You cant protect all the unborn - abortion's been around for over 2000 - and desperate women and the men who push them into things, will always find a way. As Bill Clinton said years ago "abortion should be rare, safe, and legal." I hopefully people push on the rare part and not the illegal point of view so we don't go back to the back alleys!
18
The only questions the Senate Judiciary Committee should ask Trump’s Supreme Court nominee are:
• “When you look at the Constitution, do you see words on parchment or penumbras?
• “Do you think Article V of the Constitution is no longer needed?”
In nature, a “penumbra” is the partially shaded outer region of the shadow cast by an opaque object. The shadows cast but sun or moon during eclipses have penumbras. But In U.S. constitutional law, the term “penumbra” has come to refer to a group of rights derived, by implication, from other rights explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965,) Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas famously argued that “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” (I’m not making this up?) For example, a woman’s right to an abortion is a penumbra derived, by implication, from the “right to privacy,” which is itself a penumbra derived from the 14th Amendment’s “Due Process Claus.”
Why do we need Article V, which provides the amendment process, if the Supreme Court can derive implicit rights from penumbras?
9
Sorry to learn that Judge Barrett and the President didn't click. But, if its for the reason you propose, then way to go, Barrett!
4
The refusal of the PowerElites to move forward into the 2st Century is incredible. Teddy Kennedy created the current Supreme Court problem, way back, when he destroyed the career of one of the most able, intelligent minds of jurisprudence,,,,,Robert Bork. Mr. Bork's one weak failing,,,,was that he had the temerity to uphold Pres. Nixon's legal authority to fire people who worked for the Pres!........since the destruction of Robert Bork.....we have been subjected to endless line of sub-standard, weak minded, so-called justices...who claim to have no opinions about anything and express a willingness to carry water for one narrowly constructed political agenda or another.
Thank you, President Trump!! For breaking this trend with the selection of Neil Gorsuch.....I suggest that you hold off nominating anyone until you convince Ms. Ginsberg to retire.....at that point you should nominate who ever you have in mind PLUS Garland Merrick, also a great jurist despite having a so-called "liberal" predilection.
7
It's time to play America's favorite gameshow--Choose Your Reactionary. Winners gets--nothing.,
11
The Rose, or just the thorns ??? There's no rhyme or reason, just the tweet. Thanks, GOP. November.
7
Ah, conservatism...government so small it can fit in your uterus.
108
Ross,
It appears that you are still counting the number of angels on the head of a pin. This is the 21st century not the 12th. You are the problem, not the solution.
38
Piggy' s glasses are cracking again.
3
Bottom line? Our friendly neighbourhood log cabin columnist finally feels perfectly comfortable revelling in the wages of rankest political malfeasance on the part of Trump and Leader McConnell to publicly stroke, fondle and advance his pet pick for SCOTUS. Well good luck to him and his pick - not!
16
Barrett's "interview with Trump apparently went quite badly (I’m not exactly shocked that the Catholic mother-of-seven and the president didn’t hit it off)..."
Which gets to the heart of the matter, raises the question, What decent person would hit it off with Trump?
Gorsuch is not ashamed that he sits in Garland's seat. Kelly is not ashamed that he has sold his honor and integrity. McConnell is not ashamed that he has sacrificed America to gratify a dangerous child-man. Republican voters are not ashamed they worship a cretin.
Of course we could go on listing the many people who have lost all decency, all integrity, all self-respect, all ethics, morality, values by associating themselves with Trump.
So to imagine that Barrett might not hit it off with Trump because she presumably is a loving person, has morals and ethics, highlights the lack of such in all others who apparently have hit it off with this morally and ethically corrupt ignoramus.
37
Typical tribal piece by Douthat. As long as his team wins, especially on abortion, he could care less about the Constitution and the rights of anyone who disagrees with him. As long as he gets what he wants, by any means, then it's all ok. Go ahead and buy the MAGA hat, Mr. Douthat. Go ahead and keep looking away from the horrors of your chosen moral foundation for all of this, Catholicism, with all its well documented vices...because all that matters is God cares so much for the unborn...but you know, it seems God just couldn't find the time over the centuries to help all those abused parishioners.
The SCOTUS nomination process has been reduced to Kabuki Theater, who's kidding who? The average American could care less about Roe Vs. Wade. It's just another "my way or the highway" moralistic charade.
23
I could almost, almost, overlook Judge Barretts' likely propensity to be another Alito and the late lamented Scalia (he of the cross is a universal symbol), infusing Catholicism into her Constitutionalism, just because she did not get along with the #PLIC.
But, really ....
7
The reason why you & other right-wingers didn't like Senator Feinstein's question is because you're hoping a right-wing judge who is determined to make all abortion illegal will be able to fly under the radar while emitting pablum.
You're just dying to use the long arm of the law to force all Americans to adhere to your Catholic dogma.
If you all succeed with abortion will birth control be next? Interesting historical footnote is that the Supreme Court ruling that states couldn't outlaw birth control predated Roe v Wade by about eight years. Said ruling actually permitted states to outlaw birth control by couples who weren't married to each other!
39
Ross...not an in-depth analysis, more an article from TV guide or USNews highlighting the degradation America has suffered with the fake president at the helm.
6
How did Barrett work full time in a demanding profession and pop out all those kids? She had a nanny, a housekeeper and could afford daycare and pre school if necessary. She got paid time off for child birth. If her kid was sick, she could get off to take the kid to the doctor. Phyllis Schafly was another rich mother who had a bunch of kids and traveled the country spreading her dogma about no abortion, no birth control, and mothers eschewing a career to stay at home. Neither of these women gave up anything, they had it all. They were rich and white which makes this pipe dream possible.
Barrett is being chosen to take down Medicaid, Medicare, social security, abortion, birth control, clean air and water, etc. She and her type don’t have to worry about such silly problems. She can stick her snooty nose in the air and use her favorite legal doctrine: the framers never discussed this so it’s uncontitutional. So much for her informed Catholic faith. It’s because of parishioners like her that I quit being Catholic long ago. Never looked back.
33
Oh, I forgot. The Pharmaceutical pariahs make a fortune from viagra sales. Maybe if we find some way to increase profit margins for abortions they’ll suddenly become more palatable for the religious (? ) right.
13
thanks Ross for being direct : you want the imposition of Roman catholic theology on the American people via the Supreme Court. the court is already top heavy with Roman catholics. another one restores their majority. but perhaps the appointee will come from the evangelicals. they too would impose catholic theology on this point. just another bizarre aberration from those supposedly non-Catholic yahoos.
18
That's the trouble with this presidency. Everything is a reality show, the only thing that matters is ratings, and the star needs constant adulation to feed his insatiable ego. Problem is, the show is becoming more unreal the longer it progresses. And the Narcissist-in-Chief is becoming more demented by the day as he babbles at his rallies and spews out endless tweets about his real or imagined enemies. Will he have a meltdown when he sees the Trump Baby Blimp flying over London?
15
Enough with this nonsense.
Why not just nominate Ivanka?
13
The liberals and pro abortion crowd are more concerned with a woman having the right to do with her body whatever she chooses than the right of the unborn fetus in that mother's womb/body. I would not give one iota what she did but where life is concerned a fetus should trump a woman and her body. This is one of the most selfish arguments that you will ever hear and it is pitiful. It holds absolutely no weight with this pro life woman and others in the pro life movement. This is why we are winning this battle and it frightens the pro abortion folks to death.
4
A fact-free, personal-opinion-dominated column ... and totally blind to the guiding principles of separation of church and state.
No wonder there is not one bit of examination of the thought that result-oriented legal decision-making, based on the personal preferences and religious beliefs of a judge, somehow brings about a respectable judiciary worthy of a democracy in a secular society respectful of all its citizens.
Too shallow for publication in the New York Times, IMHO.
24
“Overturning our inhumane abortion settlement.” Wow, what a single-minded vision with a set of denial- blinders on, Mr. Douthat. What about the inhumanity of controlling women’s lives, families’ lives, children’s lives? No abortions allowed is intrusion where it doesn’t belong. Ah, the male chauvinist and misogynistic attitudes that continue to exist against individuals in our society and around the world. Short sighted. Cruel. And just plain stupid.
35
Thanks for the classic deflection Mr. Douthat. Conservatives cheat the country and a Democrat President out of a SCOTUS appointment, and you spend your precious column inches on which candidates the conservative minority should invest in to consolidate your immoral victory. The rich, greedy, bigoted donors of the Republican Party thank you for your service with this column.
29
I've been eagerly awaiting the thoughts from the NYT Emperor of the Uteri.
It WILL be the Female, merely because that's the magical and perfect means of giving a splashy salute to his opposition. With ONE digit. Plus, extra points for choosing a Woman. Plus, he might want to "date" her.
You may get your wish, Ross. And be careful what you wish for.
Karma, and I mean that sincerely.
23
So what's your point! None of them are remotely qualified compared to the 3 women on the court? Thomas only claim to fame is Anita Hill, Alito? Another hack... and then there is John Roberts. 75 years from now he will be remembered just like the Taney court.
14
As we continue to celebrate our Nation’s 242nd Birthday as a democratic Republic , it might be beneficial for us all to take a moment to stop and reflect on the words of two of our Founding Fathers and to fervently pray that we will once again become United as One Nation Under God, with liberty and justice for all people from conception til natural death.
“Statesman, my dear sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand.“
John Adams, June 21, 1776
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that the that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.“
Thomas Jefferson, 1781, Query XVIII of his “Notes on the State of Virginia.“
“
From. The Preamble to the Constitution, written by Thomas Jefferson:
“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator, with certain in alienable rights: that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.“s
Ross Douthat, having converted to Catholicism, once more proves that he is popier than the Pope.
His only thoughts are about overturning Roe v Wade, the law he calls "inhumane abortion settlement".
European countries with a vast majority of Catholics have established laws about a women's choice, Ireland being one of the most recent ones.
The problem with these oh-so-pious men like Douthat and Republicans in Congress, is that fact that they only care about a fetus. Once a baby is born into a family that can't afford to feed or cloth another one, they don't give a darn.
Let them eat cake ..... or now the newest version, if they want to eat while being on Medicaid, they'd better work as well.
21
Barrett needs more seasoning, and Trump can save her for Ginsberg’s seat.
Kavanaugh, although too “Bushy” for me, is the best of the bunch where it matters: Immigration.
1
I don't have the energy to disagree or agree with the details of Douthat's choice of Ms.Barrett but I'd like to point out his (and the editors of the Times) decidedly incorrect use of the word "sex" when he references "the combination of her sex and her religious beliefs." One shudders to think what would potentially be revealed about that combo as written.
Consider replacing "sex" with "gender."
9
My money is on Kethledge, he was the only one who didn't wither under Dianne Feinstein's barrage of questions. Kavanaugh cited unnamed judges that supported his views, and Feinstein said OK, name 5 of them, and in the end he couldn't name one of them. A pathetic showing, for someone that has supposedly great legal Ivy League chops. Then Amy Barrett was a lawyer but somehow in her entire legal career, she never had a client?! Oh yes, Lots of experience there.
6
All of these potential "nominees" are evil to the core and hopefully once we are rid of the stench of trump and his criminal, greedy, treasonous crew we can impeach and remove all of his "appointees," who are in fact selected by the Heritage Foundation. No one for a moment thinks trump has clue number one about the policies of these people or read anything by them or about them. For their participation in treason they all should spent their lives in SuperMax or Guantanamo.
6
So much for the First Amendment--but who needs the Constitution if you have religion and ideology?
16
Only in a Ross Douthat article will one find a description of someone's "fecundity and faith" as a combo positive characteristic.
18
Ross – one more thing: how would Barrett be a vote for “female empowerment” when she belongs to to the People of Praise, a conservative Christian organization that excludes women from the highest leadership positions and teaches that men are the spiritual leaders of their families?
Ross?
(Cue deafening silence.)
21
Wrong. The calculus is about who will let him off the hook if and when he needs that.
21
“I make no apology for desiring a prominent embodiment of the possible marriage between female empowerment and religious conservatism …”
Conservatives now and then like to bait liberals with judicial and other nominees whose ideology runs counter to the interests of their putative identity group: Amy Barrett Coney in 2018 is like Clarence Thomas in 1990. I wonder why the interview with Trump went poorly. Did he spend the hour talking about his sister the federal judge? Was he flirtatious? Or did he simply allow as how nominating a patently anti-abortion candidate might alienate many moderate Republicans while motivating progressives to get out and vote, perhaps giving Democrats the crucial edge in November. Ross, I greatly admire your columns, even though it’s plain the dogma dwells loudly within you.
2
At the very least Ross, you have reaffirmed your holier than thou pro-life street creds, while frequently taking positions outside of the womb that do not reflect well upon the continuity of that life.
Though you do have a myriad of rationalizations to avoid that continuity.
One might even say that your hostility to life outside of the womb is what lead to our fearless leader, but that is neither here or there Ross.
So let's just say Ross that pro-life should mean exactly that, pro-life. It doesn't stop at the womb.
Questioning the scientific basis of climate change is not pro-life.
Lowering environmental standards is not pro-life.
Vast income inequality is not pro-life.
Automation without thinking about the outcome is not pro-life.
People without health care is not pro-life.
1/3 of our children are living in poverty and that is definitively not pro-life Ross!
It is a trite, highly rationalized and ultimately disconnected world you live in Ross, to say nothing about issues in relation to privacy and a person having some kind of control over their own body.
So I hope you are thinking about the consequences Ross because, thus far, you definition of pro-life is extremely limited and highly suspect of being anything but.
34
And how about the Constitutionality of basing decisions upon one's religion? Sorry, Ross. Your right to your religion, as well as Barrett's, ends well before my nose. Same goes for Mr. Sessions, by the way.
25
Ah, once again you’ve fallen through the looking glass. In what other world would “female empowerment” mean denying a woman the power to choose control of her own body. Empowerment indeed. Orwellian in its dishonesty.
21
Barrett may have the best legal mind of the three, but it certainly is not because of her "faith and fertility" making her qualified. Also, whoever is appointed, regardless of gender or the embrace of "religious conservatism," should not be expected to "ultimately save our culture." America will ultimately be saved by politicians, including those on the Court, via the embracing of the ideals set forth in the Preamble when interpreting our Constitution: "...to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty..."
8
The only consolation for liberals is that if Roe falls the GOP will probably live to regret it. they will no longer be able to hide behind it and demagogue shamelessly. They will actually have to live with the electoral consequences.
Maybe those of us on the left will finally come to appreciate that the judiciary is important so actually showing up to vote in midterms might be a good idea.
15
Thanks for reminding me that the only thing a supreme court judge is good for is overturning Roe vs Wade. That's somehow not activist?!
8
Count me crazy but I really don't see how our abortion laws are inhumane. I guess it depends on how you define humanity. If terminating the life of a cellular organism is inhumane, I'm guilty of murder many times over. By that logic, swatting a mosquito is a cardinal sin.
We should all celebrate the miracle of life and what have you. However, let's keep a rational mind about these things. If you're really obsessed over the "potential for life" idea, every menstruation is a sin. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Your religion is not my problem. Leave me alone.
19
Ross: Good try- all three candidates are worthless puppets who will do anyhing to support their corrupt paymasters. Rather than holding justice, each of them will do everything to destroy basic foundation of our great nation. Alas, Supreme Court has turned into a corrupt machine like many third world countries. The deep state which produced Trump wants to make sure that justice is tilted towards the corrupt criminals. The opening is a big reward for them. Trump, a master con man pathological liar child bully is doing the bidding for the deep state. Emperor has no clothes. He wants to protect himself, his cronies and paymasters from any criminal prosecution in the future by putting a morally bankrupt puppet in the Supreme Court. Of course, con Don is concerned since his administration is involved in hundreds of scams which can send the criminals to prison in a fair justice system. This is a sad time for our nation.
18
No Ross what conservatives do well is denying the law and convention to suit their immediate needs. Conservatives already committed the heinous act of denying the Obama administration the last appointment to the Supreme Court and now we have our Sociopath in Chief making another one. I really do not want to hear what you have to say until conservatives stop bending the law, facts and truth to their agenda.
19
Whoever the announced choice of R C 45 is, you can be sure it will be the worst possible choice for the protection of the Constitution and our people.
24
You are a very good and very clear writer, Mr. Douthat. Given that, is there someplace you can refer me to in your writings that explains why you are so obsessed with abortion?
OK, that’s unfair. Let’s try this: can you refer me to some place in your writings where you explain why you believe so strongly, against a clear majority of your fellow citizens, that the rights of a first trimester fetus are more important than the rights of a living woman?
Please do not try to dodge the question by talking about late term abortion‘s, partial birth abortion, etc. You and I both know that those are minor issues, numerically speaking, which our system of courts and laws has already shown it can differentiate from the more general case.
16
" Then I would probably go with the establishment pick as well, preferring Kavanaugh as more of a known quantity and not minding his possible resemblance to John Roberts, whose judicial restraint, which frustrates some conservative activists, I generally admire."
Yeah. I've feeling your opinion of John Roberts might be changing soon.
2
Repeal/overturn Roe v. Wade?
Let's move backwards to what Ireland had just a few months ago? That's what allowed, nay compelled, Irish doctors to stand by and watch as Savita Halappanavar, whose life could have been saved by aborting her baby which was already beyond saving, died. Here's what Wikipedia says about her:
"Savita Halappanavar was a 31-year-old Indian dentist who died on 28 October 2012 at University Hospital Galway in Ireland due to the complications of a septic miscarriage at 17 weeks' gestation. The miscarriage took seven days to unfold, and early in the process, when it was clear that the miscarriage was inevitable, Halappanavar requested an abortion. At that time the medical team had not diagnosed her with a blood infection, and her request was denied because the medical team did not judge that her life was in danger. The medical team eventually did diagnose the sepsis and began trying to treat it, and when they determined that Halappanavar's life was in danger they had planned to administer misoprostol to induce delivery, but the miscarriage completed before they were able to. The sepsis continued developing and she died of cardiac arrest caused by the sepsis...."
*This* -- and worse, women dying of botched, back-alley abortions -- is what Ross Douthat wants and what he thinks is "pro-life."
32
Amy Barrett has less than a year of judicial experience - no way is she qualified for our highest court.
22
Don't forget that Trump is also looking for a judge who will conjure up a rationale for terminating the Mueller investigation on whatever terms necessary. That will almost certainly be the deal-breaker for our feckless, paranoid president*...
13
Cultivating good judges is one things conservatives do well? That statement alone negates any advice This writer may have. Clarence Thomas? No , the conservatives cultivate tribal members to carry out the mission . Law is not important. Law and deliberation and debate are Liberal things. Belief and faith in the party are Repub things.
20
Kavanaugh if I had to choose. But as a progressive, I expect the Dems to fight like he'll against a nomination until after midterms. Any justice seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade is a non-starter, but if it does happen perhaps down the line a better ruling can come if it based on a woman's bodily integrity rather than the shaky privacy argument.
It is easy to be against abortion until an unexpected event occurs. As a Maternal-Fetal Medicine Specialist I have seen many conservative families who are against abortion, or always vote for politicians who vote against it, choosers an abortion the moment I sadly tell them their unborn child has a very serious medical complication. I can also assure you those same families, middle and upper class, the moment abortion becomes restricted will get on a plane and go to either a state or country were a safe abortion can be easily performed. The women who will be unable to have one are the poor or undocumented. The women who once the disabled child is born will not be able to work anymore to take care of it. Women who will have to stay in abusive relationships just to financially support their families. I admire the judge from Indiana. I am certain she had tremendous hardships raising her kids, particularly one with special needs but she’s had the education and financial resources to do so. That’s not always the case.
Abortion is not a pretty subject. It is true, a life is being ended, but there is another life (the woman’s) or lives (her family) who are affected by that pregnancy. We are no one to judge her, or limit her ability to have a safe abortion until we walk in her shoes. If conservatives are serious about limiting abortions they need to start putting money in teaching children about medically proven ways to prevent pregnancy and making them easily accessible.
49
I doubt that any judge that Trump picks will get an easy confirmation. The Democrats are in full battle mode over this nomination and are fully aware that any of his choices will likely vote with the four member conservative bloc. So, let the political bloodletting begin!
The problem now is that the Supreme Court is a supremely political institution with a narrow political pathway to confirmation. Nominees are no longer judged on their personal qualifications or judicial merit. The only qualification now is whether that nominee belongs to the conservative or the liberal voting bloc.
Special interest groups will be pouring over the nominee's background seeking any tidbit that might cast a positive or negative political light on the nominee's future voting record and political survivability. One has only to recall the last minute effort to dislodge the confirmation of Clarence Thomas & prevent him from being America's first black conservative Supreme Court justice.
If any weakness whatsoever is uncovered about this nominee, we can expect full blown coverage in all American media, and shouts of doom if the nominee is confirmed. Under these circumstances it is any wonder that a prominent, well-qualified conservative judge would even agree to accept the nomination.
4
I'm afraid there are too many lives that we already have without adding many, many more that we will never provide with reasonable environmental conditions or a decent standard of living. As a practical, political matter, I might trade Mr. Douthat a ban on abortion for unrestricted promotion of contraception. That would go hard with women caught in pregnancies they did not anticipate or agree to. However, overpopulation is the fundamental driver of most of the other ills that have overtaken the less developed world and are coming for us. Human life is being cheapened by an excess supply of it. Pro-lifers and Catholics need to drop their non-negotiable attitude to contraception if not to abortion.
2
"Because cultivating serious judges is what conservatives do best" Are you kidding? Bush v. Gore was not remotely decided by "serious" judges - the 5 right wingers shut down the Florida recount -- so much for "voter rights" or even "free speech." Then, there is Citizens United, where an extremely activist Justice Roberts sought out this case just so he could give more to the 1% and dispense with any such doctrine as stare decisis. Justice Kennedy has now resigned and many questions are being raised about that - and his son's connections to Trump. Of course they will find a specious reason to overturn or otherwise effectively gut Roe v Wade, but all the other rights of ordinary people are - as we speak Ross -- being gutted, too -- Forced arbitration; no more class actions; undercutting, if not killing, unions; allowing voter supression and gerrymandering. And, that is not even going into the fact that many of the Trump judicial nominations have been found totally lacking in any actual qualifications other than that they are right wing toadies to the donor class. Sad.
11
I appreciate Douthat's willingness to be blunt and honest on this question. So if abortion is outlawed how will he feel about the back alley abortions which follow, especially once access to contraception is curtailed?
10
As this country is being moved towards a religion based platform we will need to become consistent and refrain from scientific actvities. That is, scientists and enginneers need to stop handing out tools and knowledge such a to society and administration.
In other words, let us go on strike and we will see where the Evangelicals end up. Most importantly no more access to high powered weapons and nukes. Evangelicals are ethically simply not up to the task..
Mr. Douthat.
13
I hope Ross does not leave for the small audience, very small, of America, the jesuit periodical. His opinion on abortion is wrong for me an democratic secular culture that we will remain despite the religion some of us hold dearly. However, his verve and storytelling gifts I prize. He reminds me of the old times when the likes of William Jennings Bryant could make finances (the gold standard) somehow important bec he spoke of it in mythical religious language. So we have Ross, speaking of saving our culture it if can be saved and raising up Coney as a kind of Catherine of Siena, a saint I am sure he knows well. She the embodiment of a powerful woman moving even the Pope himself to be good, especially the Pope. But Ross's parents might also remind him of Margret Thacther another powerful emancipated woman who saved the conservatives a few decades ago. I think many of the English might say she destroyed the culture they loved or tried to. ... but still, I praise Ross for his romantic energy and keeping the game interesting and human rather than flat and technical.
1
You wrote: "Overturning our inhumane abortion settlement."
Inhuman? Surely you jest.
Inhuman is bringing babies into this world then denying them access to healthcare and, later on, education.
Inhuman is forcing a woman to carry a dead foetus to term.
Inhuman is allowing a pregnancy to continue when there is no hope of the baby's survival.
Inhuman is allowing a pregnancy to continue when it will cause the death of the mother, thereby leaving the baby, if it survives, without his/her parent.
Those things are inhuman, as are your stands on poverty, religion, and civil rights.
https://wifelyperson.blogspot.com
50
There should not be a vote on a replacement Supreme Court Justice until after the 2016 election and the Mueller investigation is complete. The current President appears to think that he is all powerful and the laws and customs of our country do not apply to him.
7
I would point out that two very conservative countries that have had abortion bans for years have overturned them because they found them even more inhumane...and to thinking feeling humans, not ones who are not fully formed. In fact, religious text has nothing to say about abortion. It is an anti-science clergy that has given full fledged human qualities to a fertilized egg.
With this kind of thinking, why don't we go ever further and outlaw "having a headache?"
This is not to say that it is not also a crime to prevent a woman from having a wanted baby, but again, the issue is different. It is not identical to murder.
5
Finally there is complete candor in one of Douthat's columns . Openly, he longs for a results oriented activist judge who will bring her Catholic faith , in Ross's Rightist version of it, into the Court so as to establish clerico-rule of women's lives. We are to be subject to his faith. This is not tolerance that he asks, he achieved that with the cake case that allows businesses to treat the "sinful" in a degrading manner. This is dominance. And this dominance is to be extracted from us not because of democratic choice,a minority of voters chose this president and a wide majority of 67% support Roe V Wade.No we are to accept that we live under sectarian rule because of the raw faith of those like Ross and Barrett. Well, be careful what you wish for. Overturning Roe will send this to the states and some will pass the most draconian laws. If you believe that abortion is murder than it must be punished by the criminal law. I await the first woman led to jail for exercising her reproductive rights. Will you then give us the passages in Canon law that condemn this sinner. Are you really so certain of your religious commitments that you will imprint them on the bodies , the lives, and the deaths of American women? And just how is this different from Sharia?
32
"Overturning our inhumane abortion settlement". Not fair. You really need to be more specific about what you're proposing.
2
Do any of the anti-Roe folks know why women get abortions? I never hear them address those reasons. If you remove the reasons for women getting abortions the rate will decline.
If you merely make abortion illegal women will get illegal abortions. Prohibition has never worked, and the inevitable unforeseen consequences will be with us for generations.
5
Really Ross. Have you not heard of Separation of Church and State? I do not believe that you or any judge has a right to push your religious beliefs down my throat. And that includes abortion issues. For myself I would not choose to have an abortion. But I defend the right to choose.
Next will be the right of a woman to vote, to expect equal pay for equal work, to make a decision about whether or not she wishes to have intimate relations with a mate of her choosing.
Maybe we woman should start taking away the right of a man to use Viagra sort of like the Religious right trying to deny Birth Control coverage aka Hobby Lobby who protested on religious grounds that they would not cover birth control for their employees and won that case on Freedom of Religion. The same owners who tried to smuggle Antiquities into this Country but got caught. Apparently Thou Shalt not Steal is not one of their religious beliefs. What I learned from their hypocrisy was it was not about religious beliefs regarding coverage beliefs, but about their pocket books.
The Hobby Lobby case should be overturned on the basis that they presented false evidence in order to win their case before the Supreme Court
9
Make no mistake, as the battle for women's reproductive rights, for our right to make our own choices about OUR OWN BODIES comes into the foreground, it won't matter who is in that seat. Women are going to rise up like you have never seen before in your life. You think the women's march was something? Get ready. We are not going backwards. No. Hold onto your seat, Mr. Douthat!
21
As an old attorney, well-versed through many years of constitutional interpretation and law, I have no personal opinion as to what limits - if any - should be placed on abortion.
What must be acknowledged in the debate is that Roe v. Wade is recognized by a vast number of constitutional scholars as extraordinarily unsupported textually.
Any Supreme Court opinion suddenly discovering - after 186 years of constitutional jurisprudence - an alleged right exists in the “penumbra” of “emanations” related to a previously undiscovered “zone of privacy” is going to be viewed through rational scholars as a huge stretch to reach a predetermined result.
Those same folks who find it reasonable to overturn 186 years of jurisprudence by finding a right in a penumbra a/k/a shadow of undetermined rights somehow emanating a/k/a not directly related to a newly created zone, find it unreasonable that the the 2nd Amendment, which expressly allows the people to bear arms, allows people to bear arms.
Apparently, the constitution must be interpreted extraordinarily liberally in favor of personal freedoms when considering limits placed on a zone of privacy not mentioned at all in the constitution’s text at all, and viewed extremely strictly when considering the right to bear arms, which is expressly incorporated in the text.
It just goes to show that Americans are unable to rationally or reasonably analyze - when emotionally driven to reach a emotionally rewarding result.
4
Please show me the textual support for Citizens United. Show me where it says in the Constitution that Corporations are people. Show me the text that says Union Dues have anything to do with Free Speech.
7
Eenie, meenie, miney, mo, which one of these supremely talented barristers will be picked for the big show?
I would have gone with Barrett before you gave me the very distressing news about her bombing the interview.
I'll try to get some sleep tonight while I deal, but it won't be easy.
Based upon the snapshots (as good a method as any with a guy like Trump) at the top of the piece, I'd have to give the edge to Kavanaugh. He's got that "how dare you question me, how dare you even look at me!" soul shriveling glare, which has to be catnip to Trump.
Poor Kethledge just looks a bit confused and a little too human, which can't possibly work in his favor in a fight to the death like this.
I still think Barrett has a chance. Trump loves to shock people, and picking a woman would certainly do that. He would also simplistically think, and of course he would be wildly misguided, that somehow this proves he's not a raving misogynist.
I just can't wait until Monday, can you?
3
Save our culture? This guy is hopeless.
6
Ross could have saved himself (and us) a lot of time by just stating the obvious, "I support Barrett for the Supreme Court because she is the one we can count on to overturn Roe v Wade."
Never mind that she is the least qualified of the three, the litmus test is abolishing abortion.
32
I'll be tuning in tomorrow night to the best reality show on the face of the earth short of the Roman Coliseum. The Trumpists get their conservative nominee live at 9 PM all but guaranteeing the death of Roe v Wade. The Democrats will cry and whine like stuck pigs, able to do absolutely nothing to remove Trump's jaws from the death hold it has on the once liberal Supreme Court. I love the drama. This was on the ballot. Get the pop corn. Sit back and enjoy. Stay tuned. Ginsburg next.
1
“...save our culture.” Too funny.
What our culture needs is to be saved from is religious fanaticism embodied by the likes of Mr. Douthat.
(It will be entertaining to note Mr. Douthat’s reaction - if Roe is overturned - to the fact that his side succeeded in making abortion illegal in some places but not in stopping it.)
4
Whoever becomes the next Supreme Court Justice will be ILLIGITIMATE, the product of an ILLIGITIMATE president and a hijacked ILLIGITIMATE approval process.
But as for Douthat’s preference, Amy Cony Barrett, he has put his cards on the table in support of an activist court and a theocracy. Fair and impartial judges? Not in Douthat’s conservative dystopia.
And if that doesn’t scare you enough (because, yes, there are other people out there who are anti-democratic like Douthat) he wants to put his hypocrisy on the table too for all to see. The man has no shame. According to Ross, Barrett would be a vote for “female empowerment” because a “woman’s place is on the court.” Yet, Douthat’s Catholic Church wants to keep women in restraints!
(Cue uncontrollable laughter.)
Ross, are you saying a woman’s place is on the altar saying mass? Is a woman’s place in the Vatican wearing the papal mitre?
And Ross, tell us with a straight face how any woman can claim “female empowerment” if she doesn’t have control over her own body?
Ross?
12
How is it Mr. Douthat that when conservatives are on the docket to pick a Supreme Court Justice they want someone who can bring "Judicial Action" to the Court. But when a middle of the road or liberal President is in office (like a Barrack Obama) and is set to select a nominee to the Court, all we hear from conservative voices is, "Restraint"? Tell me in your most knowing manner ,Ross, that you do not see the hypocracy.
12
Dear Birddog,
When the goal is to control women and punish the poor, reward the rich, suppress the vote, poison the atmosphere there is nothing hypocritical about it. Unlike you, there is nothing moral about their goals. And nothing particularly moral about how to go about achieving them. Immoral goals, immoral means. Totally consistency.
3
These people who take themselves to be representatives of God don't even understand that the US Constitution protects minority rights by limiting what the majority can legislate.
2
Ross, I suggest you read The Scarlet A, a new book by Katie Watson about ordinary abortion. I just finished it because after Kennedy retired, I knew the right to abortion was going to be on the line and I wanted to clarify my thinking. There are multiple views in this country about the proper status of an embryo or fetus, and we shouldn't impose one view on people who don't share in that view. It also describes what pregnancy is like, and it solidified my belief that it's not up to other people to make a woman go through that experience. And not everyone who has an abortion is some irresponsible hedonistic person. You might want to practice some radical empathy.
33
"There are multiple views in this country about the proper status of an embryo or fetus, and we shouldn't impose one view on people who don't share in that view."
There are "multiple views" about a lot of things, including pornography, prostitution, drugs, and polygamy.
"It also describes what pregnancy is like, and it solidified my belief that it's not up to other people to make a woman go through that experience."
Does the book also describe the "experience" of being executed by lethal injection? "[I]t's not up to other people to make [condemned prisoners] go through that experience."
Anyway, boo to Douthat for turning his discussion of Supreme Court nominees into a debate about abortion.
4
This is properly a debate about the absolute limits to what Congress may lawfully legislate.
1
When it comes to women's health care, "conservatives" throw away personal freedom and small government "principles." In the end, abridging women's health care hardens the lower class and prevents social mobility...which is what the GOP really wants. The GOP long game has been about ensuring that the majority class of "plebians" are so busy trying to survive that they have no time to think critically about the public policy decisions that keep them in poverty.
13
What about the millions of 6-cell blastulas imprisoned in liquid nitrogen at IVF clinics around the country? Who will speak for them?
1
What I most fear is ,similar to Gorsuch , whomever is chosen will be beholden to Trump . And what we will get is dogma rather than objectivity. Clearly none of the three candidates are as competent or qualified as Merrick Garland.
10
Maybe the problem is with the law itself. That it can be intrepreted in such different and extreme ways, all by people who swear they're doing nothng more than upholding the Constitution. Since we cannot agree to disagree, at the very least we should keep personal, religious and medical decisions out of the hands of this small group, who, in the end, will come down on the same side anyway. Even the idea of someone with Trump's morals and intellectual capacity making a lifetime appointment is just plain ridiculous.
1
As was recently pointed out by a Catholic nun, it is ironic that the pro-life crowd want to ensure each pregnancy brings a baby into the world, but so many of this same crowd does not want to care for this baby after it is born by providing affordable healthcare to all.
26
Jim,
Obviously, you have not heard of the Sisters of Life, a group of Roman Catholic nuns who assist pregnant women before, during and after birth. I would take their word stressing the importance of life over one nun who does not represent Catholic teachings. This nun of which you speak is definitely in the minority.
No need to read the whole thing----Douthat's main point is his last paragraph: I am vehemently against identity politics unless it serves my religious beliefs at the expense of everybody else's, in which case I am vehemently for it.
35
Ross is so afraid of change. Save our culture? Culture is a dynamic thing. It is always changing. Do we really want to backwards? I am sure those in the slave south wanted to return of their culture after the civil war (and indeed, they did try with Jim Crow). So what exactly do you want, Ross. Traditional marriage with no divorce (that went out with St. Ronald the conservative icon). Or is it just the LGBTQ that bothers you? The world has not had gone cataclysmic since since gay marriages. In fact, there have been some very loving relationships to look at. But you can't see that, can you. Blinded by dogma.
2
None of these ideologues belong on the Court. They are trained seals approved by the priesthood (monied interests) and the Federalist Society.
As for Douthat’s nastiness in the last paragraph, well, speaks to a low character hiding behind low ideals. Misogyny.
20
An honest column from a con who wants a judicial activist who will not adhere to precedent and will not adhere to the text of the Constitution. His choice would be a disaster for the country as she would make up rights out of whole cloth like Alito did with the union dues case. But Douthat supports such activism because it supports his political agenda and that is refreshing to see in print and puts a lie to the Federalist Society's game.
2
I truly appreciate your honesty in this piece, Ross.
That said, let's chat about abortion. The actual function of the US government is not to take the religious beliefs of one group and force them on everyone. That would be called a theocracy. Iran is a nice example of this sort of government. I don't think that would work here. I quite pray it would not.
As a thought experiment, let's suppose that conservatives, like yourself, get their way and Roe is struck down. Joy! Um, make no mistake, Ross, if a woman wants or needs an abortion, she *will get* an abortion. Sure, she might have to get in a plane and fly a few hundred miles, like they do in Ireland, but she will get one. So all of you conservatives are getting your knickers in a knot about a vote that will do nothing at all.
Nothing. At. All.
6
The Republican Party platform adopted in 2016 demands the end of al abortions, including efforts to save the life of the mother. This of course is the position of the Church of Rome, as articulated by its morally dubious clergy. Very few Americans agree with this radical and immoral stance that does not value the lives of living, breathing women. Typical though of the radical Republican Party. Only American women can save themselves from this unrelenting assault on their freedom, their health, their very lives.
13
Legislators making decent laws will negate these stolen SCOTUS seats.
There is no way we are taking this lying down either.
Hasn't McConnell done enough to rig the SCOTUS nomination by blocking Obama's choice; now he wants to dictate his choice. Isn't that unconstitutional? What about separation of powers? What kind of dictatorship does McConnell want?
6
Ross,
In re to "But I also suspect that the combination of her sex and her religious beliefs would give her more fortitude than a male justice on the one issue where I want judicial action, not restraint: Overturning our inhumane abortion settlement."
I thought that you opposed activist judges (Ross Douthat, June 30, 2018: "Like most conservatives, I favor a more limited role for our robed archons...). I think what you mean is you favor a more limited role for judges you don't agree with.
Of course lies and cynicism are the philosophical foundations of McConnell/Trump-era conservatism, so I shouldn't be surprised.
3
Since Donald J. Trump should not be anywhere near the White House, he should not have the ability to nominate a SCOTUS justice.
Period.
1
I think Democrats should advise and consent just as soon as Judge Gorsuch leaves the Court. Until then, There should be no reasonable discussion of anyone. It is beyond high time that Democrats started standing up to the lies, cheating and blind partisanship of the extreme right wing in America.
4
WOW!
Did I read this article in 2018 America?
What happened to the USA I was taught to believe was a privilege to have been born here--
When will the patriarchs disappear?
3
Questions: How many children do Mr. Kavanaugh and Mr. Kethledge have and what sort of scholarship did they produce while raising their kids? Now that Ms. Barrett and her supporters have made her "fecundity" a point of discussion, should we be looking into the subject in evaluating all nominees to the federal bench?
14
Well, I’m glad Ross is at least candid about his idea of female empowerment. It means using a woman to restrict women’s reproductive rights. As I said, he’s honest but also appalling.
6
The US Supreme court hasn’t even established that it knows what it is to establish something. It has become a joke to me.
1
The two male contenders have the appearance of a couple college freshmen who've just retired their skateboards. So much for depth & sagacity. If confirmed, RBG might attempt to sway either one into swing voters by displaying a cookie jar.
It doesn't matter. The Supreme Court is gone for a generation. The lunatic fringe has turned it into a 17th century archaic and unhelpful entity, seemingly unaware of advances in knowledge for the last 300 years or so. We now only have a functional legislative and executive branch, so we need to focus on those.
Our laws must change as human knowledge and human consciousness changes. Why can't some people understand that? And, in life, if you are not adapting, you are dying.
5
Umm...unless you haven't noticed, we don't have a functioning legislative branch. Which means we do have a monarchy. Promises Made. Promise Kept. Promises. Make America Guilded Again.
3
So Ross is letting the cat out of the bag: He is a seriously believing Catholic, who believes that abortion is murder.
He therefore wants the President to select Amy Barrett, who having adopted a special needs kid, would consider abortion to be a crime even if the fetus were to have Down's syndrome.
But her interview with Trump apparently did not go well, so he is willing settle with another Catholic candidate, Kavanaugh. However, he omits to mention that Kavanaugh worked for Kenneth Starr, and urged him to proceed with impeaching President Clinton for lying about
having "sex" with an intern.
Well, that is a pretty low bar for removing a president. Will Kavanaugh set the same bar for a president who may well be guilty of money laundering, obstruction of justice, and treason?
14
Huh? How is making laws where were women can't make decisions about their own bodies female empowerment? Honestly I don't understand. And BTW I was brought up religiously conservative and I know that that and female empowerment are oil and water.
4
“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. »
A justice may not wear impartiality as a mask; they solemnly swear to it.
6
The do. They provide the same right to the poor and the rich to live under bridges when it rains.
1
A "marriage between female empowerment and religious conservatism" would be an oxymoron.
15
I would be happy to support another Catholic Justice if I was assured that they would leave their religious views at the courthouse door. As the darling of the conservatives "Tony" said, you cannot leave your background at the door...
1
Very simple, whoever is the most conservative should get the nod!
1
Oh Lord, just focus on the real job description, "keep me out of jail."
2
None of them are conservatives. They are neocons, groomed by the far right movement to enshrine their beliefs into law - so afraid of "the other" that the only way they can feel safe is by remaking America (and the rest of the world) into their own image.
1
Ross
1) If you are so concerned about the fetus, what about the resulting child and mother? I see no evidence of compassion in conservatives for the fetus or mother once born. If the fetus is so precious why isn't the new born child? Why are conservatives taking away health care and food stamps from the parents?
2) Barrett appears to belong to a religious group that seems to me to be extreme even by Catholic standards. It has certain aspects that are similar to cults. We already have enough right wing Catholics who are members of the conservative Opus Dei on the court. I personally object to judges that put their religious views above the written law. We do not need another. Put it another way, how would your Christian friends react to an avowed atheist on the court.
3)Finally and most importantly, ending Roe will not end abortion. At best the states will take over and at worst the back-alley practitioners will. Either way women will suffer and die as a result.
Why don't you realize that your views on abortion are clouded by your religious indoctrination as a child. Since the overwhelming majority of people never change their religion from the one they are born with, it is obvious to me that most people's religious beliefs are cultural conditioning rather than attained knowledge.
6
Eloquent comment. By the way Mr. Douthat actually converted to Catholicism as an adult.
What do legal chops have to do with a selection? Zero. Does anyone believe that Thomas was selected because of his legal chops? Remember during the hearings when Biden had to explain a legal footnote to him? Biden? So the "inhumane abortion"decision is overturned. Then what? Are Griswold and Baird up for grabs and the presumption of privacy, on which Roe and Lawrence rest, also up on the conservative chopping block? Then what? You wring your hands in your column?
Being ironic, Douthat? "Normally a president facing a Supreme Court vacancy makes a big show of seeking out the Most Qualified Nominee and insisting that the process should be all about résumés rather than mere politics."
Like the clerics on Lenin's Bay Area 9th Circuit bench, perhaps? Sotomayor and Kagan were the best in the land or just ready and willing to run the Obama agenda till death do them part?
Stop with such nonsense--have you forgotten FDR and his war on the Court?
The real show will be watching Schumer and Pelosi whine and obfuscate and kick up as much barnyard dirt as possible--but in the end, Trump will have his way.
Where's Obama when you really need him, tweeting about his library, videos, books, or vacations? Seems so.
2
Ross, your “inhumane abortion settlement” granted the full rights of humanity to the women in the US over 4 decades ago. We won the right to control our bodies and our lives. We aren’t going to give those rights back no matter what you and a bunch of black-robed rulers try to do.
11
America is as torn apart as I have ever seen it. A real president who cared about our country would steer to the middle and bring us back together.
7
The so called conservative voice writes there are only a few things conservatives do well. Would it be acceptable to write there are only a few things that Armenians, Japanese, Haitians, Sioux do well? I’m glad I don’t run in his circle of friends. Where I live stereotyping is shunned and mocked.
3
So Barrett's interview with Trump "apparently went quite badly." I guess she didn't flirt, simper and act submissive enough.
6
Ross in case you have not noticed conservatism is pretty good at winning elections.
2
Conservatives have cleverly leveraged their power by funding radio talk(added Fox) so prevalent, that mixes their version of social darwinism, religiosity, in with traditional platitudes along with its after all patriotic. The average citizen isn't sufficient educated to discern shades of truth. Trump will test their perseverance.
3
Let's see what you say after November.
As a non Catholic I am so confused by the holier high ground they seem to take when it comes to the "unborn" and defense of criminal behavior and inhumane actions against the actual born. From what I, as a religion observer (thankfully not a participsnt) can tell, it's ok to force women to do the bidding of the Church, and by extension, have the government do the same, and then to abandon said offspring and mother once the child actually lives and breathes on earth. But that is not enough. The innocents are then delivered into clutches of predatory representatives of Celestial representatives who, once they molest the children of their flocks, are protected and defended. Please spare us the morality of protecting children in the womb, where until a person emerges and lives amongst us it's a matter best left to a woman and her doctor, and evidence more concern for the living breathing person after it is born. While the U.S. remains one of the few countries that outlaws abortion, even "devout" a devout country like Ireland can no longer stand the hypocrisy, rocked by religious scandal committed by both men and women of the cloth. Get the government out of the womb.
25
If nature meant for women to judge then God would have been a woman.
If God had intended for a woman to judge then he would have made a covenant with a matriarch aka Mrs, Abraham.
If God meant for women to judge then he would have given his ten suggestions to Mrs, Moses.
If God had intended for women to offer salvation to humanity then he would have had a daughter instead of a son to wash our sins away.
If Jesus meant for a woman to build his church then he would have not picked Peter but Mary.
1
G-D created the world, but unfortunately allowed men to write the story.
1
Abortion, abortion, always abortion does it surprise anyone that despite a few paragraphs pretending to list the positives of other candidates Douthat chose a catholic who is even more catholic than Scalia?
I for one hope that it is she that Trump picks. As the least qualified, despite Douthat having inside info from Notre Dame sources, and as the most radical she would give little wiggle room to wavering Democtraic Senators and would rally Democrats, especially women, to the polls in November.
4
Judge Barrett is a perfect spokesman for the “pro-life” movement: fetishize having children, but don’t care much about them after they are born. I’m sorry, but there is no way you become a legal superstar by the age of 46 while meeting the parenting needs of 7 children. Her kids are being raised by someone else, so what does it matter how many she has?
7
I wonder about this, also. As a child in a family of nine children, our mother had the assistance of our grandmother, an unmarried aunt who lived with us, and other relatives who lived within a few mile of our home. There was still not enough attention for every child available when needed.
I don't see how my mother could have the stamina to devote 8-10 hours a day, every day, to a demanding outside job, and then come home to nurture her children and her spouse.
Amy Coney Barrett has seven children and two are adopted. She also has a special needs child. I find this very commendable don't you.
So, here's the thing, Ross. I don't like abortion, but I'm a conservative. So I want the government to get out of my bedroom, and I bitterly resent its attempt to get in my uterus.
If you were a conservative, you would understand this.
32
I am a liberal, so I want to protect a woman's right to privacy and to choice.
It always seemed to me, that in this, conservatives and liberals were of a kind, not enemies.
But both liberalism and conservatism seem to have been overrun by something quite different - and toxic to both.
2
The rank dishonesty of this process, that will not even ask these phonies what an "establishment of religion" is, only intensifies my contempt for the incapacity of the US to face up to the truth about anything, most particularly its ludicrously fake claims to be Godly in any way.
3
It would be so refreshing to hear a man concerned about 'our inhumane abortion settlement,' address his comments to men and their role in 'unwanted' pregnancy.
7
Just another white man telling woman what they can or can not do. Why are conservatives so afraid of women? We are capable of making our own choices. Please, just leave us alone.
12
What an absurd categorization! But I would agree that Kavanaugh has the inside edge. Why? Simply because Kavanaugh's writing reveal a bias SO bizarre he should never sit on any bench. Here's why in a nutshell:
Kavanaugh, working with Ken Starr, argued that a President could be indicted and should be impeached with a Democrat, Clinton, was President.
But when Bush was President, Kavanaugh, in the executive branch, argued just the opposite, that President Bush had total, complete, absolute authority over the Justice Dept and , as such, could commit any offense, and was virtually invulnerable to impeachment. That's the worst kind of Justice but that's EXACTLY what Trump is looking for--A guy who won't just bend but will EXPLODE the Constitution to protect Trump's march to absolute power as a tyrant.
Sorry, Ross, but Barrett IS unqualified because she puts her religious beliefs above that which she, as a Federal Judge, has given her oath. Remember Roy Moore? He was removed TWICE as Chief Justice because he put his religious beliefs ahead of the US and Alabama Constitutions. Feinstein was 100% right to rake Barrett over the coals. Our highest law, still, in the United States is the Constitution, not the Bible!
Kethledge is the stealth candidate, the clone of Gorsuch, Alito and maybe Roberts. But how is that good for America?
In the short term, it's good for corporations, and Republican corruption, gerry-mandering, and voter suppression. Trump will send Kavanaugh.
Translation:
1. Acknowledging a woman's right to determine what happens to her body is an 'inhumane settlement'. What's that, you ask? What about tolerance of if not advocacy for police brutality specifically targeting 'the blacks'? And baby prisons for browns? Yawn.
2. Our purported disdain for identity politics was always a most cynical sham, as earlier demonstrated by our cramming onto the Supreme Court of the comically-inadequate but politically-useful 'jurist' (read Republican pamphleteer) Clarence Thomas. The three women already there? They don't believe the right things; they don't count.
So this is the abyss.
14
And there it is. Ross wants a justice who shares his religious beliefs so she can impose their jointly held religious beliefs on everybody.
10
So even for Douthat un-democratic power politics is the answer. Those who want to eliminate abortion as a legal option for women have not been able to come close to convincing a majority of Americans to support them (for one thing, there's that awkward rape/incest part that won't go away). Rather than keep trying to make better arguments to win support, they: 1) strip the a majority-elected president of his right to make a SC appointment; 2) take away the filibuster in the Senate for SC nominees; and 2) allow a minority-elected president to put in an a stare decisis-ignoring Roe-hater. Why? Because they CAN.
1
Saving our culture? Our culture is already lost when children are ripped from their parents' arms and 're-settled' to who knows where?
How about we save the children that are already ON this planet, hmmmm? Quite a few of those need saving and I don't see you or your Republican buddies spending much time with that. You spend a lot of time on punishment and denying them and torturing them and denigrating them, but I don't see much saving.
That culture should NOT be saved.
If you believe that each zygote at implantation has a soul, then that soul's journey is what it will be - just like for all of us. I don't believe each zygote has a soul but you want to force that upon me. I don't believe in your god. This is America and your god does not hold sway with me.
This 'marriage' is a bad deal and should not be 'saved'.
3
My ancestors published a German Catholic newspaper and its motto was "More Catholic Than the Pope". I've come to believe that Douthat should make that part of his byline. Although he would most likely find The Massachusetts Code of 1648 suspect because of its Puritan origin, I'm sure his modern version of their "Citty upon a Hill" would come complete with strict conservative judges steeped in Judeo-Christian culture, stay at home moms with families the size of Judge Barrett's, religious processions down neighborhood streets, and all the rest. I thought I escaped that after growing up in the 50's but somewhere out there Douthat has found a monsignor, a parochial school staffed by nuns and 50 kids to a classroom.
1
Abortion should be free, safe and on demand anything short of that is in fact an "inhumane abortion settlement."
11
I'm not surprised Mr. Douthat favors Ms. Barrett. I also assume that he will be fine with her inevitably evasive and deceitful answers concerning her position on abortion rights. I guess lying to Congress doesn't disturb your code of ethics does it Ross?
14
Ross, you and your family are free to follow your own religious beliefs and not have abortions. Why, however, do you feel that you may use the legal power of the state to compel my family and I to follow your religious beliefs? That is a violation of the separation of church and state. It is also a violation of the Constitutional civil rights of women. As policy it is downright stupid. All of the evidence--scientific, factual evidence, Ross--tells us that making abortion illegal does not end abortion. Where abortion is illegal it becomes a backroom amateur operation that kills and maims women. Middle class and rich women can afford to go elsewhere for their abortions. The killed and the maimed will be the young and the poor and the abused and the working class.
7
Ah, Douthat unchained! If our society is to be saved, it will require nothing less than to be controlled by Catholic hegemony. A "priest in every pot", and repeal of the First Amendment!
10
Your church of choice, Catholicism, declared a traveling Jewish rabbi as one part of a Trinity at the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E.
Israel is a country with a state religion, one that has a Rabbinical Court which decides who can marry whom, who is a "real" Jew - only the Orthodox -, where there is a ruckus over the length of a woman's skirt and where she sits in a bus, has one of the most liberal abortion laws.
Their abortion laws were decided by a majority of a quite conservative parliament, not a court - Rabbinical of otherwise.
No matter the reason why a women wants to have an abortion - which is quite a heavy burden for anyone contemplating it - the procedure is free under their universal healthcare system in a country that actually has a state religion.
2
How useful has christian anxiety about all things sex been these past 70 generations?
The American government is supposed to be secular, so why is the erosion of the separation of church and state always under threat by the conservative's choice of SCOTUS candidates. Keep religion out of it.
The bible is silent on contraception and abortion. Why is this even an issue? The bible is NOT silent on slavery, it condones it. We no longer do (after a war that killed 600,000 people). What kind of morality is predicated on this book? This book is bursting with the most immoral behavior both human and divine - genocide, ethnic cleansing, sexual slavery, murder of children, etc. It is feint praise that much of this book can be safely ignored.
Morality and ethics is in our brains, not some Iron Age holy book.
ps. put Merrick Garland at the head of the list.
5
Mr. Douthat, as a conservative. and I make the assumption, a constitutionalist, how do you square your desire for overturning “inhumane abortion settlement” with separation of religion and state? Where does the right to personal freedom become secondary to government control of our bodies?
The inconsistency of the personal agendas of the right and the stated separation of church and state in our founding formational
Document is a bridge too far.
4
Well, soon your dream will come true. Roe v Wade will be overturned. Then women in some states will be able to terminate unwanted pregnancies, women in other states will be forced to deliver human beings they do not want and cannot care for. If women cannot terminate a pregnancy , then they cannot love their lives as full humans. Women have no ethical obligation to produce a child if it isn't feasible to them. Biology is not destiny. However, the advances in medications, the morning after pill, etc. and funding for information and distribution, will be a strong factor in keeping women's reproductive rights, despite the Supreme Court ruling.
4
How would the overturn of Roe "save" our culture? It would cause women to seek illegal and possibly unsafe abortion providers -and women have sought abortions for thousands of years in all sorts of cultures-I suspect that even the Puritans had back alley channels. As to Ms. Barrett, I am , as a liberal, not appalled by her fecundity, far from it. But not every woman has the inclination or the income to have many children. I can't help but think that many in the anti Roe crowd think of a woman first as a fetal vessel-everything else that a woman might wish for her life must be subordinated to the fact that she has the "ladyparts."But this is 2018, and we are still the United States, not Gilead, much as many anti choicers would like us to reside there.
3
"In our primary typology she’s basically what religious conservatives hoped that Sarah Palin would be, before the Alaskan started giving interviews."
Whatever one's opinion of Mr. Douthat and this process, that is a great line.
4
I wonder if all three will be up on stage in prime time, and the great donald will announce the second runner up, and then after a long rambling monologue about his greatest presidency ever, the first runner up for the SCOTUS crown! We are living the Hunger Games but the stakes are real.
3
The pick will be the person that has been approved by the conservative "think tanks", the Koch brothers, the misnamed evangelical "christians", Pastor Pence, and lastly, the jurist who will pledge loyalty to Trump and the laws of conservatives and cast any apolitical thoughts that a justice should follow into the trumpster fire.
2
Sometimes I ask myself: what if the Democrats, or some other party, shared my political beliefs, but were as ruthless and as free of ethics as the Republicans? What if this imaginary party got its way by changing the rules constantly, holding the country's credit hostage to political demands, collaborating with a fake news industry, stonewalling all opposition, using the law to suppress opposition votes, and the courts to stop elections? And, more to the point, what if this party got an unqualified front man elected to the presidency by baiting voters with his celebrity, pandering to crude fears & prejudices, and lying about most everything? Would I be at peace with the victories that this president stole on the back of democracy? His laws fighting for economic justice, his restoration of progressive taxation, his expansion of health care, his pro-choice court appointments--would I happily take them in exchange for the complete destruction of civil politics, for the trashing of all standards of honesty or ethics? How would I weight the benefits & the losses? Do you have thoughts, Mr Douthat?
3
Douthat: "... where jurists become icons and celebrities, ..."
I doubt that most people could name even one Supreme Court justice present or past. And my candidate for the most likely to be known would be Scalia.
As for myself, I made a list of the current bench, but could remember only eight names. After checking, one of those is no longer on the bench.* So that's seven out of nine.
* It wasn't Scalia.
The Supreme Court Show needs an intermission! Barrack Obama was denied his pick for he Supreme Court with eight months to go for an election.Trump and McConnell are rushing this choice like a "house on fire", which it probably is.There are just three months before an election when you subtract time for vacation and a month for electioneering.During this time we may get the Mueller report which will tell us how much the Russians swayed our election and if Mr.Trump colluded.Why should Mr.Trump make this consequential decision when his presidency is under a cloud and both houses could flip in November?
1
Stare Decisis (Let previous rulings stand)
Let us just say that another Conservative Supreme Court justice is selected (another Cahtolic).
Republicans should be careful about what they wish for...
Two-thirds of Americans are pro-choice. There would be chaos if Roe were overturned.
Democrats would go to the poles en masse. They already outnumber Republicans.
One or two or even three of the Conservative justices (Thomas not, Alito not) would thus opt for Stare Decisis to save face and avoid the chaos.
Republicans would lose the big club they have been carrying around since 1973 and thus become apathetic and vote less.
Victories for Democrat senators and representatives would give them the committee hammers.
The Democrat Congress could make law regarding Citizens United, gun safety and other bothersome issues making the court superfluous.
No more gridlock.
We will have made America Great Again.
Father Douthat would be sad.
1
Douthat also has subtext always- He is a fervent Catholic and I doubt his preferred choice-Barrett- was based on Mrs. Barrett's legal chops? I hope none of them take office. They might have legal acumen but I think they are the outliers to what many most Americans believe and practice. The Republicans and former conservatives- How can they call themselves conservative anymore? since they support Trumps big spending, friendship with dictators and authoritarians, against free trade, tariffs, and many other policies. How Douthat can support the terrible just to end abortion- what a Faustian bargain. I think Trump's "Make America Great Again" wants to go further back- not Eisenhower, but Hoover.-
1
I suppose there are rationales why a philosophical conservative would want to insert religious interpretations into the laws of the United States, but I am bedeviled to understand them! Yes, laws from Hammurabi to the Bible deal with crime, but our nation formally secularized them in 1789 without the sky falling in.
3
Once and for all, women have the right to control their own bodies. Men have to stop dictating what we do with them. Mr. Douthat as the social safety nets disappear do you intend to step up and take care of these children? I think not. Abortion is a very difficult choice, but it's now ours. What does taking that away get you?
9
Mr. Trump, a business man, will undoubtedly make a well-considered and rational choice. As he always does.
For Mr. Douthat: Is single issue politics (abortion) about to convince you that Mr. Trump actually is making America great again? Ah, yes. It is all worth it for the Supreme Court.
Each of Trump’s Supreme Court hopefuls should be asked what they thought of the GOP’s refusal to consider Garland. Anyone who agrees with the scheming that stole President Obama’s Constitutional right to nominate candidates for our Highest Court simply cannot be trusted to uphold the Constitution. Period.
1
I agree that being under investigation should delay a confirmation of a Justice who may decide a case that has the President as a party but it has to happen before the next season. It is frustrating to read Me Douthat and his hypocrisy by supporting overturning precedents and criminalize women and doctors making a difficult decision. Speaking of legislating from the bench! Why not do tried and true ways to decrease abortion and keep the government out of what is not their business. Give families hope that they can afford to raise a child and that we have wise men and women guiding us and we can avoid the increase in abortions that accompany Republican administrations. Democracy is hard work and show people if it important to decrease abortions, then value the mothers life and the need to reduce poverty and do the work involved. If you don’t then you don’t really want any more than dominating and controlling women. I’m sorry but the Republicans have been anti-life and pro abortion and pro government interference, anti state rights(recognizing other states need to accept marriages performed in other states), pro legislating from the bench but we let them call Democrats such things and don’t hit them back. I just can’t understand that. Put the Republicans on the defensive. Ross starts out sensible and gets back to his litmus test. Riss, abortion has never been totally outlawed anywhere, in the BIBLE or treated as murder in most countries. Stop throwing stones.
The Trump-skeptic conservative pundits really show their true colors when they are pushing their preferred Supreme Court pick. The unprecedented failure to give the centrist Merrick Garland even a hearing (and in the case of many GOP senators the failure to even meet him) is the ultimate symbol of the breakdown of norms and extreme partisan polizarization that they all decry. And the consequent vacant Supreme Court seat ended up being the major reason that a significant number of Republicans put aside their misgivings about Trump and voted for him, as McConnell intended. A truly principled conservative would oppose any of Trump's nominees on the ground that it is filling a stolen Supreme Court seat. Yet here are all these so-called never Trumpers and Trump skeptics who daily decry the breakdown of norms and what has become of the GOP under Trump saying, "pick this one," "this one's my favorite."
1
Forget about law-school diversity, or gender diversity, or racial diversity. It’s time we had an atheist on the court.
8
Too bad, Ross, that President Trump does not share your interest in content; even though I find your - and Barrett's position on Roe v. Wade unconscionable. Fortunately, I suspect so do Collins and Murkowsky, and unless some scared Democrats can be further scared up by Trump and Co., Barrett is potentially an embarrassing failure-to-confirm; something I suspect is a deal-breaker for Trump and McConnell, whose main interest is in getting a conservative on the court before the midterm elections endanger the Republican's shaky control of the Senate.
Ross, what abortion settlement would you consider humane? Illegality? That won't stop abortions, just make them unsafe and put poor women at greater risk than they already are in.
If you truly wish to bring down the rate of abortions, you should support all forms of contraception, in all circumstances. I bet you do not.
2
Judge Barrett "deserves the job on the merits?"
Ms. Barrett was a law professor at Notre Dame before Trump nominated her and the Senate confirmed her to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on Halloween, 2017.
Her judicial experience extends a full eight months.
We should be wary of placing inexperienced partisans in positions of high power; right, Mr. Trump?
12
Making abortion illegal is unlikely to restore the country's culture. Abortions will still continue and for the poor less safely while the comfortable will be able to fly to a civilised country to have the procedure performed if that is what the woman wants. And which culture is Douthat referring to?
If one thing is clear about 21st century America - it is made up of many cultures some of which are more enlightened than others. I suspect though that what he means is the white Christian privilege of the late 19th and early 20th century.
7
Whoever Trump picks, the right wing will control the Supreme Court, the Executive Branch and the Legislature. In each branch of government, the right wing has shown they will stop at nothing to seize and hold onto power. If progressives and centrists do not figure out how to win elections decisively soon, it will become increasingly difficult to wrest power from the right wing through political means. Right now, our biggest problem is that too many people don't vote. If this doesn't change soon, the right wing will continue to advance their legislative and legal agenda to deprive us of the ability to change our government through elections. What will stop them? They are "originalists"--deep down they believe that the only people who should vote are white male property owners. Let's not get distracted by whether Trump picks Mr. Awful or Ms. Beyond the Pale. They have seized judicial power because too many people don't vote, and they have no scruples about respecting democratic process.
8
Even on the most atheist and liberal foundations of social contract theory, the most fundamental obligation of any government is to provide a minimum of security to ensure that people don't kill each other. This is precisely Hobbes' contention: we either have one king of the hill and lots of dead bodies, or a mutual surrender of individual authority to create a government at least to protect basic rights like life. That obligation has been neglected by the U.S Government under the pretense that the beginning of human life is unknown, unknowable, cannot be established in civil law, is a "metaphysical doctrine," and a thousand and one other excuses to feign Justice Blackmun's ignorance that the courts cannot know when life begins or Anthony Kennedy's even more risible "jurisprudence" (more appropriate to a fortune cookie) that everybody can decide "the meaning of the universe." I look forward to a judge who recognizes the fundamental obligation of the law is to protect life -- and therefore consigns Roe v. Wade, like its illegitimate predecessor Dred Scott v. Sandford -- to the trashcan of judicial infringements of civil rights.
2
Mr Douthat's blatant inhumanity - his unseemly giddiness about a new right-wing justice who will definitively erase the constitutional barrier between church and state - and erase decades, no, centuries of brutally hard-won civil rights and protections for the health and safety of our people and our planet - is gasp-inducing.
The fertilized eggs of children, rape victims and others forced to term and slated for lives of destitution - the same gender men and women who will lose the right to marry and build secure families - the cancer-causing poisons dumped freely in our waterways, land and air - the GOP propaganda that will flow freely throughout this SCOTUS-blessed gerrymandered land.
THESE are not the family-centric values of the once decent Republican party from my childhood, sir.
THESE are family-destroying, democracy-destroying, and soul-destroying values.
11
Don't get your hopes up, Ross. It would be pretty darned surprising if Donald J Trump nominated a WOMAN to a position whose holder might one day wield actual decision power over the fate of his own presidency. That's just not in his constitition.
1
Ross, consider please, too, the rights of future generations to eternal life on earth. And how these rights are being sacrificed on the altar of have more now. So, please consider in the balance of justice, the balance tilted most heavily to sunset side of man and further from all the dawn Eves of earth. I would tag my view of this as being most conservative and yours the most liberal by subjugating the meaning of eternal to all the ends of man.
No surprise Douthat prefers a theocracy. That the views of a justice would be subordinate to religious dogma - and that he resents a senator questioning that bias - is frightening and goes against the foundation of our democracy.
5
"But my real preference is still for Barrett, and for reasons that, if I’m being honest, have a lot in common with the president’s focus on the judge-as-personality. I have enough friends at Notre Dame vouching for her legal chops to give me confidence that she deserves the job on the merits. But I also suspect that the combination of her sex and her religious beliefs would give her more fortitude than a male justice on the one issue where I want judicial action, not restraint: Overturning our inhumane abortion settlement."
"….if I'm being honest," indeed. For at the end of this long and tedious day, Ross, the "Overturning or our inhumane abortion settlement" will only grant you and others the abortion settlement you have long maintained, that being one of many, many trimesters as that same individual you chose to foster in word only is found languishing for lack of any social assistance, that is all but their right to buy a gun. Those "legal chops" have worked out real well. dru
There is a lifelong Republican judge from New Hampshire with more experience and judgment than the trio described by Douthat. His thoughtfulness and steady hand would be a welcomed addition to the Court.
His name is David Souter.
If we Americans are to have freedom of religion, we also need freedom FROM religion. Folks proposed for the Supreme Court oppose abortions based upon how they read the Bible, oppose gay marriage, and justify state sanctioned executions. The Bible says we should feed the hungry, house the homeless, and clothe the naked. But all of Trump’s proposed judges oppose paying taxes to the government at all levels to help the least among us. They say everyone should be free to give to charity to help those whose lot is in a bad way, but NO ONE should have to pay taxes in order to do so.
NO ONE should be on the Court who may may pick and choose from the Bible to justify what is the Law. Everyone on our Supreme Court MUST keep God and the Bible OUT of ALL their decisions. Let Judge Amy Barrett, a leading candidate, and her kind, decide the law guided by stare decisis and Kant's categorical imperative — NOT GOD & THE BIBLE. Let Rightwing Republican ideology go back to the lunatic fringe where it was from the 1940’s to the 1970’s; Democrats must oppose Rightwing Republican ideology. The bedrock of our Supreme Court must be the Constitution, NOT Republican ideology.
1
What about the many many of us who are not Catholic? I am getting weary of all the Catholics on the court; I wish I didn't have to say it like that, but Catholic beliefs about women in general absolutely scare me.
Many of us are truly terrified of the way church and state seem to be merging these days......I am grateful to be an older woman and becoming invisible, so not a target. Younger women will have to step up.
12
No matter how you shake it, dissect it, describe it or try to justify it, a SCOTUS vote to diminish or eliminate the right to abortion is a violation of a woman's equal rights and to healthcare. You cannot be equal and yet subject to another — whether it be a husband, a fetus or the government. No matter how many religions see a fertilized egg as equivalent to a born and extant human being, an equal number of non-religious, scientifically based atheists or agnostics, or those following any other belief system at all are equally entitled to civil rights under the Constitution. Our Court cannot serve both religion and secular society if it enshrines one at the expense of the other. In centuries past we have seen the violence that results when the religious views of a particular sect is allowed to determine what the individual may or may not do when it comes to personal, intimate decision making. We cannot keep a secular society if the Court decides that only one view must prevail and that view diminishes the civil rights of half the population. (The Chinese decision to prohibit more than two births is no less pernicious than one which requires pregnancy go to term.) When abortion becomes illegal only the rich are able to access it. What kind of justice is OK when money tells you what your civil rights are? The kind that makes for bad law and contempt of the law and of the courts. In the end, you cannot have “democracy”
when “some citizens are more equal than others.”
2
I am so tired of Ms. Barrett's credentials listing how many children she has - with the special notation that some of her children are adopted and special needs.
As if she gets some kind of trophy for this? Why do we not know how many children the other candidates have? Is that to translate into some kind of blind faith to overturn Roe because she is woman and a mother?
I will remind you that Roberts has two adopted children and, when presented with the argument that gay marriage is wrong because it doesn't produce children, Roberts didn't exactly turn inward did he and regard his own marriage that didn't produce children?
No. He turned blindly toward the conservative light of hatred and voted against gay marriage.
Please do not ascribe Barrett's beliefs to overturn Roe to her motherhood or her sex.
5
What is needed on the Supreme Court are atheists who will have no reason to have the delusion of religious belief influence their judgements. The concept of the separation of church and state has too often be paid only lip service by government officials and has been outright flaunted by many politicians. We don’t need magical thinking and mumbo jumbo to provide moral guidance to right thinking people. Let’s drop the pretence of adherence to “the word of god” (as written by men) contained in such religious texts such as the Bible and the Koran, which has so often been used to justify morally reprehensible behavior, and select Supreme Court Justifies on the basis of their demonstrated qualifications, judgement and the principles which have guided them, irrespective of religion.
9
It is your opinion, I know. However to focus on a single issue like abortion when the court deals with a host of serious matters regarding the well-being of so many is simplistic. Someone with your vocabulary, could be a lot more nuanced in perpsective.
1
I never get the sense that people so righteously indignant about abortions are truly palpably injured by them other than to their abstract intellectual and philosophical sensibilities. We have murder laws for the protection of us all. Robbery laws for the protection of us all...etc, etc...terminating an unwanted or unhealthy pregnancy affects the parent and the unborn fetus with no real effect on the sanctimonious holders of religious conviction. This seems to me a case of the need to protect us all from the establishment of religion, one of the reasons we formed an insurrection against tyranny. We certainly have other more truly salient issues to settle than this one that evokes such hysterical responses. Having worked in juvenile court for 40 I'm also aware of the hypocrisy of the right who abjectly neglect the needs and interests of these living children.
2
Ross states the obvious. Barrett will decide cases based on her minority religious views. While such reasoning has no place in a secular democracy, Ross and the GOP will do anything to force their religious views on the rest of us, whether those views are actual beliefs or a means to an end.
24
Ross: essentially what you are saying is that the purpose of a Supreme Court Justice is not about interpreting law, but about promulgating specific ideology, and issuing fancy word opinions to justify personal moral views.
46
The conservatives once criticized the Supreme Court for acting as a legislature rather than a court. However, once the Court became dominated by conservatives, there is no criticism from the right for being too active. It now nullifies laws passed by legislatures in its quest to satisfy corporations and its conservative agenda. It gave free speech to corporations in terms of campaign finance. It crossed the line of separation of church and statein its ruling of the baker not serving a gay couple. Now Mr. Douthat wants the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade in support of his religious views even though a majority of Americans support free choice. The conservatives favor the tyranny of the Court when it favors their agenda, knowing that a majority oppose it from campaign finance, gun control and abortion. The conservatives and the religious right supported Trump so that he could appoint conservative judges to influence the"cultural wars" for the next twenty to thirty years. They know that the younger generations are more open minded on these issues. The Court can be a bulkward against our changing mores.
19
How easy it is for us men to argue against abortion when we will never have to make that agonizing decision. Mr. Douhat is not shy about his preference but he seems to believe that overturning Roe will miraculously end abortion as if abortion started when that decision was handed down. He seems to forget that abortion has been around for a long time. If Roe is overturned, we will create yet another divide in this country, this time between women in states that will allow abortion and those that will not, and to be clear only among those who may be most in need of such a procedure as women of means will always be able to get one.
It is also interesting to see Mr. Douhat always arguing that conservatives are for personal liberty, except, of course, when it comes to a woman’s right to choose, in which case the government should be left to make the decision on their behalf. This simply proves once again that so called pro-lifers only want to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us.
35
I believe that adjudication is necessary in a society to establish broad moral legitimacy. Sometimes the court ratifies public opinion, sometimes it leads.
For example, in 2003 the Supreme Court made same-sex sexual relationships legal and in 2015 deemed same-sex marriage legal—after many states had already passed legislation allowing these relationships.
Interestingly, in 1973 when Roe vs Wade came down from the court, abortion was illegal in 30 states and legal in only 4 states upon request. There wasn’t a tide of public opinion behind the decision.
According to Pew research, 57% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases and 40% believe it should be illegal in all or most cases. What we do know is that this issue brings the 40% to the polls—they care about this issue. Even so-called blue states have consent and notification laws, mandatory counseling and waiting periods, and ultrasound laws. Most states have “fetal homicide” laws. We Americans don’t like the idea of abortion even if we believe it should be legal.
This is an issue that most politicians and legislators would like to ignore. If 57% believe it should remain legal in this land, this Supreme Court appointment matters.
5
Mr Douthat seems to believe that abortion began with Roe v Wade. And like much of his ‘beliefs’, this one is also wrong.
Prematurely ending a pregnancy is probably as old as pregnancy. It’s a very sad, very difficult decision that women (and sometimes girls) have been making for a long, long time Roe only made the procedure safer, thereby saving women’s lives.
I have no problem with Ross being against abortion, in his private life - but I have lots of problems with him interfering with the lives of women in circumstances he knows nothing about.
I know more about being a woman and a mother than Ross. And as I’ve had an abortion as well, I know more about that than Ross and the ultra-Catholic judge. I don’t regret having had an abortion and never thought of it as a child. I’ve had three children so I know the difference - it seems they do not.
64
Another anti abortion proponent speaks and provides no clarity. Does Ross think all abortion should be illegal? Tell us. When 79% of the public think at least some abortion procedures should still be legal, what does Ross think some states will do if Roe is overturned?
28
It always amazes me that anti-abortion people like Douthat are so keen to see abortion made illegal, as will occur in many states post Roe, without addressing the inevitable consequences. With advances is medicine, women are poised to take on a much greater autonomy in effecting their own medical abortions; with a corresponding decline in the role of the much maligned "providers" who have, until now, served as convenient scapegoats. When this flip takes place, it will become the woman herself who is clearly responsible for breaking the new law. In the conservative mind, can punishment for the lawbreaker be far behind? Already states prosecute women for self-induced abortions outside legal time constraints. Expect such prosecutions to explode post Roe. Pro-lifers seem to find it very difficulty to countenance this outcome.
41
From one Catholic to another, certainly you, sir, remember what we were taught: "From the womb to the tomb." Whereas some interpret that as sacrificing the living for the unborn, I as a retired RN - and mother - instead perceive it as do not sacrifice the living for the fetus. From one Catholic to another, sir, "those among us without sin can cast the first stone." Do not stone my human and moral rights to do with my mind and body what I choose.
78
I am a Catholic and never heard the saying from the womb to the tomb. It certainly makes for a clever slogan though and is very catchy.
I was taught as a Catholic that life is precious and begins at conception. This still has not changed and never will no matter how long the pro abortion folks preach this to be so. As a nurse, did you ever view a sonogram of a pregnant woman's womb and see the life inside that woman's body. It is not too late for you to do so and see that life actually does exist in that sonogram photo. I would highly recommend you do so.
Yes. But my first job was in labor and delivery in SF. And I saw first hand tragedy for moms as well as newborns. We had a close friend, a Reformed Jewish Rabbi, now deceased and a beautiful man. I asked him why he agrees with abortion. He replied that his belief is that the unborn does not truly become a human being until the head and one or both shoulders make their entrance into the world from the mother's womb. I agree with him and still consider myself Catholic.
1
From one Catholic to another, how do you feel about the fact that over 90% off all abortions are, basically, retroactive birth control? Rape, incest, and the physical life of the mother are one thing: inconvenience is quite another.
1
An honest column by Ross Douhat. Supreme Court vacancies tend to bring out the inner truth. He gives a dazzling thumbnail sketch of the supposed top runners (Trump likes to tease and pivot, though), seems to land on one of the two guys and then reveals that 40 years on the bench is not too many to root for a nominee on the hope that one and only one ruling will be overturned, that doctors and women performing or seeking an abortion will finally, at long last, be imprisoned, scorned, painted with a bright new scarlet A.
It's honest, like the cheers of many Republicans that families at the border were finally being forcibly separated, that border crossing rapists, ages 18 months and up, were finally being punished, caged, hurt.
Douthat argues that abortion rights are inhumane. As Al Jolson one remonstrated, "We ain't heard nothing yet."
27
No judge who would accept this President's nomination has the integrity or character necessary to sit on the Supreme Court.
80
Ross had a pretty good column going until the absurd statement "Overturning our inhumane abortion settlement." There is nothing inhumane in allowing women to choose abortion. They are the only ones who can weigh such a difficult decision. Likewise, even if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, it will be because the Court realizes there is no right to abortion anywhere in the constitution. The justices personal feelings about abortion will be a largely irrelevant.
The end of Roe vs. Wade will return regulation of abortion to the states, based on the states authority to regulate the practice of medicine in general. Many state legislatures will choose to keep abortion legal because it is common sense to do so in a modern, civilized society. Legal abortion is a legislative prerogative; only in the muddled thinking of liberals has it ever been a "right."
13
Joe, Muddled thinking seems to depend on point of view in the case of the Supreme Court. For example, How many gun owners are members of a well regulated militia, or would be willingly conscripted by the federal government, or perhaps their state of residency, because they own a gun? To me the 2nd Amendment seems to suggest one or both. But somehow only the right to own a gun is all that is left. Is it muddled thinking to say that parts of the Constitution have effectively been thrown away?
34
It depends on whether the court overturned Roe on 10th or 14th Amendment grounds. I would not be surprised if the right wing activists concluded that a fetus is a person under the 14th and it could not be deprived of life thus making abortion illegal in all 50 states.
1
Mr. Douthat:
I am unclear.
Do you want to decrease the number of abortions or do you just want to over turn Roe.
These two are not the same.
Outlawing abortion will not decrease the total number of abortions.
You will have less safe abortions but more back alley coat hanger butcher jobs where often the expectant mother hemoraged to death. The sum [safe plus butcher jobs] will remain the same.
I am old enough to remember the pre Roe era when too many of those butcher jobs occurred.
Do you want to go back to that era.
Contraceptive availability and information will reduce unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions.
Some rigorous Catholics oppose use of contraceptives and providing contraceptives to others.
Do we want that type of person on the Court.
Please rethink your position.
66
My guess is Trump will not nominate Barrett now.
He will hold her in reserve to appoint her when Justice Ginsburg leaves the Court.
Trump will need to replace Ginsburg with a female.
Even if an anti-Roe person were nominated and confirmed it is not obvious that the Court would over turn Roe.
Alito /Thomas/ Gorsuch are lost causes but I'm not sure that Chief Justice Roberts would vote to over turn Roe.
Maybe more restrictions on abortion but not a complete over turning.
8
For many women further restrictions on Roe is tantamount to overturning it and depriving them of their Constitutional rights.
2
I am not advocating restrictions but just thinking what Roberts will do.
RD makes no pretense about how the religion of the SCOTUS nominee will be pertinent to her decisions. If so, then she should be questioned vigorously about her religion, religious beliefs ,and what role these beliefs have played in past rulings.
38
If so she has no place on SCOTUS or any other court. This is a secular society and religious beliefs have no business influencing any judges decision.
43
Seems like a simple rule applies : If the judge shares my religious beliefs then by all means rule according to my religious beliefs.
Your statement is exactly correct.
Democrats need to moderate their position on abortion in order to open the party to people like Douthat. I do not want to see Roe reversed for a number of reasons, but I do understand the queasiness it engenders, especially when conservatives focus on the rare instances of third-trimester abortions. Can a compromise be struck--no abortions after 20 weeks, let's say, unless the life of the mother is in danger?
11
I suspect most of us would agree with your recommendation, but the politics don't allow it. As with guns, giving in to any compromise to absolute abortion freedom is considered a start down the slippery slope of yet more acquiescence.
5
The Democrats need to stand firm. It's the GOP that is on the wrong side of history, especially when it comes to SCOTUS, which they are trying to steer back to the Stone Ages.
2
Do you seriously think a compromise would end at 20 weeks? Do you think that there is any point where conservatives would hold up their end of the bargain?
Would they quit creating laws requiring waiting periods, ultrasounds, hospital admitting privileges? Would they leave off regulating the size of hallways and janitor's closets?
Would they quit trying to weasel out of including birth control and maternity care as part of the ACA?
You and I know the answer is no. I'm not fond of slippery slope arguments, but I think it applies here.
There is no compromise point that the anti-Roe folks would adhere to.
2
"...cultivating serious judges is one of the few things conservatism does well..."
Yes, if "serious" means determined to roll back all the gains average Americans have experienced from a hundred years of enlightened legislation and jurisprudence.
74
You are exactly right, sir. You beat me to it. The conservative court will in the fullness of time wipe out every decision going back to 1935. Look what they've already done to civil rights and voting rights. Look at how they've expanded the power of the corporate plutocrats. Roe v Wade will be NOTHING in the balance, compared to what they do to the lower middle classes and the poor.
Ross can be so … cynical … for a good Catholic boy.
He’s playing a betting man’s game … with Trump (!) … despite his unwillingness to actually put money on the outcome – by giving Kavanaugh the edge. I guess that means that Coney WILL get it, and entertain us vastly not only for an immensely engaging confirmation process during which we get to hear ‘la Feinstein AGAIN seek to ward off a demon incarnate with complex incantations and exclamations about “Get thee BEHIND me, Satan!”; but also because Coney is easy on the eyes. It could be predictive that D.C. hocus shops appear to have had a recent run on eyes of newt and toes of frog.
But Ross, in his unusually fervent and unambiguous defense of a reversal of Roe v. Wade, puzzles me. Times pundits are nothing if not circumspect, even in TV interviews. Could what can only be characterized as a YUGELY offensive and clear position to the Times Editoriat be giving us pre-warning of an imminent announcement that “America”, the preeminent Catholic weekly magazine, is about to acquire a new voice?
Say it ain’t so, Ross.
12
A president elected illegitimately.
A president under investigation for that illegitimate election.
An illegitimate president allowed to fill a Supreme Court seat after that seat was stolen by Republicans.
A president allowed to fill another Supreme Court, that might be sitting in judgement on that president.
And you, Mr. Douthat, wax poetic about that illegitimate President's choices.
Sad.
219
illegitimately? can you explain back that up.
1
A concern for the fetus without a corresponding concern for the child once born is a love of the law, a love of telling people what to do and making them miserable if they disobey. Quite often it is a love of making women miserable who deviate from allowed sexual behavior, and the misery of the children involved is acceptable as collateral damage.
If we violated privacy by establishing a DNA registry, we could make male offenders against allowed sexual behavior miserable too. But our interest is limited to regulating female sexual behavior, and we recoil with horror at what would enable us to do to men what some of us are prepared to do to women. Since our attitudes are inconsistent, they can only be explained by venturing into regions much darker than those of love or logic.
82
C3p0:
Normally, I would reply to this comment with deflationary humor. But I too dread the prospect of a reversal of Roe.
13
Richard, Perhaps I am getting cynical in my old age but I very much doubt Republicans, even when they have the power, will ever get rid of legalized abortion. It’s much too useful a wedge issue for them to “fix.”
Justices should be deciding technical legal questions. Political hot potatoes should be decided by the legislative branches, Federal and state.
31
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" denies Congress the power to enact any legislation treating any article of faith or religious dogma as real. This is the most neglected law in this infantile land, and it applies specifically to Congress that purportedly represents us.
1
What you think is a "political hot potato," many women consider to be a fundamental right to bodily autonomy which should not be subjected to whims of partisan, mostly male, legislators
Thus spoke a conservative. Shouldn't we keep a healthy separation between religion (dogma, not subject to discussion) and state? Would judges elected by Trump be able to separate loyalty to the discriminator in-chief... from their obligation to use reason and common sense in deciding a case? Political partisanship ought to be a nonstarter, but apparently remains an issue, at the expense of justice.
27
It is unfortunate that it seems to be a given that the primary criterion for selection to the Supreme Court is politics. But in instances where the various nominees' political views, judicial temperament and intellectual capabilities are substantially equal, experience should be re-established as the primary determining factor.
Oops. I just realized that the person making the nomination to Court is someone who managed to get elected president with no relevant experience whatsoever. Never mind. Let's go with the nominee who will look better on tv and in group pictures.
37
These people are selected to treat the God delusion as a truth worthy of respect in law.
The one nice thing that I can say about the selection process is that two of the three finalists did not go to Yale or Harvard law school. There needs to be more law school diversity on the Supreme Court.
22
A religious diversity would help too. There are too many Catholics carrying the baggage of their own personal religious orientation,
God help the Supreme Court if the next appointee must be LIKED by Trump. Overall, the simple majority of 5:4 that is required for Court decisions is not a good rule. A 2/3 majority of 6:3 would have given the decisions a greater air of stability and permanence.
27
And validity.
"...the possible marriage between female empowerment and religious conservatism — the marriage that might ultimately save our culture, if it’s ever to be saved."
I'm exasperated by comments like this one by Mr. Douthat, which claim that the country is standing at the edge of Apocalypse with religious conservatism as the hope for "saving" our culture. My own deeply held religious beliefs have led me to support mostly progressive political positions. Does that mean I am not part of the healing of our society? Those who equate their religious and political conservatism with God's own answers for America, deny the important intellectual and moral contributions that people with other beliefs bring to important issues. Their narrative dramatically casts religious conservatives as guardians of the True American Way and the rest of us - apparently even those of us with moral and religious practices as serious as theirs- as opponents of good American values. It is a false narrative that encourages unholy pride and a dismissive attitude to fellow citizens.
245
Well written, Ms. Helle. I think your statement neatly captures the views of most of the framers of the Constitution. They feared the sectarian partisanship which Douthat's column exemplifies. The curious notion, however, that the SC can reverse the trajectory of American cultural development reveals an uncharacteristic confidence in secular institutions on his part.
31
All faith-based beliefs are equally insubstantial and unworthy of respect in legislation.
Exactly!! It is a narrative not based on common sense but on a narrow patriarchal interpretation of the Bible.
I'll give credit to Douthat for his honesty in stating why he supports Amy Barrett - "Overturning our inhumane abortion settlement."
But that does not make it right. For at least two reasons. First, conservatives like Douthat are critical of "activist" judges who "legislate from the bench," except when he favors their intervention and activism. Second, if intervention and activism is what he wishes for, will he support their CORRECT interpretation of the second amendment? That is, the right to bear arms is limited to the formation of a militia only, and not for walking into a mall or a movie theater or a college campus.
Although I credited Douthat for his honesty, I must also say in all honesty that he is wrong.
116
Overturning Roe will not end abortions nor will it necessarily drive them underground. What it will do is return the decision to the legislative process. If pro-choice is the position of such an overwhelming majority of the people as is commonly claimed, then we should see many state laws passed supporting the right to abort a pregnancy. Perhaps we will even see federal legislation supporting the practice. This will situate the issue where it can be properly analyzed and debated, and take it out of a forum poorly suited to decide the inevitable questions that have arisen since Roe was decided.
12
As evidence you might cite the state and federal legislation promoting gun control which the majority of the US population seems to favor. If people were more practical the focus would be on reducing the need for abortions instead of banning them.
21
The real question is whether any US legislature can lawfully enact any legislation that decrees or treats any religious or faith-based belief to be a universal truth.
Religion has nothing to do with practicality or pragmatism. One purportedly gets to Heaven by clinging to unreal beliefs for life.
It constantly amazes me just how these righteous calls to criminalize abortion are apparently and sincerely heart felt. That said, whether it's legal or not, abortion will always be present in our ethos.
A further amazement is what I see as the obvious irony of the "right-to-life" folks, since they seem to care greatly for developing embryonic cells while somehow not caring a whit about the slaughters in back-alley, makeshift "clinics".
53
Back alley slaughterhouses are, according to the “pro-birth” side the just desserts due women who would control their own healthcare and sexuality.
This is a edited version of acomment by another reader for another column:
About Amy Coney Barrett, only 46, and who has less than a year serving as a judge.
Ross says Barrett is " famous for having her Catholic commitments crudely criticized by Dianne Feinstein,"
Shouldn't he know as a journalist that Coney Barrett just 20 years ago co-authored a paper, "Catholic Judges in Capital Cases," with John H Garvey (currently President of the Catholic University of America, and dream leader of Gilead) that concluded Catholic judges are too greatly torn by their faith to judge certain cases?
The 2nd paragraph:
"The legal system has a solution for this dilemma-it allows (indeed it
requires) the recusal of judges whose convictions keep them from doing their job. This is a good solution. But it is harder than you think to determine when a judge must recuse himself and when he may stay on the job. Catholic judges will not want to shirk their judicial obligations. They will want to sit whenever they can without acting immorally. So they need to know what the church teaches, and its effect on them. On the other hand litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial justice, and that may be something that a judge who is heedful of ecclesiastical pronouncements cannot dispense. We need to know whether judges are sometimes legally disqualified from hearing cases that their consciences would let them decide."
Judge Amy should recuse herself from this job search.
119
May I add to your discussion that all of the conservative Justices on the SC are Catholic with large families. I am waiting for even one to recuse himself on a Roe case because of his religious "convictions". Give Choice the Voice.
1
On the contrary, unless she's suddenly "changed her mind" and follows this prescription, she'll recuse herself from decisions related to abortion rights. If a Senator would ask her whether or not she still agrees with this passage, and she answers "yes" she's clearly the best shot that abortion rights will be decided on secular grounds. And, if, in fact, she actually does what she says she ought to, her recusal in these cases will serve as an example to her co-religionists.
But Eban, don't you think we need a full time Supreme Court Justice? There would be many other cases she would have to recuse herself, e.g death sentence cases.
I agree that much of the time we would be be better off without her vote, but in the case of a 4-4 tie, the result depends on the case. With all the other judicial appointments Trump is liable to get, the lower courts will be unreliable also.
Why am I a liberal? Because of people like Ross, who thinks, in 2018, that a woman should have zero control over her body.
396
"... Ross, who thinks, in 2018, that a woman should have zero control over her body."
Where did "Ross" say anything like that? Post an exact quote.
Ross most probably also insists that at the moment of fertilization "personhood" starts.
In that case, every women before taking a flight should have a second ID for the "person" she carries inside her uterus.
Conservatism does an abysmal job of cultivating judges. Conservative scotus justices ignore precedents, decide ideologically and cite originalism (or whatever it’s called) to impose their religion on others.
Conservatives worship at the altar of limited government but their greatest all-consuming desire is to bring the entire coercive power of the federal government down hard on a young woman experiencing a crisis pregnancy.
Trump does nothing with his judicial nominations except choose from the menu provided by the federalists and the heritage foundation. His chief aim now is to find a Justice to protect him and his pardon powers from rough waters ahead.
Of course douthat favors judge Barrett. They are certain soulmates.
69
"... cite originalism (or whatever it’s called) to impose their religion on others."
If that's what you think "originalism" means, you don't know what you are talking about. Here is an accurate definition:
"originalism [US law]: a legal philosophy that the words in documents and especially the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted as they were understood at the time they were written" (Merriam-Webster online dictionary)
For more, see: "Scalia Speaks: Reflections on Law, Faith, and Life Well Lived" by Scalia, Scalia, and Whelan.
A president who is under criminal investigation should not appoint a judge to the Supreme Court. At least not until the criminal investigation is on-going.
In fact, any judge who may be recommended by Trump to fill the vacancy at the Supreme Court should consider that recommendation as a dishonor to his/her integrity.
Mitch McConnell stalled Obama's Supreme Court nomination.
Think about it. Obama was an honorable man. Trump is the opposite of honor.
We can not have a conversation about the suitability of Trump's nominations until Mueller's investigation is concluded.
138
I believe Trump's number one concern is a supreme court justice who will "have his back" if and when a case involving his campaign's Russian involvement reaches the court. He has repeatedly criticized Jeff Sessions for recusing himself from the investigation. Trump strongly believes that government officials of all stripes should put loyalty to him above the law.
As to Douthout's personal religious beliefs, I'm just glad that he doesn't have the ability to impose them on the rest of us.
123
I am not surprised that Mr. Douthat hopes American women will lose their right to legal abortion, because I have read enough of his columns to get the general drift. Perhaps he hopes for the end to contraception as well.
Nonetheless, it still amazes me that an educated person could wish to so circumscribe women in this modern era. Mr. Douthat must work with many accomplished women, quite a number of whom would be affected by such a prohibition. He must know and love female family members who might be affected by a future problem pregnancy. It is just very hard for me to understand how Mr. Douthat can believe a fetus has rights greater than all these women, and that his judgement should overrule theirs about what happens to their own bodies.
171
Those accomplished women Ross works with and is related to certainly includes women who have had abortions. Note to Ross: conservative women have the same rate of (induced) abortions as other American women. It is not necessary that you change your mind about abortion being immoral. It is time you rethink a conservative response to the religious freedom of people who believe that abortion can be a moral choice. Start by recalling (or learning) that at least three times as many abortions are spontaneous as compared to induced.
1
The United States Supreme Court has been hijacked by radical right-wing Republican jackals.
The GOP's decades-long, slow-motion evisceration of the will of the people has now reached its magnificent tyrannical pinnacle.
While burning Clintons and Obamas at the partisan stake for 25 years, Republicans have happily torched the American middle ground and the democratic process as they rigged representative government via gerrymander, voter suppression, nullified elections (2000), Senate obstructionism, the slave-state-inspired Electoral College, and Kremlin collaboration.
Now the 2018 Russian-Republican Party gets to plant its rancid Supreme Court justice cherry on its oligarchic court to deliver religious red meat, a national shooting gallery and Grand Old Poverty to everyone while corporate Robber Barons finally get the 0.1% justice they paid for.
Justices Alito and Roberts are the fruits of Bush-Cheney's 2000 grand larceny that delivered 0.1% Citizens United, the official death knell to American democracy.
And Trump - whose treasonous Kremlin campaign and Administration are worthy of Russia's Hero of the Russian Federation award - and Mitch McConnell - two of the smallest men in American history -- both say their proudest accomplishment is the installation of Neil Gorsuch into a stolen Supreme Court seat.
Grand larceny is what makes Republicans very happy.
Republican thieves slashing American justice, democracy, and the middle class to death is the show we're watching.
400
All I can say Ross, is, I'm sure glad you aren't president.
You make no pretense of your preference for having religion permeate law in this secular republic that you seem to forget has the emphasis on "secular."
Because, if the founding fathers wanted to make Christianity (or deism) the law of the land, they would have left out the establishment clause. As it is, they knew how important it was to both protect religious freedom for ALL religions, not just the prevailing ones at the time.
In other words, Joe Biden had it right over Paul Ryan: "I follow my church in my own personal actions, but I won't impose my church's views on all US citizens, whose religious views range from a variety of faiths to nothing at all.
I also take issue with your rather cavalier comment that, "Because cultivating serious judges is one of the few things conservatism does well..."
Are you saying that liberal Democrats don't produce "serious judges," just frivolous ones?
Well, while I'm still glad you're not president, I am glad you've taken off your gloves.
With your positions now crystal-clear--not that I didn't already suspect them--maybe I'll be spared having to reread your tortured defenses of them just to be sure you actually said what I think you did.
346
"Are you saying that liberal Democrats don't produce "serious judges," just frivolous ones?"
Conservatives are the only ones with "family values" too!
4
As Franklin once said, our government "is a Republic, if you can keep it." I will add, and a theocracy if we can't.
2
Christine,
Right on. Mr. Douthat always appeared to me as the Wolf in sheep's cloth.
Like Mr. Brooks, the silent enablers.
It's fascinating for me to watch a Republic, whose Constitution separates Church from State, discuss a religious issue in determining whether to appoint an anti-abortion judge. As a practicing Catholic I am not in favor of abortion but my three daughters and wife vehemently believe it is none of the State's business what they do with their own bodies. So I stand with them.
372
D. Marcot: I'm a practicing Catholic too, and I can pretty much say nobody is "in favor" of abortion. That said, in a secular republic I would never dare to presume to tell other women what to do with their bodies according to my religion. The First Amendment anti-establishment clause is crystal clear on what the role of religion should be in secular law--which is, nothing. It only guarantees that everyone is free to worship as they choose and to be free of laws forcing them to abide by the religious dictates of others.
Such a misunderstood clause! It blows my mind that Republicans seem to have no notion of what it means, as they continue to try to push that camel's nose into the tent of our secular republic.
86
Except abortion isn't just an issue of religion. It's not like choosing to go to church on Sundays. We are talking about what it means to be human and when rights and protections are endowed. Such a standard has far reaching implications that we as a society need to grapple with regardless of religious affiliation. Even if everybody was atheist, there would still be debate over when a person becomes person and gets protection.
1
So you think that a fetus is more human than a woman? Should have more rights and protections? That's what at stake here. You have to choose: women or fetuses. As a man I suppose the choice is easy for you.
Since SCOTUS appointments have become a political circus I think that the quality of the people no longer matters. What seems to matter most is if they are not judicial activists in any liberal sort of way. It's ironic to think that the word liberal has such negative connotations considering how radical our founding fathers were in terms of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and in deciding to break away from Great Britain. In today's America they'd be jailed for treason and terrorism.
I'm disappointed to see how willing the GOP is to allow Trump, while his cabinet appointments, his campaign, and a good many of his associates are under investigation, have resigned, have been indicted, etc., to choose a nominee. I guess it's different when you're a rich white male with a loud mouth, no manners, and no class. An African American male who could think circles around the GOP, whose administration wasn't having a scandal a week, who was a class act had his nominee ignored. America, home of the GOP, Greedy Old Profiteers who wouldn't know a decent moderate decision anywhere even if it benefitted them or most of us.
What the GOP wants is judicial activism conservative style. Throw in a state religion and you've kept them happy. All we need is the plantation.
63
Having a female Supreme Court Justice overturning Roe v Wade is not Female Empowerment. It is the exact opposite, you are talking about taking the power away from women to control their bodies/ reproductive decisions. It is typical the GOP-party of less government, wants more government in women's most private decisions. I appreciate that many are opposed to abortion based on religious views-however, Roe v Wade isn't forcing anyone to have an abortion.It is providing the right for women to have a medical procedure should they make that decision.
143
"Overturning our inhumane abortion settlement." Someday sanity will reach this issue and three conclusions will be reached. If there be a God, then that God would chose a woman to decide when motherhood will happen. Second, we will realize that deciding metaphysical questions like what is life, is not what judges should be deciding. And third, if the government is given the power to stop abortions, then the government would have the power to demand them, so government should not be given this power. This issue brings clearly to the fore, the deep fear of granting real power to people, and especially woman. I like how RD's mind works, but like his tribe, the fallen creature meme has led them astray.
49
"Trump is the master of lifting veils and making subtext text."
A political strip tease artist. Getting to the reveal is the show.
I can imagine Trump as strip tease expert.
I can imagine these candidates as the last thing revealed in a strip tease too.
11
I'd rather not imagine that. But thanks for the nightmares.
2
Roger Maris hit 61 home runs in 1961, but earned just an asterisk for it in the minds of his fellow Americans.
That is what I am predicting for whoever is appointed to the Court now -- who like Gorsuch before him or her-- will henceforth be associated in the minds of Americans with an asterisk denoting that Judge Merrick Garland was shamefully robbed of his right to a fair hearing before the Senate for no good reason, but plenty of bad ones; thus rendering all decisions reached by the two new Justices null and void in the final court of American opinion.
127
... in the final court of American public opinion.
2
Your estimation of the minds of Americans is overwrought. I suspect "Garland Who" will be more the association. Sort of like, "I wish I'd voted for Clinton instead of Jill Stein".
FWIW, the Senate would not have approved Garland anyway, so a "fair hearing" would have been a waste of time.
1
Roger Maris hit 61 home runs in 1961, but earned just an asterisk for it in the minds of his fellow Americans.
That is what I am predicting for whoever is appointed to the Court now -- who like Gorsuch before him -- will henceforth be associated in the minds of Americans with an asterisk denoting that Judge Merrick Garland was shamefully robbed of his right to a fair hearing before the Senate for no good reason, but plenty of bad ones; thus rendering all decisions reached by the two new Justices null and void in the final court of American opinion.
14
Well, of course, your preference would be this woman -
"the embodiment of the possible marriage between female empowerment and religious conservatism."
But wait, Ross, where's the female empowerment part? Seems to be missing when there's religious conservatism.
So, no, Ross, this woman’s place is not on the court - her place is in the home.
55
her place is in the home
Where she could make just one family miserable, instead of so many more.
90
@mimi: Under religious conservatism, women are empowered to submit and obey when men like Ross tell them what to do.
9
I would also love to see Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court for the same reasons as Mr. Douthat has stated. She is a very bright and qualified woman who is also conservative with outstanding principles.
I am a Catholic pro life advocate and would love to see Roe v Wade overturned after having endured 45 years of seeing 60 million fetuses/babies lives come to a cruel and abrupt end. This is something we on the pro life side have been working towards since this dreadful bill was passed by the Supreme Court in 1973.
Ms. Barrett is also pro life and would not force the overturning of Roe v Wade but would convincingly prove that life begins at conception. She hopefully would continue to see abortion decided by the individual states and with the result of placing more restrictions so we would not continue to see more innocent lives destroyed. As a mother of seven, she obviously sees life as precious and having value. Who knows. She may one day along with the other conservative judges be able to get rid of Roe v Wade. You never know. Of course, I am assuming she gets nominated and wins and I do not want to get my hopes up. Even if she is not chosen, she should be honored to even have President Trump consider her as a possibility for the bench.
I will hope and pray that Ms. Barrett makes the cut as I think she would be a splendid Supreme Court justice and serve our country admirably. She has my vote.
19
The Supreme Court does not pass bills.
It hands down decisions.
Outlawing abortion will not stop abortion. It will merely drive it underground, at a high cost to women's health and the rule of law.
155
Another has already commented and to that Reply I add my endorsement and additional observation. First, you don't have a vote, you have a Constitution, scientific inquiry, gender differences, religious differences and age differences. All that complicates matters if you think they can or should be ignored. Second, you have a tolerance requirement here in this republic, likewise confounding. May I with respect suggest you rethink your conclusions by incorporating more of these realities and less bubble.
14
She- nor anyone else- can 'convincingly prove that life begins at conception'.
Its an opinion, not a scientific fact, and its an opinion not shared by everyone.
Separation of church and state- remember that one?
3
All very nice, Ross, but His Unhinged Unraveling Unfitness is looking for 1 trait above all others: Which appointee would most likely side with the Rolling Trumpster Fire regarding a subpoena from (hero) Special Counsel Mueller ?
Age will be important, optics of keeping up appearances for the sake of one part of the base or the other will matter, but that will just be window-dressing for this episode of non-POTUS 45.
Thanks for watching and stay tuned.
67
Our "inhumane abortion settlement" has decreased the number of abortions even as it's decreased the number of women who've died as a result of misapplied coat-hangers and botched back-alley procedures. Apparently Mr. Douthat has never met a fetus he hasn't liked.
214
"Apparently Mr. Douthat has never met a fetus he hasn't liked."
... or refuses to support via safety nets...
90
Ross, I'm delighted to hear that Trump's interview with Barrett went badly. What happened? Did he try to hit on her?
But seriously - actually, I was being serious, this is Trump after all - how should I phrase this - more to the point, the last thing that America needs is a religious ideologue attempting to impose their subjective religious convictions on the rest of us. And lest we forget, that is what the abortion question comes down to: a theological opinion on whether one has a soul, and if so (my bias, just to be clear) where that soul goes before, after, and in between incarnations.
Orthodox / conservative Christians, Muslims, and Jews may believe that this issue is settled, but Hindus, Buddhists, New Agers, and students of comparative religion / spirituality are likely of a more nuanced opinion. And in our era of looming catastrophic climate change, not all opinions are equally harmless to the future of the species - especially given these same conservative religious ideologues tendency to align themselves with economic sadists, the fossil fuel industry, and climate change deniers. In all but the most narrow possible formulation of the phrase, pro life they ain't.
Ross, to reiterate a point that I've made many times in this space, a defensible 21st century conception of freedom of religion must incorporate a bedrock guarantee of freedom from religion, from any attempt at theological coercion in any area of conscience, like abortion.
Otherwise, it's all a sham.
386
@Matthew Carcinelli, Brooklyn, NY; “...did he try to hit on her...? Oh, with this Beelzebub in the Oval Office, the possibilities are endless. Mayhap Melania was in the room?
1
Well, Ross, I would love a Supreme Court that would overturn our inhumane gun laws, which allow innocent life to be snuffed out, from an interpretation of the Second Amendment which our Founding Fathers could never have envisioned. So we’re even!
609
@NM, NY: Aww, I'm mighty disappointed in you! You want the Supreme Court to re-interpret the Freedom to Kill People Amendment? Taking it up would be like slapping God in the face, the last sacrilege; the ultimate blasphemy; the final irreverence; a defilement of the source of every American "virtue" and "good." We must absolutely hold on to our supreme right to kill others via firearm--for any reason, at any time. Please keep in mind that these murders are committed far from the gated communities where the SCOTUS "justices" live (with their 24/7 security); where the Republicans on Capitol Hill live (with their 24/7 security). The Second Amendment is the eternal dog-whistle for the performance of the tyranny of the minority. Recall, please, Jeb! Bush's Stand Your Ground. George Zimmerman walked because his life mattered. Lost was that Travyon Martin had no business defending his life; that he did so forced Zimmerman to pull the trigger. None of the right-wingers on the Court have to worry about protection or security or safety. Life must be wonderful when you've got no worries except how to interpret the docket that comes before you, especially if you have a chance to overturn minority (or commonsense) protections. When the five reactionaries on the Roberts Court open the Constitution and sees "We, the People," they probably blow their noses on it. Donald Trump's never read it. And, for that matter, neither has Mitch McConnell. Take up the Amendment guaranteeing murder? Ha!
6
I am hoping Mueller will come out with his report this summer before the midterm election campaign season gets underway. That and the President's resistance to an interview with Mueller will throw Trump's Supreme Court nomination into chaos for a while.
Based on the indictments to date and other limited details of other possible crimes and treasonous connections, the report is likely to be explosive. Forget about flipping Manafort, the raids on Cohen and Manafort probably tells much of the story anyway. Flynn, Gates, Papadopoulous and others have already agresd to help to save their bacon.
Having the report ready to go just after the Trump Putin press conference would be especially good timing, so Americans can understand just who they elected.
58
@LA
I am hopeful as well friend, but if republicans' (McConnell's) track record is any indication, even it the inquiry report does come out, they are not going to care one iota.
That is the republican mantra - even if you get a minority of the popular vote, you ''govern'' as if you had 100% and by fiat or dictate.
I don't have any faith at all in any ''moderate'' Senators, because as usual, they will find a hypocritical excuse and stand by it regardless of pressure.
2
Fortunately, Mr. Douthat doesn't get to choose federal judges. "Legal chops," in the sense of raw legal ability, are all well and good. But what about experience in what lawyers and courts actually do? What about actual litigation in a judge's background?
On that score, charge Judge Barrett is sorely, even painfully, lacking. She practiced law for almost no time at all before retiring to the groves of academe, and she has been an appellate judge (not even a trial judge) for less than a year.
Teaching students out of a book and publishing theoretical articles in law reviews are not the same as actually getting down in the trenches and doing what lawyers and judges do. Her political views are a minor concern, and her Catholicism a nonexistent one, compared to her unfamiliarity with the actual workings of our legal system. Thumbs down.
181
So, Mr. Douthat, your prime consideration to fill the upcoming vacancy is someone who will prompt the evangelical Christians to flock to the polls in November. Shouldn’t qualifications matter? They didn’t to Mitch McConnell in 2016 concerning Merrick Garland.
What you really want is for Roe vs. Wade to be overturned. That may yet happen but what about a woman’s right to choose? Roe vs. Wade is not inhumane and it protects women from back alley butchers who are inhumane.
The right-to-life view is honorable and understandable but a woman should have the right to make a choice with which she'll be comfortable and one she'll have to live with always. Let her make that call.
220
Right. Everyone is entitled to their own religious and philosophical beliefs, but not to impose them on anyone else. And in the case of Roe v. Wade, one must consider not only their take on abortion, but also, as you mention, the grim reality of illegal abortion. It’s not nearly as simple as more pregnancies carried or not, it’s about the risks a woman faces when determined to end an unwanted pregnancy.
It was also pretty striking that Ross said he wants not only his shared ideology from an activist Supreme Court Justice, but from a female Judge. What makes him think that I or any other woman would welcome a female, instead of a male, telling me what to do? It’s the same presumptuous message, whomever delivers it. Having a less represented gender on the Supreme Court promote a backwards agenda isn’t going to make that agenda any more appealing.
105
@NM, NY: If you can find it, download (or rent) a 1959 film entitled Blue Denim. The principals were veteran character actor MacDonald Carey, starlet Carol Lynley and Disney wundrkind Brandon De Wilde. The abortion scene is traumatic.
Thanks for the suggestion, Soxared. Luckily, RvW was decided before my own lifetime, so I didn’t have to live through criminalized abortion. But my late grandfather, circa the 1930s in Kansas, had to help his sister obtain an abortion. Luckily, they found a Doctor who would help her safely and also treated her well. But it might have gone otherwise. And who knows if she hadn’t had her older brother looking out for her?
Also, when we lived in Egypt, my mother knew about other women who needed abortions - they were all married women and already mothers who just didn’t have the resources for more children. They had to find others women who were medically untrained but understood their plight and wanted to help.
None of these women should have had to risk her health, dignity, or entering the world of illegality just for a simple procedure. Whatever one thinks of abortion itself, criminalizing it is objectively worse.
Thanks for writing.
1
''...Because cultivating serious judges is one of the few things conservatism does well...'' - Sorry Mr. Douthat, you lost me almost from the get go.
Almost every safeguard and right we have in modern day Democracies (around the world) have come from Liberal thought and upheld by Liberal judges.
Those judges didn't come from ''cultivation'' but from character, a moral decency and the strength to deny intolerance of any kind.
205
It’s pretty remarkable that such a broad declaration about the (supposed) superiority of conservative judges was made with no substantiation. Just because Ross wishes it were so, or perceieves it to be that way, does not make it true.
77
I will assume Mr. Douthat considers former Chief Justice Roger Taney to have been a serious judge, cultivated by conservatives.
4
Yes! Let’s keep women barefoot and pregnant, like in the good old days! Finally, conservatives have a president whose slack-jawed, ignorant views match their own! Only a fool wouldn’t support the fool in the Oval Office, when it could return us to a time of back-alley abortions, desperate teens, unwanted children and women dying in childbirth. They will be forced to experience God’s love—or else!
After all, we’re a Christian nation, and that means everyone must do what the invisible sky people say, or there will be hell to pay. What’s the alternative? Believing in science? Don’t make me laugh. Nearly half of the country believes in young-earth creationism, so we’ve got to pay attention to our reality-challenged population.
And it’s time we started putting the fear of God into doctors who want to provide a painless death for people suffering terminal illnesses or prevent a woman from experiencing the joy of having an unwanted child.
What’s that you say? The woman will be traumatized, or the child may have to live with a permanent disability? Too bad. The wanton wench should have thought of that when she was having s-e-x. Serves her right.
This is a glorious opportunity for our nation to return to the Bible instead of the Constitution. And if women, atheists, gay and transgender people don’t like it, let them eat cake—except in Colorado, of course. But we’ll be rolling back all of those “rights” real soon. For everyone!
509
As a scientist, I'm often as dispirited as you about the anti-scientific bent of our leaders (with ample cause) and all the rest of us - the latter with less cause than you might think. I know polling indicates that a large minority of us believe in young earth, intelligent design, and so on. But whenever the school board in some town gets taken over by folks who really walk the walk, insisting that stuff gets taught instead of real science, they get yanked out the very next election - if not sooner. It seems many people know they're supposed to believe in these things according to their religion, and they want to accede, but when push comes to shove they don't want their kids to be ignorant, and they won't abide it. It's a little like kids who are asked uncritically if they believe in Santa. Many will say yes, but if pushed even a little bit about how could this or that work, they quickly admit they're not so sure the whole thing is true. The poll that people answer is a lot like the first uncritical Santa question.
Of course that's all distinct from our human flaws based on perceived gain or tribal affinity, which can motivate willful ignorance that includes scientific issues like climate change denial but also non-physical-scientific issues like trickle-down economics, immigrants-as-criminals, and many others. Those are all terrible, but they have more to do with our human weaknesses generally (which the bible gets right!) than disbelief in science specifically.
4
This is a no-brainer. The woman was thrown in for show, for white female Trump voters. She's utterly inexperienced and unfit. The GOP isn't desperate enough to confirm her. Kethledge, as gregarious as he is, and as sparse as his written record is, won't make the cut. Kavanaugh is Trump's man. After all, he is the one who is on record as saying no president should be prosecuted for anything... What all three share is what Trump sees as the "All-American" look. White and affluent.
The hallmarks of this administration have been lying, white supremacist policies and cheating by way of legalizing theft through the Great Undoing of eighty years of more or less careful alignment of public versus corporate interests in various areas of national life. Pick a topic and you'll find the government agency associated with it has been gutted.
We need to talk very differently about what it is Trump is after, using policy. We know his children have profited from these last 18 months. We also know that everything Trump does is about him. Get someone to leak his stock portfolio and you'll likely find the rhyme and reason behind his trade policy, which, oddly, his trade Czar isn't really in charge of.
ICE is run by the Klan and the rest of government by industry. At the top, a liar and thief presides. We need precision and clarity. We need to call things by their rightful names.
This is America.
---
Lapsing Into Imprecision & Using The Wrong Words.
https://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2V4
90
Ross,
Who are you to decide that women shouldn't have control over their bodies? Who elected you God? Or do you think that men are inherently superior and just should have last say over women in general? That is so 1800s.
4
ncm,
Huh?
Maybe you should reread what I wrote. It certainly isn't what you rewrote on my behalf.
I this Ms. Regas has pretty much nailed it.
3
Most of the women in my life are pro-life, even more so than the men. Partly for that reason, the hole in the court where a pro-life woman should be has always seemed gaping to me.
I’m with Mr. Douthat. The arc of history does not bend toward the licensed killing of our innocent young. Roe is destined to be overturned—let Justice Barrett finish it off.
19
Pro life has zero to do with preserving a women's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Biology is not destiny.
2
Mr. Douthat writes that Barrett could provoke "a liberal freakout over her fecundity and faith."
Fecundity? What the...?
I had to read that line a couple of times to even understand the point it was trying to make. We liberals want everyone to be able to have the number of children they want -- a big family, a small family, no kids, it's totally up to you! In my liberal corner of the world, it is also considered a mitzvah to adopt children who need adopting. But it is up to everyone to decide that for themselves. Since these choices profoundly shape your life, they must be yours to make. That is part of why we are vehemently pro-choice. And it's why every single liberal I know would agree that there's nothing whatsoever problematic about Barrett having a big family. While I disagree with her apparent judicial philosophy I think it is admirable that she has a high-powered career while raising seven kids. No easy feat!
A really good axiom, which one should always keep close at hand when writing about politics and strong disagreement, is this: Just because you think something is good, does not mean your opponents think it is bad. Mr. Douthat, please keep this in mind. We may be polarized, but we do not live in such a Manichean world that just because you think it's good for women to have lots of kids it follows that somehow liberals think that is bad. That's just a wild misunderstanding, totally unrelated to the actual beliefs of all the liberals I know.
253
Same thought I had, and nicely expressed. Thanks!
6
I am a woman and a Catholic, who thinks Amy Barrett would be a terrible choice for the Supreme Court. She lacks experience and most likely would base her decisions on her religion. So paternalistic and patronizing for Ross to cite her having 7 kids as a qualification. Please...
269
Ah, yes, let's get that anti-abortion judge on the Court an overturn Roe v. Wade once and for all! Finally after 40 years the one issue voter will have won!
And healthcare, environment, anti-poverty programs, employee rights, individual rights against corporate coercion, possibly Social Security and Medicare headed for the copping block. All to overturn Roe v Wade, which won't stop abortion, ever.
There's a story in the Bible in which Satan tempts Jesus, showing him the whole world and telling him he can have everything he wants, if he just decides to follow Satan. I feel the same way about the abortion voter - willing to trade all, take any and every evil, in exchange for Roe v Wade.
229
Ross, you say you admire judicial restraint yet you would abide a judicial activist on the court for the next 40 years just to overturn Roe v. Wade? And what about all the women who will die that had no chance of surviving their pregnancy? Or women who will die in botched illegal abortions? How do their deaths factor into your considerations?
Ms. Barrett is a "handmaid" in a community known as People Of Praise. The community teaches that husbands are the head of the household as well as the "spiritual head" and pastoral leader of their wives. This is not the type of woman anyone should like to see on the Court.
232
Like most pro-lifers, for them life begins at conception and ends at birth. Further, they care nothing about the already living or the effects a desperately unwanted pregnancy will have on their lives.
Should Barrett be the next Supreme Court Justice? My answer is a resounding NO! My reason is that from what I have read about People of Praise it is cult. Members minds and life activities are strictly controlled by their leaders. Hence, Barrett will not follow the Constitution or the Rule of Law she will follow the orders of the groups leaders.
Will she be Trump's nominee? My answer is an unequivocal yes. She is the best choice for Trump to stick it to the left. She will create the most chaos and anger from Democrats. She will star in Trump's soap opera as the new female villain. Kellyanne Conway and Susan Lucci step aside.
41
Ross, I think Roe v Wade was one of the Supreme Court’s worst decisions ever. But the fact that it was wrongly decided doesn’t mean it should be overruled.
The decision is 45 years old and has been repeatedly reaffirmed. Its faulty reasoning runs through other cases, including Obergefell v. Hodges which, though an equal travesty of constitutional law, would be even more inappropriate to overrule, because people have made fundamental life decisions in reliance on it.
Overruling Roe might also firmly cement in the public mind the perception that Justices of the Supreme Court are nothing but politicians in robes. I doubt that Chief Justice Roberts, who evidently cares about the Court’s legitimacy, would vote to overturn that precedent.
Moreover, returning the early-abortion issue to state legislatures (where it should have been left four decades ago) would create a bloody political civil war in our country, which is the last thing we need. And it wouldn’t be good for Republicans, since it would make abortion a voting issue for socially-liberal Republicans like myself, who previously ignored pro-life rhetoric from conservative candidates as unimportant given that the courts had (improperly) taken the issue out of politics.
Pro-life forces would do better to focus on legislatively restricting late-term abortions for which there is a growing societal consensus, and which would likely be affirmed by a conservative-majority Court.
25
I don’t care about abortion - sorry folks - just being honest. If the Supremes return the abortion issue to the states or Congress, I’ll happily pay to fly my daughters wherever it’s legal.
I know you don’t like that - I don’t care that you don’t.
I just don’t want another Ivy League frat boy or sorority girl who has no real world experience suffering through the vagaries of life. We need an actual lawyer - you know, one that practices law - not a judge’s clerk, not a prosecutor, not a corporate counsel, not a assistant attorney general.
We need someone, male or female, black, white or other, born poor, who went to a real law school, and worked as a lawyer for years before becoming a judge somewhere. That background and experience is necessary to have common sense and the practical knowledge of the real world effects of your ruling.
I’m not asking much Lord - Supreme Being - or Mother Nature - just not another Ivy League frat boy or sorority girl.
I’m not optimistic.
87