Intelligent Discontent

• Written by: PogieJuly 19th, 2005
• Comments:4 Comments
• Category:US Politics
• Rating:
  (No Ratings Yet)
  
   Loading ...

I think the most plausible explanation for the selection of John Roberts is that President Bush’s advisers saw the numbers on abortion under the Bush and Clinton administrations, and decided that something must be done. While the study sensibly acknowledges that abortion numbers are hard to look at in isolation, the money stat is this:

A new analysis from The Alan Guttmacher Institute shows that U.S. abortion rates continued to decline in 2001 and 2002, although the rate of decline has slowed since the early 1990s.

Roberts is a perfect fit for a party that is not interested in the position of womyn, both politically and symbolically. Of coure, to conservatives, reducing the numer of womyn on the court is somehow “courageous,” in the words of Bill Kristol. Of course, Roberts has little track record, making his confirmation perhaps less difficult, though his record suggests that Democrats ought to fight this for what little they have. Though the record is scant, a brief he wrote for the previous Bush administration is hardly reassuring:

That includes a brief he wrote for President George H.W. Bush’s administration in a 1991 abortion case, in which he observed that “we continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled.”

Incidentally, I know this isn’t a new thought, but why in the hell does that man smirk all the time? The person who wants “decorum” in the confirmation process can’t give a brief, written speech without looking like a drunk frat boy talking to his father after a kegger? Please…