Wednesday, July 6, 2005

The Supreme Court front-runners on Roe

As referenced previously, Slate has the best synopsis of what's doing with the Supreme Court, and this rundown of the prior expressed opinions of those on the short list regarding Roe v. Wade tells us all we can hope to know (and if you haven't done your homework yet and don't know these names, well, there's no time like right now). Conclusions:

You can never say for sure how someone will vote when they get to the Supreme Court—that's the beauty of judicial independence and life tenure. But based on their past statements and decisions, Roberts, McConnell, Garza, and Jones look like good bets to vote to regulate abortion more tightly and, if they get the chance someday, perhaps to overturn Roe v. Wade. Alito would probably do the same. How far Luttig would go is less clear—his statement of respect for Casey is clinical and drained of emotion, which makes it harder to tell. Gonzales' opinions in the Texas cases suggest that he doesn't much like the idea of teenagers having abortions without telling their parents. But in those cases and others, he has been inclined to respect previous Supreme Court decisions. That makes him the potential nominee most likely to follow O'Connor when it comes to Roe—and it explains why religious conservatives are so hostile to his potential nomination.


I have written elsewhere that I thought that Abu Gonzales might be the best we can expect from this President. As revolting as it would be to consider the apologist of torture for the Bush administration as Justice, the truth is he's not been nearly as inimical to women's reproductive freedoms as just about all the others on this list.

Hopefully Bush is seriously considering this man.

Update: Harry Reid signals to Bush that AG is OK.