTUS decision on the merits since Dred Scott. It has also been a political disaster for the country.
Repudiating Roe v. Wade will result in abortion continuing to be legal almost everywhere in the US during the first trimester. Beyond that restrictions that most people consider reasonable will be enacted. Backalley abortions will not reappear.
The key is that we will fight these issues out legislature by legislature and (a) moderation will win out almost all the time and (b) the poison will be drained for both the winners and the losers. Each will have their say.
What is the alternative?
If you want to filibuster judges that oppose Roe v. Wade you should expect judges that support Roe v. Wade to be fillibustered by the other side in turn. Are we going to have no new SOTUS judges until a single party gets 60 votes? I don't think that is good for the country. It would undermine SOTUS. And, to put it quite bluntly, it is far more likely that the Republicans will get 60 votes long before the Democrats get 60. Republicans took 30 states in the presidential election (and 29 I think last time). So over time you should expect the Republicans to fill Red state seats and the Democrats to fill Blue state seats. The Democrats are unlikely to regain CONTROL for decades, let alone a super majority.
Bottom Line: The Democrats need to come to an agreement where Bush eventually gets an up or down vote on judicial appointments. The Democrats deserve a chance to slow down appointments they can't stomach. But we don't owe them a super-majority veto and it would be devestating for the country if they insisted on trying to get one.
Since there was no horrified outcry from the NYT, having a litmus test must be OK. You could argue the President shouldn't have one, of course. Bush says he doesn't but perhaps you don't believe him. So let us assume he does have a litmus test just like Kerry.
If it is ok for Kerry to have his litmus test, it is also appropriate for Bush to have the opposite litmus test. And Bush won the election.
OK, I disagree with Roe v. Wade. I think it was the worst SOTUS decision on the merits since Dred Scott. It has also been a political disaster for the country.
Repudiating Roe v. Wade will result in abortion continuing to be legal almost everywhere in the US during the first trimester. Beyond that restrictions that most people consider reasonable will be enacted. Backalley abortions will not reappear.
The key is that we will fight these issues out legislature by legislature and (a) moderation will win out almost all the time and (b) the poison will be drained for both the winners and the losers. Each will have their say.
What is the alternative?
If you want to filibuster judges that oppose Roe v. Wade you should expect judges that support Roe v. Wade to be fillibustered by the other side in turn. Are we going to have no new SOTUS judges until a single party gets 60 votes? I don't think that is good for the country. It would undermine SOTUS. And, to put it quite bluntly, it is far more likely that the Republicans will get 60 votes long before the Democrats get 60. Republicans took 30 states in the presidential election (and 29 I think last time). So over time you should expect the Republicans to fill Red state seats and the Democrats to fill Blue state seats. The Democrats are unlikely to regain CONTROL for decades, let alone a super majority.
Bottom Line: The Democrats need to come to an agreement where Bush eventually gets an up or down vote on judicial appointments. The Democrats deserve a chance to slow down appointments they can't stomach. But we don't owe them a super-majority veto and it would be devestating for the country if they insisted on trying to get one.
posted by john at 8:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home