Miers

[J. Noble]

For most pro-CHOICE Republicans, however many there are, the issue 
obviously doesn't drive their vote. For many pro-LIFE Republicans, on 
the other hand, it is why they are Republicans. There are almost 
certainly enough of the latter to have made the difference in the 
last two national elections. A cynic might suppose that some 
Republicans opposed to reversing Roe v. Wade realize that it would 
release the pro-life constituency to vote their pocketbook instead of 
their conscience in federal elections. A President more cynical (or 
astute) than George Bush might calculate that the party cannot afford 
either to abandon its nominal commitment to reversing Roe or to 
fulfill it.

I find myself surprised by the tone of resignation in Rick's 
assessment of the prospects for reversing Roe; and more surprised by 
the elevation of gay marriage, even if it does mean the end of 
democracy, to a level of importance that even approaches what 
pro-life advocates characterize as the violent slaughter of thousands 
of unborn children. There are seven Republican appointees on the 
Court. If they haven't reversed Roe, maybe it's because they're not 
serious. If social conservatives are re-drawing the battle-lines 
against the ramifications of Lawrence, maybe they should consider 
whether they're being used by the Republican establishment to advance 
a different agenda.

The author of Roe was a Nixon appointee. The author of Lawrence was a 
Reagan appointee. How come Republican appointees are so good at 
mobilizing social conservatives to vote Republican?

John Noble

At 8:26 PM -0400 10/28/05, Hamilton02 at aol.com wrote:
>On the points about the ability (or inability) for Republicans or 
>conservatives to get a constitutional amendment, and the comments 
>about Roe/Casey, does anyone have any hard data about the opposition 
>to Roe (or lack thereof), in the Republican Party?  Among all 
>voters, a significant majority are opposed to reversing Roe, but 
>what about within the Republican Party?  I have been told that even 
>within the Party, a majority is not opposed to Roe. That is 
>something the President would know and that would affect his 
>calculations for his next appointment.
>
>
>Marci
>
>
>
>
>In a message dated 10/28/2005 2:38:18 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
>nebraskalawprof at yahoo.com writes:
>
>Frankly, I think social conservatives are more concerned with 
>stopping the Court from imposing same-sex marriage and 
>anti-religious hostility on the country than they are about getting 
>Roe reversed.
>
>Roe will not be reversed for the foreseeable future. I think most 
>conservatives understand that.
>
>But Lawrence could easily grow to include a right to homosexual 
>marriage. And that would be the final "end of democracy" for social 
>conservatives.
>
>Social conservatives also want a Court that will respect religious 
>liberty (including the liberty to not have religion completely 
>banished from public schools and the public square). They want more 
>free exercise, strong free speech rights, and equal access to 
>government benefit programs (including school choice).
>
>Frankly, it is the far left that is obsessed with Roe and which 
>keeps shouting the "sky will fall" if a conservative nominee is 
>confirmed.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed 
>as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that 
>are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can 
>(rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20051029/9303a954/attachment.htm