Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Why Alito's Nomination is Not About Abortion

In "Bush Has Crossed the Rubicon," Paul Craig Roberts writes lucidly about why Alito's nomination truly matters.

Despite seven decades of an imperial presidency that has risen from the New Deal’s breach of the separation of powers, Republican attorneys, who constitute the membership of the quarter-century-old Federalist Society, the candidate group for Republican nominees to federal judgeships, write tracts about the Imperial Congress and the Imperial Judiciary that are briefs for concentrating more power in the executive. Federalist Society members pretend that Congress and the Judiciary have stolen all the power and run away with it.

The Republican interest in strengthening executive power has its origin in frustration from the constraints placed on Republican administrations by Democratic congresses. The thrust to enlarge the President’s powers predates the Bush administration but is being furthered to a dangerous extent during Bush’s second term. The confirmation of Bush’s nominee, Samuel Alito, a member of the Federalist Society, to the Supreme Court will provide five votes in favor of enlarged presidential powers.

What's really interesting about this is that economist Roberts is not your garden-variety Bush whacker. Among other things, he's a former fellow of the Cato Institute and Reagan Administration Treasury Department staffer.


Blogger worriedman said...

In the US, who wonders if State's Rights should trump Federal Statures in the abortion issue. If Roe v. Wade comes to be reversed – abortion will eventually remain legal in a number of “Blue” states after the dust has settled. In many other states it will not, or it will be so tightly restricted as to be non-existent to those who may need it (shades of this transpire as we speak based on the tutelage of Bush and Ashcroft – and likely now, Gonzales) . Women who decide to exercise their right to choose will be faced by a similar situation much the same as senior citizens today, trying to decide which purveyor in the new Medicare scheme will best fit their circumstances of medical treatment needs.
Those of privilege, or resource, will find a place (a state) that will best allow a woman of their circumstance to receive the abortion if they should seek it. They may have to travel across the country, but they will have a legal place to go. Those who are poor, disenfranchised, or imprisoned by their personal circumstances, will have but two choices: Go to the alley, or bring another child into the world that is unwanted, will be uncared for, or just can’t be sustained by a support system that would allow the child to flourish into life. The outcome of this child will be near the same as many in Third World countries. This is the greatest reason of meaning for the federal mandate of Roe v. Wade. Without it, the poorest of our society (and the youngest of reproduction age) will be the ones who suffer most. Right to Lifer’s can’t adopt all the unwanted babies – though they should have established adoption agencies nation-wide for this very purpose long ago.
It is of no doubt that Roe v. Wade has been the great polarizer in American politics for decades now causing gridlock in Washington’s House and Senate. It has tainted the nomination process of judges at many levels. No longer can Supreme Court nominees expect a unanimous vote - the kind of which has been seen in the past. While Bush once ran for office in 2000, touting the need for a smaller Washington bureaucracy and a greater scope for state’s rights – nothing near similar to that has occurred. There are so many crooked paths we travel that restrict and distract us from a truer road through our Democracy. If only a better roadmap to the future could be found. If only all branches of government could tend to their responsibilities without having to look over their shoulders and worrying over their powers being usurped by the power and greed of others.

2:44 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home