/extrospect/Dubya and Roe v. Wade
Ten days ago, I hit rock bottom. I wrote, in a blog entry, that "I also bought socks."
It doesn't get much worse than that.
After a decanight of soul-searching, I've decided to join the fray of political observers. I'm paying quite close attention to the American election, as well as observing the genesis of stories from the blog-sphere into mainstream media.
Here's the latest tidbit. In the second presidential debate, Dubya was answering a question about what kind of supreme court judge he would appoint. He talked about the Dred Scott case, a very old, overturned, pro-slavery judgement. I thought it was just a "talking point" about him not being racist or something, but Americans seemed to find the reference extremely strange.
It turns out that, allegedly, Dred Scott is an oblique reference to the famous Roe v. Wade, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favour of a woman's right to have an abortion (I don't know the details well.) Supposedly Bush raised it not to say that he wouldn't appoint a judge that would have backed the Dred decision, which is obvious, but rather that he wouldn't appoint a judge that would back Roe v. Wade.
Interesting subtleties. Not sure if I buy it, but it's a pretty good explanation. You can dig for yourself. If you google for "Dred Scott Roe v. Wade" you'll find some recent article discussing Bush's Dred reference, as well as many older links where the religious right equates Roe v. Wade with Scott Dred.
Comments
patty wrote
I just noticed this blog entry. I also thought something similar about the socks comment, I have to admit.
Regarding Dred Scott, I don't see what the big deal is. Doesn't everyone know that bush is anti-abortion? Doesn't he already have every single vote of the Christian right - (imagine them voting for Kerry!)?
By the way, call me - its about paniers and cell phones.
Rob wrote
The big deal is not that he mentioned it, but that he (allegedly) mentioned it as a semi-secret way of letting the Christian Right know that he *did* have a "litmus test" for his SCOTUS nominations, and that it was Roe v. Wade not being overturned.
All very conjectured and conspiratorial, but interesting nonetheless.
-Rob
Lawrence wrote
Hey, long time fan here, first time blog-reader...
We talked a lot about the Dred Scott case in PHIL 219 last Winter and judicial activism. Bush made reference to Dred Scott indicate that the Supreme Court is not always right, and that rather than having politicians just defer to the courts, that the merits behind ideas themselves should be discussed.
If you talk to Paul Martin about Same Sex Marriage for example, he doesn't give an eloquent defence for why Same Sex Marriage is a right, he just basically says "because the Courts say that it is a right" without much more intelligence than that.
Rob wrote
I imagine Paul Martin actually defers to the courts because it's somewhat politically easier than defering to the will of the people.
Judges can be wrong. Politicians can be wrong too. I don't think Bush is capable of choosing a judge that won't be wrong. :-)
To be less glib, judges, especially supreme court judges, are supposed to be some of the best people in our society for making considered judgements in line with current ethical thinking. I don't think politicians would have done something other than agree with the Dred Scott case.
