Liberals in 2000 are obsessed with the Supreme Court. In the Oct. 24 edition of the 'Prince,' Karthick Ramakrishnan GS made a passing reference to the Supreme Court. He said Democratic Party leaders claim, "When there are Supreme Court justices that hang in the balance, we should forget our differences and unite for the fight in November."
This sudden preoccupation with the composition of the Supreme Court is interesting because, as far as I can tell, the president has had the power to appoint Supreme Court justices with the advice and consent of the Senate for more than 200 years now. This is not a surprise. It is not the Supreme Court, though, that causes liberals to sweat. It is abortion.
The Democratic Party is running a campaign based on fear — fear that those mean Republicans will repeal affirmative action, will cut off Social Security and Medicare entitlements, will pull money from the teacher unions and will deny grandmothers everywhere their much-needed prescription drugs. And most importantly, they fear that Republicans will appoint conservative Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade.
This is unlikely. Even if George W. Bush were able to appoint three justices — all staunchly against abortion — to join Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, a ruling against Roe would merely de-federalize abortion. The states would once again have the power to regulate abortion, and in pro-abortion states like New York, you can rest assured that absolutely nothing would happen to a woman's ability to get an abortion. So, aside from demagoguery, why are liberals so afraid?
They are afraid because the right to an abortion on demand is not a right actually found in the Constitution. An activist Supreme Court handed down Roe in a fit of bad jurisprudence, and Americans have had to live (and die) with the consequences of that decision ever since. If abortion is such a basic right inherent in the Constitution, it cannot be in mortal danger if a president is elected who opposes it. Surely such a basic right as unlimited abortion would be supported by a vast majority of the American people, much as our rights to free speech, free association and due process are taken as a given. Surely the American people as a whole would rise up in protest, much as they did to fight taxation without representation.
But abortion is not a fundamental right, and abortion-rights advocates have been fighting a defensive battle ever since Roe to protect the flawed ruling. Their battle has led to a focus on abortion that at times has bordered on the absurd. In many places, a teenage girl requires parental consent to get her ear pierced but not to get an abortion, and the entire debate has been couched in divisive terminology. Abortion-rights advocates refer to those who oppose them as "anti-choice" or "anti-abortion," as if even the thought of attempting to reduce the number of terminated pregnancies in this country is abhorrent.
They raise a hue and cry when abortion opponents support the death penalty. At the same time, though, many of them cynically support a moratorium on capital punishment to prevent innocent people from going to their deaths. Perhaps we should consider a moratorium on abortions until we can be sure that all fetuses in danger of termination have committed capital crimes. By making such wild claims, abortion-rights advocates attempt to claim the high ground of common sense and rationality.
Common sense indeed. This is not common sense, but a descent into irrationality and tunnel vision. For eight years, everything has been going swimmingly for abortion-rights advocates, and the irrationality of their positions has been well hidden. The Clinton-Gore administration has given abortion groups everything they could ever ask for. Now, though, the rising specter of a Republican administration has them running scared.
After all, a Republican administration might think it has the mandate of the people to do what it thinks is right, and give power over abortion back to the people and their elected officials, rather than unelected activist federal judges. Liberals' views of politics have become distorted to the point where they do not trust the American people to protect what they claim is a fundamental right. Surely American liberalism, for so long the protector of the rights of the downtrodden, is better than this. Justin Hastings is a Wilson School major from Bedford, Mass. He can be reached at justinh@princeton.edu.
Read More
Make Princeton a sanctuary for federal researchers
Alex Norbrook“When the incoming political administration begins to attack public research, institutions like Princeton can and must defend it.”
“When the incoming political administration begins to attack public research, institutions like Princeton can and must defend it.”
New Jersey is burning. Stop pretending Princeton won’t.
Isaac Barsoum“In the wake of these dire warnings, it is time for the University to remember that the climate crisis will one day affect Princeton’s campus even more directly — and to redouble its commitments to leadership on climate, sustainability, and environmental justice.”
“In the wake of these dire warnings, it is time for the University to remember that the climate crisis will one day affect Princeton’s campus even more directly — and to redouble its commitments to leadership on climate, sustainability, and environmental justice.”
Now is not the time to abandon trans rights
Shane McCauley“Not only is it politically useless to play into Republican talking points and cast queer issues as ‘elite’ concerns — it’s inaccurate and damaging.”
“Not only is it politically useless to play into Republican talking points and cast queer issues as ‘elite’ concerns — it’s inaccurate and damaging.”
