Base10 was never a big fan of Ann Coulter, but every once in a while she writes something very funny. In yesterday's piece she argued that Judge Roberts was not conservative enough and indeed would turn out to be a moderate on the court aka Justice Souter.

Refering to the abortion issue, she writes,

It means absolutely nothing that NARAL and Planned Parenthood attack him: They also attacked Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Hackett Souter. The only way a Supreme Court nominee could win the approval of NARAL and Planned Parenthood would be to actually perform an abortion during his confirmation hearing, live, on camera, and preferably a partial-birth one.

Ouch. I think that both liberals and conservatives are too preoccupied with Roe v. Wade. The liberals are terrified abortion rights will be curtailed even a little, while conservatives clamor for a Court that will overturn the decision. Both should face the following facts:

- In spite of weak intellectual underpinnings, Roe is not going to be overruled by this or any other court in our generation. Period. It's similar to the Miranda decision in that sense. Both rulings have lost any remaining intellectual vitality, but no judge is willing to go down in history as being the judge that overturned Roe.

- Rulings around the edges of Roe need to be reconsidered. New blood on the Court would allow sensible restrictions like the ban on partial-birth abortion and parental notification statutes to become law.

- Even if Roe was somehow overturned, the issue would go to the states where it should have been all along. The liberals will win or lose in the states (probably win), but this time through the political process not by judicial fiat.

- There are other important issues before the court besides abortion. The recent Connecticut emminent domain decision is one. Another is the the DMCA and its relation to other internet freedom and privacy issues.

- Let's be more concerned about judicial philosophy than by the labels liberal or conservative. Any news outlet reporting on a nominee's past decisions usually wrongly equates the result with the jurist's outlook (i.e., this decision was anti-woman, or that decision was anti-equal rights) and misses the point. How did the judge arrive at the decision? Did he fairly apply the law in question? Did he interpret it narrowly in accordance with the legislator's intent or broadly to apply it to new areas where it was never meant to go? Does he think the rights in the Constritution expand with modern sensibilities or are they locked into the plain text of the constitution expanded only by the intent of the Framers?

These are the question Base10 wants answered.

- posted by Base10 @ 2:21 PM