I've never been so impressed...
...with an Alligator article. And, so, here you go:
Alito v. Roe
Liberals fret over future of abortion rights
As the possibility of a successful filibuster grows more unlikely, the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court looks increasingly probable.
But despite the man's nearly impeccable credentials as a legal scholar, only one question seems to be on everybody's mind.
Will Samuel Alito and the new conservative majority on the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade?
Alito's refusal to follow John Roberts's lead by calling the case "settled law" in his judiciary hearings is troubling to many liberals.
If confirmed, Alito will replace the moderate Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. O'Connor was a critical swing vote in many of the court's most divisive cases over the past 20 or so years. Many times, she was the crucial vote in supporting Roe v. Wade.
Now, the liberal safety net is being replaced with a much stauncher conservative.
Pro-choice activists are up in arms. "[Anti-abortion advocates] have an anti-choice president and an anti-choice Congress. Now they want an anti-choice Supreme Court," said Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America.
And President Bush isn't exactly easing their fears. On Monday, the 33rd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, Bush told abortion opponents that they are "pursuing a noble cause," and that they "will prevail."
So we can understand the tension.
But abortion is one issue that we take a liberal stance on.
We think that a woman's right to choose should never be infringed upon, especially in the first trimester.
And in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court agreed.
In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that states could only prohibit abortion during the second trimester or later.
There was only one problem.
The Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the Constitution as it is written.
The last time we checked, the words "trimester" and "abortion" are conspicuously absent from the document.
Which means that the Supreme Court based its decision in Roe v. Wade on little more than its own opinions. There is precious little explicit support for the decision anywhere in the Constitution.
The court's ruling rested on a so-called implied right to privacy found in the Bill of Rights and on the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
But the decision and its constitutional foundations seem vague and contrived.That wasn't the way that our Constitution was meant to be interpreted.
Roe v. Wade should have never been decided by nine people in black robes, entirely divorced from the society at large. This is an issue that must either be settled at the state level or by way of a Constitutional amendment.
While we think that a woman should have a right to choose, we can also understand how reasonable people could disagree.
In the end, this will require a great national soul-searching. We need open dialogue between both sides to make any sense of the arguments.
It is a complex debate, and we should expect complex positions.
We've seen the sign-waving protesters, the name-calling demonstrators and the street-corner activists.
But in the end, this isn't an issue for extremists on either side. This is an issue for the reasonable moderates across the fruited plain.
Only through them can we hope to gain any real sense of peace.
Alito v. Roe
Liberals fret over future of abortion rights
As the possibility of a successful filibuster grows more unlikely, the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court looks increasingly probable.
But despite the man's nearly impeccable credentials as a legal scholar, only one question seems to be on everybody's mind.
Will Samuel Alito and the new conservative majority on the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade?
Alito's refusal to follow John Roberts's lead by calling the case "settled law" in his judiciary hearings is troubling to many liberals.
If confirmed, Alito will replace the moderate Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. O'Connor was a critical swing vote in many of the court's most divisive cases over the past 20 or so years. Many times, she was the crucial vote in supporting Roe v. Wade.
Now, the liberal safety net is being replaced with a much stauncher conservative.
Pro-choice activists are up in arms. "[Anti-abortion advocates] have an anti-choice president and an anti-choice Congress. Now they want an anti-choice Supreme Court," said Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America.
And President Bush isn't exactly easing their fears. On Monday, the 33rd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, Bush told abortion opponents that they are "pursuing a noble cause," and that they "will prevail."
So we can understand the tension.
But abortion is one issue that we take a liberal stance on.
We think that a woman's right to choose should never be infringed upon, especially in the first trimester.
And in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court agreed.
In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that states could only prohibit abortion during the second trimester or later.
There was only one problem.
The Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the Constitution as it is written.
The last time we checked, the words "trimester" and "abortion" are conspicuously absent from the document.
Which means that the Supreme Court based its decision in Roe v. Wade on little more than its own opinions. There is precious little explicit support for the decision anywhere in the Constitution.
The court's ruling rested on a so-called implied right to privacy found in the Bill of Rights and on the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
But the decision and its constitutional foundations seem vague and contrived.That wasn't the way that our Constitution was meant to be interpreted.
Roe v. Wade should have never been decided by nine people in black robes, entirely divorced from the society at large. This is an issue that must either be settled at the state level or by way of a Constitutional amendment.
While we think that a woman should have a right to choose, we can also understand how reasonable people could disagree.
In the end, this will require a great national soul-searching. We need open dialogue between both sides to make any sense of the arguments.
It is a complex debate, and we should expect complex positions.
We've seen the sign-waving protesters, the name-calling demonstrators and the street-corner activists.
But in the end, this isn't an issue for extremists on either side. This is an issue for the reasonable moderates across the fruited plain.
Only through them can we hope to gain any real sense of peace.