Miers
Mark Tushnet
tushnet at law.georgetown.edu
Sat Oct 29 09:43:32 PDT 2005
I too am surprised at the prominence of tha gay marriage issue in
Rick Duncan's post. I regard it as a fantasy to believe that the
Supreme Court would move relatively quickly from Lawrence to
gay marriage [I reserve judgment on what the time line is likely to
be, but I'd say at least a decade and probably more]. My guess is
that we'll see a few "domestic partnership" cases first -- for
example, Romer-like challenges to state-law exclusions of gay
partners from benefits available to straight (non-marital) partners).
I don't follow the issues closely, but the history of litigation
campaigns is one in which there are intermediate stages before
"the big one." I would expect the same to be true as to gay
marriage.
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="============_-1081522692==_ma============"
--============_-1081522692==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
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.
--============_-1081522692==_ma============
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: Miers</title></head><body>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>John Noble</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 8:26 PM -0400 10/28/05, Hamilton02 at aol.com wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000000">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.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000000"> </font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000000"> </font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000000">Marci</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000000"> </font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000000"> </font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000000"> </font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000000"> </font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000000">In a message dated 10/28/2005 2:38:18 P.M. Eastern
Standard Time, nebraskalawprof at yahoo.com writes:</font><br>
<blockquote><font face="Arial" size="-1" color="#000000">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<i> Roe</i>
reversed.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000000"> </font></blockquote>
<blockquote><font face="Arial" size="-1" color="#000000"><i>Roe</i>
will not be reversed for the foreseeable future. I think most
conservatives understand that.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000000"> </font></blockquote>
<blockquote><font face="Arial" size="-1" color="#000000">But<i>
Lawrence</i> could easily grow to include a right to homosexual
marriage. And that would be the final "end of democracy" for
social conservatives.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000000"> </font></blockquote>
<blockquote><font face="Arial" size="-1" color="#000000">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).</font></blockquote>
<blockquote><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000000"> </font></blockquote>
<blockquote><font face="Arial" size="-1" color="#000000">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.</font><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000000"> </font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu<br>
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof<br>
<br>
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.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>
--============_-1081522692==_ma============--
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: tushnet.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 247 bytes
Desc: Card for Mark Tushnet <tushnet at law.georgetown.edu>
Url : http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20051029/053b7532/tushnet.vcf
More information about the Conlawprof
mailing list