O'Connor Steps Down (Yawn)

I haven't written about O'Connor stepping down because I don't believe that the Republican party wants Roe overturned. It is one of their favorite sacred cows from which they have yet to beat enough mileage. True, more conservative judges on the bench means more decisions are in jeopardy than Roe but frankly nothing except the civil rights legislation of decades ago has altered human rights in this country as much as, I think, Roe v. Wade. So, I don't lose sleep. I believe that ten years from now women will still be getting legal abortions before the end of the first trimester--maybe not easily or without high cost--but get them they will.

To illustrate my point I present this from the LA Times, If Ax Falls on Roe, It May Also Split GOP:

"'Smart strategists inside the party don't want the status quo changed,' said Tony Fabrizio, chief pollster for the 1996 Republican presidential campaign of Bob Dole.

'This may cause Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger — who are strongly committed to being pro-choice — to flip or to push for a third-party movement,' he added. 'If they did outlaw it, it would ultimately turn the Republican Party into a theocratic-based party rather than an ideological party, and the party would necessarily start shedding people.'

Strategists worry that overturning Roe would make abortion a top-tier political issue again, galvanizing liberals and moderates who have long assumed the issue was settled. At the same time, it would eliminate a major organizing principle of the evangelical movement that gained prominence in last year's elections. And Republican candidates, who have long sidestepped the issue by assuring moderate voters that judges had the final say on abortion, would suddenly be forced to say how they would vote on a woman's right to choose."

Oh and one more thing. It'll have to be one damned extreme judge Bush gets appointed, to behave other than I've suggested. Why? Being a SCJ has the kind of historical panache as the presidency. Have you noticed any of the Robed Ones actually repealling popular decisions? I bet that except for Scallia and Rhenquist some are secretly rueing taking on Bush v Gore--I mean--look at the fucking mess he's made of everything so far!

No, I actually think that when it comes to the SCJ's legacies thay want to be seen as individuals who actually interpreted the Constitution as it was so obviously intended (protecting not infringing on human rights and dammit clumps of cells are not yet "humans" and women cannot be enslaved to birthing them and their attendant responsibilities) NOT as the patsies and minions of any mere president (whose term theirs clearly outlast).