Title : Hugh Hewitt writes "'Roe' will be overturned. The federal courts will go back to normal" in The Washington Post.
link : Hugh Hewitt writes "'Roe' will be overturned. The federal courts will go back to normal" in The Washington Post.
Hugh Hewitt writes "'Roe' will be overturned. The federal courts will go back to normal" in The Washington Post.
Okay, I'll bite. Let's read it. I'm reacting in real time ("live-blogging" my reading):One of [the weight-bearing walls of constitutionalism] is a federal judiciary confined to its proper role, which is most definitely not that of reviewing state statutes having to do with the regulation of abortion.
I'll just have to guess that he's positing this because he thinks abortion isn't a constitutional right, but he might be saying he doesn't think courts should protect individual rights from the choices of the majority or because he thinks only state courts should protect individuals from rights-invading choices made by state and local government authorities.
The high court has been doing it steadily since Roe v. Wade was handed down in 1973, but with its consideration next month of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the pattern is likely ending.
Is that "likely"? I'd place my bet on the side of preserving the longstanding precedent, but we shall see.
“Out, out damn spot” is the perfect summary of the thinking of serious conservatives toward Roe, as well as Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 case that narrowed Roe.
Out, out damn spot?!! That's what Lady Macbeth says — it's "damned" though, not "damn" — when she hallucinates blood on her hands after committing murder. How going insane perfectly summarizes the thinking of "serious" conservatives I don't know.
And spare me the claim that your people's thinking is "serious." My son John recently asked on Facebook "What word do you think is overused?" and I said: "I have 3: serious, deeply, and garner." Watch out for it and you'll see the idiotic effectiveness attributed to the word "serious." If you're serious, demonstrate seriousness. Don't just tell me you're serious. And don't use "serious" in the "true Scotsman" sense, which is what Hewitt is doing with "serious conservatives." The serious conservatives are the ones who see Roe as a bloodstain that's driving them crazy (or whatever HH thinks "Out, out damn spot" perfectly summarizes).
Roe’s Waterloo is, finally, at hand.... The subject of “reproductive rights” will return to the control of a self-governing people....
But what about stare decisis, ask my friends in both punditry and the legal academy. What about precedent, indeed? I’d no more be locked into bad constitutional law on Roe or Casey than I would be on Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson or Korematsu v. United States — the notorious trio of worst Supreme Court decisions....
All 3 of those decisions cut against the individual's right. To overturn Roe would be to take away an individual right that Americans have possessed for a long time — a half century.
Whenever the court rules, I think the chief justice will be in the majority. Many conservatives [worry about John Roberts because of] the Obamacare decision... That remains a moment of judicial restraint of the sort conservatives should applaud: When a statute can be, it ought to be upheld....
Hewitt has been talking about confining judges to their "proper role," and here we see him framing that role in terms of reinforcing majoritarian choice. The implication — which he doesn't openly applaud — is that he and his "serious conservatives" reject the role of the courts in protecting individual rights.
Roe and Casey should be discarded because they are bad decisions that perverted the Constitution and took us all into the deep polarization we find ourselves in now.
There are many causes of our polarization, and there's no changing the past. Would overturning Roe and Casey, after all these years, help us out of polarization? It would be a radical change. Want to take a flying leap at radical change? Is that what the "serious conservatives" want?
When our courts decree, our politics decay....
That's a cute aphorism, but it's patently untrue. Courts take some things out of majoritarian choice. We all have our preferences about which things we'd like courts to leave to politics and which things belong to the decisionmaking of private individuals. Throw everything into politics — religion, speech, racial privileges, the treatment of the criminally accused— and you're going to get some crazy action. I'm not so much picturing "decay." I'm picturing growth — ravenous, malignant growth.
Left-wing observers think this will be the ruin of the GOP when [the overruling of Roe and Casey] comes to pass. In reality, it will not hurt the party....
I certainly think it will. Look how Roe empowered conservatives. What will you do without that? And look how your opponents will exploit the overruling. Putting "In reality" in front of a bare assertion doesn't make it true.
... and will instead be the triumph of peaceful politics over raw power.
Hewitt's side's politics is "peaceful" and the other side's politics is "raw"? No, I think he means that the "triumph" is over the Court — in its activist role, protecting rights. The Court will return to judicial restraint, rubber-stamping whatever rights-limiting choices come out of the democratic political process.
It will remind everyone that states matter, that legislatures matter, that citizens matter.
And kick them in the head if they thought rights matter.
You will read much about Dobbs in the next few months, as the remaining tall towers of elite opinion — the watch fires of the overclass — are being pre-lit ahead of the oral argument. But the writing is on the wall.
The elite are in towers and the writing is on the wall. There are "watch fires." Dramatic, metaphorical... but that all just means people are paying attention to this upcoming case.
The anti-Roe constitutionalists have been right that Roe has been doomed for the last 48 years — nearly as long as the 58 years it took Plessy to be tossed out by the Warren Court in Brown v. Board of Education.
That's just saying I'm right. But obviously the other side also thinks it is right. It remains — and nothing in Hewitt's column refutes this — a question of who decides what happens within a person's own body, the person whose body it is or the larger group acting through legislatures. I would leave the individual alone to reign over her own body, even if there is another tiny human creature within her bodily domain.
I'm not as arrogant as Hewitt, so I don't declare that I'm right. Maybe I'm wrong. But someone has to decide, and pregnancy is an occurrence within one individual's body, so it seems to me there's insufficient reason to relocate the decisionmaking power and give it to the group. Stare decisis. Let the decision stand.
One of [the weight-bearing walls of constitutionalism] is a federal judiciary confined to its proper role, which is most definitely not that of reviewing state statutes having to do with the regulation of abortion.
I'll just have to guess that he's positing this because he thinks abortion isn't a constitutional right, but he might be saying he doesn't think courts should protect individual rights from the choices of the majority or because he thinks only state courts should protect individuals from rights-invading choices made by state and local government authorities.
The high court has been doing it steadily since Roe v. Wade was handed down in 1973, but with its consideration next month of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the pattern is likely ending.
Is that "likely"? I'd place my bet on the side of preserving the longstanding precedent, but we shall see.
“Out, out damn spot” is the perfect summary of the thinking of serious conservatives toward Roe, as well as Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 case that narrowed Roe.
Out, out damn spot?!! That's what Lady Macbeth says — it's "damned" though, not "damn" — when she hallucinates blood on her hands after committing murder. How going insane perfectly summarizes the thinking of "serious" conservatives I don't know.
And spare me the claim that your people's thinking is "serious." My son John recently asked on Facebook "What word do you think is overused?" and I said: "I have 3: serious, deeply, and garner." Watch out for it and you'll see the idiotic effectiveness attributed to the word "serious." If you're serious, demonstrate seriousness. Don't just tell me you're serious. And don't use "serious" in the "true Scotsman" sense, which is what Hewitt is doing with "serious conservatives." The serious conservatives are the ones who see Roe as a bloodstain that's driving them crazy (or whatever HH thinks "Out, out damn spot" perfectly summarizes).
Roe’s Waterloo is, finally, at hand.... The subject of “reproductive rights” will return to the control of a self-governing people....
But what about stare decisis, ask my friends in both punditry and the legal academy. What about precedent, indeed? I’d no more be locked into bad constitutional law on Roe or Casey than I would be on Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson or Korematsu v. United States — the notorious trio of worst Supreme Court decisions....
All 3 of those decisions cut against the individual's right. To overturn Roe would be to take away an individual right that Americans have possessed for a long time — a half century.
Whenever the court rules, I think the chief justice will be in the majority. Many conservatives [worry about John Roberts because of] the Obamacare decision... That remains a moment of judicial restraint of the sort conservatives should applaud: When a statute can be, it ought to be upheld....
Hewitt has been talking about confining judges to their "proper role," and here we see him framing that role in terms of reinforcing majoritarian choice. The implication —
Roe and Casey should be discarded because they are bad decisions that perverted the Constitution and took us all into the deep polarization we find ourselves in now.
There are many causes of our polarization, and there's no changing the past. Would overturning Roe and Casey, after all these years, help us out of polarization? It would be a radical change. Want to take a flying leap at radical change? Is that what the "serious conservatives" want?
When our courts decree, our politics decay....
That's a cute aphorism, but it's patently untrue. Courts take some things out of majoritarian choice. We all have our preferences about which things we'd like courts to leave to politics and which things belong to the decisionmaking of private individuals. Throw everything into politics — religion, speech, racial privileges, the treatment of the criminally accused— and you're going to get some crazy action. I'm not so much picturing "decay." I'm picturing growth — ravenous, malignant growth.
Left-wing observers think this will be the ruin of the GOP when [the overruling of Roe and Casey] comes to pass. In reality, it will not hurt the party....
I certainly think it will. Look how Roe empowered conservatives. What will you do without that? And look how your opponents will exploit the overruling. Putting "In reality" in front of a bare assertion doesn't make it true.
... and will instead be the triumph of peaceful politics over raw power.
Hewitt's side's politics is "peaceful" and the other side's politics is "raw"? No, I think he means that the "triumph" is over the Court — in its activist role, protecting rights. The Court will return to judicial restraint, rubber-stamping whatever rights-limiting choices come out of the democratic political process.
It will remind everyone that states matter, that legislatures matter, that citizens matter.
And kick them in the head if they thought rights matter.
You will read much about Dobbs in the next few months, as the remaining tall towers of elite opinion — the watch fires of the overclass — are being pre-lit ahead of the oral argument. But the writing is on the wall.
The elite are in towers and the writing is on the wall. There are "watch fires." Dramatic, metaphorical... but that all just means people are paying attention to this upcoming case.
The anti-Roe constitutionalists have been right that Roe has been doomed for the last 48 years — nearly as long as the 58 years it took Plessy to be tossed out by the Warren Court in Brown v. Board of Education.
That's just saying I'm right. But obviously the other side also thinks it is right. It remains — and nothing in Hewitt's column refutes this — a question of who decides what happens within a person's own body, the person whose body it is or the larger group acting through legislatures. I would leave the individual alone to reign over her own body, even if there is another tiny human creature within her bodily domain.
I'm not as arrogant as Hewitt, so I don't declare that I'm right. Maybe I'm wrong. But someone has to decide, and pregnancy is an occurrence within one individual's body, so it seems to me there's insufficient reason to relocate the decisionmaking power and give it to the group. Stare decisis. Let the decision stand.
Thus articles Hugh Hewitt writes "'Roe' will be overturned. The federal courts will go back to normal" in The Washington Post.
You now read the article Hugh Hewitt writes "'Roe' will be overturned. The federal courts will go back to normal" in The Washington Post. with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2021/11/hugh-hewitt-writes-roe-will-be.html
0 Response to "Hugh Hewitt writes "'Roe' will be overturned. The federal courts will go back to normal" in The Washington Post."
Post a Comment