I think Operation Rescue's being unrealistically optimistic. It's less likely to be "the first step toward outlawing all abortion" and more likely to be "as close as we'll ever come..."

Yeah, the Catholic fundie thing is really a bit too much. Separation of church and state, anyone?

If partial-birth abortions are unconstitutional...

I'm not sure Mr. Newman understands the meaning of the word "unconstitutional".

apo and bitchphd:

Care to actually tease out a point, or are you satisfied with simply having a vague unease about Catholics on the bench?

Well, B is Catholic, so I'll not make any points for her. I don't have a problem with Catholics on the bench per se. I get uneasy with any religious group placing an ideological hold on an important government organ. The evangelicals taking over the Air Force similarly freaks me right out.

But really and truly, it's Ralph Nader's fault.

apo, I also have a problem with "any religious group placing an ideological hold on an important government organ" and agree with you about the evangelicals in the AF - but do you REALLY think that has happened in this case?

do you REALLY think that has happened in this case?

I don't know, but I'm looking at the decision and seeing five Catholics vote one way and everybody else the other on an issue that's one of the Church's biggest hobbyhorses. That might be just be coincidence. But I doubt it.

I see. So the Roman Catholic Church now has "an ideological hold" on the Supreme Court.

I suppose it cunningly and patiently achieved this position by making non-Catholics nominate and approve of Justice that have have Catholic upbringing, and exercises its power by commaning that these Justices - gasp - uphold laws passed by Congress.

And how did the Pope get all of the non-Catholics in the Congress and Presidency to dance to his tune? Is the Pope just using his special Pope powers? Or could it be more diabolical? After all, we know that Presidents and Congresscritters all make deals with the devil, so maybe the Pope did too, and traded his soul in exchange for the devil stopping Americans from aborting babies in this way.

Or maybe he traded something else -like all the souls of the innocent fetuses so far slaughtered for something else, such as the soul of Justice Brennan, who approved Roe v. Wade, and the souls of the poor mothers and doctors who have been involved in abortions?

Or maybe the Pope himself is the Antichrist, and doesn't want fetuses to die!

There certainly seem to be lots of good options that will help us to understand this recent Supreme Court decision - thanks for pointing us in this direction.

Why yes, that's an excellent summation of what I said, dude.

But perhaps I should clarify. Roman Catholics make up 24% of the American population and 56% of the Supreme Court, and the Catholic bloc on the SCOTUS just voted en masse for a decision that is of extremely dodgy constitutional merit, but very cleanly in line with the Catholic Church's doctrine. That's a wholly different observation than claiming the Vatican is pulling DC's strings.

FWIW, I married into a big, practicing, Irish Catholic family.

1.I get uneasy with any religious group placing an ideological hold on an important government organ.

TT: I see. So the Roman Catholic Church now has "an ideological hold" on the Supreme Court.

2. Why yes, that's an excellent summation of what I said, dude.

3. the Catholic bloc on the SCOTUS just voted en masse for a decision that is of extremely dodgy constitutional merit, but very cleanly in line with the Catholic Church's doctrine. That's a wholly different observation than claiming the Vatican is pulling DC's strings.

Well, 1 ≠ 3. Take your pick.

Does a religious group have an ideological hold on the Supreme Court, or may it simply be the case that five conservative who decided to support the will of Congress in this case happen to be Catholic?

Will all further decisions in which these "most conservative" Justices line up also be driven by a "Catholic cabal" - as opposed to being motivated by their judicial philosophies, the facts of the case, the law (including prior jurisprudence), and their personal viewpoints (including their moral framework)?

While I think it is obvious that their Catholic upbringing influences the CCJ (Catholic cabal Justices) in some way, I am not sure how you parse out that influence from all of the others in this case to get to the Catholic Church now having "an ideological hold" on the Supreme Court.

Can you test and establish the accuracy of your perceptions?

How about a perception that this is what happens when you replace a female Justice with a male one, on a issue relating to the control over a woman's decisions to bear and raise children?

How about a perception that this is what happens when the new Justice is a "conservative" one whose philosophy is one of reluctance to act in an anti-democractic matter by overturning a statute that was passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President - all of whom are directly elected by an accountable to the people?

You say the decision is "of extremely dodgy constitutional merit" - care to discuss that?

And is this decision carved in stone, anyway? What do you suppose might happen in 2009, if a Dem is elected President? Might the law be repealed - with the possibility that a new PRO-ABORTION law is passed?

And might this decision come back and bite conservatives, by standing for the proposition that it is within the authority of Congress to pass national laws relating to abortion?

Sorry, but I am rather dumbfounded by your reflexive conclusions above and your lack of curiousity to push this further.

14. FWIW, I married into a big, practicing, Irish Catholic family.

It's not worth anything. I already trust that you are not a bigot.

the Catholic Church now having "an ideological hold" on the Supreme Court

You're reading too much into a quick, throwaway comment, Tom. Let me be more specific: Catholic men make up 10-12% of the country, but 56% of the Supreme Court. No matter how you slice the numbers, that's a pretty impressive overrepresentation, and one that is voting as a bloc on social issues. Pointing this out is not attacking Catholicism; it's expressing concern about a narrow ideological spectrum wielding majority power.

You say the decision is "of extremely dodgy constitutional merit" - care to discuss that?

From Kennedy's opinion: "The opponents of the act have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases."

So it's unconstitutional in some fraction of cases, but we judge constitutionality based on the 50+1 rule now? Please.

I'm not a Christian, see, though I was raised in Baptist churches as a minister's kid. Religionists of all stripes make me nervous when they run the government. In this country, of course, there's no getting around it, so my best alternative is to hope to keep it divided enough amongst them all that they act as a check on each other. I'd think you of all people would understand this logic.

"it's Ralph Nader's fault."

I'd say it's more the fault of the 17 Democrats who voted for the bill. Without them, it never would have passed.

fault of the 17 Democrats

True dat.

19: Fair enough. Congress didn't do its job.

Catholic men make up 10-12% of the country, but 56% of the Supreme Court.

Well, the Court is also 22% Jewish (Ginsburg, Bryer), while only, what, 2% of the population is Jewish. Is this a problem? I don't think so.

As far as Christian sects go, I am far less worried about Catholics than most, even if Catholics have been trending right recently. I think Bill Donahue misrepresents the views of most Catholics, who on issues other than abortion are usually quite liberal. And many Catholics remain pro-choice despite the Pope's statements.

When these same five members issue a pro-death penalty decision, no one brings up their Catholicism.

If Jews made a majority on the Supreme Court, that would make me uncomfortable as well. Your death penalty point is a very good one.

Especially if they then voted en bloc in favor of the 2008 Pork Products Prohibition Act.

If Jews made a majority on the Supreme Court, that would make me uncomfortable

Anti-semite.

Nah, I'm an equal opportunity heathen.

If Jews made a majority on the Supreme Court, that would make me uncomfortable as well.

You claim this, and I want to assume you're doing so in good faith, but I really don't think I believe it.

(Although, to be fair, you probably didn't have a problem with 5 Catholics on the Court, either, until they started using that majority to bake their religious ideas into our Constitutional jurisprudence. And I've no doubt in the world that 24 is true.)

to be fair, you probably didn't have a problem with 5 Catholics on the Court, either, until they started using that majority to bake their religious ideas into our Constitutional jurisprudence

To be even more fair, I hadn't even realized there were five Catholics on the Court until you pointed it out.

Enough debate! The time has come for apostropher to distract them with his Penis Power.

Everybody stand back.

31: Neighbor, please.

31 -> 30. Oops.

that's a pretty impressive overrepresentation, and one that is voting as a bloc on social issues.

The time has come for apostropher to distract them with his Penis Power.

Isn't it obvious that those who are truly over-represented on the Supreme Court are MEN (and white men at that)?

Might it not be said that they are exercising their penis power in cases like this?

Of course the same is true with Congress and the Presidency, who enacted the law that was upheld.

As to their "faiths", what percentage of Congresscritters, President and Supreme Court Justices have NOT had a Christian or Jewish upbringing?

do you REALLY think that has happened in this case?

Yes. The Catholic Church has become increasingly conservative about sex, sexuality, and women's rights, especially under the last two popes. It's begun walking in lock step with fundamentalist protestants and the American Religious Right. Remember the bishop who declared that anyone giving Kerry the eucharist should be excommunicated? Know anything about the current Pope's condemnation of liberation theology for being too political? Hear anything about the choice to elect him Pope as a backlash about the last guy's apparently over-political outreach to other nations? I absolutely think that the current Church leadership, and conservative practicing Catholics like the five men who currently sit on the SCOTUS, are ideologically opposed to women's rights, and that as a result, yes: conservative Catholicism has an ideological lock on the SCOTUS.

I agree with B in 34. And, by extension, I also think we should assume all American Muslims take their marching orders from the most extreme hard-line imams in the Middle East.

24 they started using that majority to bake their religious ideas into our Constitutional jurisprudence

More balderdash. All I see is a conspiracy not to think clearly.

The majority was merely following the existing jurisprudence in this area.

Sorry, TT, but this is at best vaguely arguable, if not downright false.

Well, 1 ≠ 3. Take your pick.

Well, sarcasm doesn't equal straight talk either, so take your pick.

How about a perception that this is what happens when the new Justice is a "conservative" one whose philosophy is one of reluctance to act in an anti-democractic matter by overturning a statute that was passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President - all of whom are directly elected by an accountable to the people?

First of all,such conservatives, including current member of the Court, have not shown the same reluctance in other areas of the law when the results pleased them. Second, while "accountable to the people" can certainly be a good thing, there are also very good reasons for the branch that decides fundamental issues of rights (rights that no majority, no matter the size, should be allowed to trample upon) to not be directly accountable and to act in an anti-democratic manner. I would think you would understand this, given your prior protestations of belief.

34: yes: conservative Catholicism has an ideological lock on the SCOTUS

The Catholic Church has become increasingly conservative about sex, sexuality, and women's rights, especially under the last two popes. It's begun walking in lock step with fundamentalist protestants and the American Religious Right.

This is getting complicated - the Catholic Church has a lock on these five Justices, but the Pope and the Catholic Church are coordinating their activites with fundamentalist protestants and the American Religious Right control? And together they are responsible for making the Republican Presidents nominate, and Congressional majorities approve, these five Justices? If so, explain to me just how it is that conservative Catholicism has an ideological lock on the Court?

What's wrong with the simpler penis-power explanation?

And can't we consider any factors that are producing greater conservatism/fundamentalism generally?

Yes, I agree that the Church these days is thoroughly anti-modern. That will change as the priest die off, and the Church is forced to ordain married priests.

But there's no way that the Church is pulling the strings on these Justices, or that a cabal of Catholics put them there.

Our Congresscritters and Presidents are responsible for who sits on the Court, and they are elected by the people; why don't we think a little bit more about those facts, which seem to me to have a little greater relevance than what the Pope wants or the Catholic Church teaches.

The majority was merely following the existing jurisprudence in this area.

Yes, this was an over-statement. I'm not familiar enough with the precedents and this opinion to come to a conclusion, so I should not have been so sweeping. However, the PBAA decision is very closely tied to prior decisions even as it can be argued that it is a break from them.

Well, sarcasm doesn't equal straight talk either, so take your pick.

I wasn't being sarcastic, but rather a bit anal in the face of an overstatement by apo - which he has already capably addressed in 17.

conservatives, including current member of the Court, have not shown the same reluctance in other areas of the law when the results pleased them.

You're right, and the Court undermines its own authority if engages in too much judicial activism in rolling back its prior decisions. While the Justices have their own personal agendas, I think that they keep this in mind.

I think the decision should be understood in the context of the Supreme Court addressing a carefully drafted federal statute that was designed to respond to Court decisions striking down various state laws. It is difficult for the Court to take an anti-democratic stance in any case, and in this one especially difficult.

there are also very good reasons for the branch that decides fundamental issues of rights (rights that no majority, no matter the size, should be allowed to trample upon) to not be directly accountable and to act in an anti-democratic manner.

I understand that there are good reasons, but I also understand that the applications of theses reasons to particular cases may not be easy, and that our elected representatives also have a claim for some respect when they make balancing decisions. In fact, I think that there is an excellent argument that the very reason why we are still fighting over abortion rights in the US - as opposed to most all other democracies where there is much less controversy - is that the Supreme Court took the decision away from the people in Roe v. Wade.

As a result of that decision, incentives to reach political solutions based on accommodations were eliminated, and the battle has been pursued in the courts for the last three decades. Thus the obsession of the right with stacking the Court. Without Roe v. Wade, we would have been past this years ago. I hope that the Court will consider another case where it might reject the PBAA as outside of federal authority under the Commerce Clause. I object to the further federalization of criminal law.

gratuitoius catholic bashing...la la la....

What I think we need to remember is that the 20th century was the most blood-soaked, the most inhuman, the most enslaved, and the most dehumanizing of all human history.

And all this was done not in the name of some God, but, rather, in the belief that there is no higher power than the State.

Give me the "medieval" over the "modern" any day, in many cases!!

20th century was the most blood-soaked, the most inhuman, the most enslaved

That's pretty much a function of technology, not of ideology.

I wasn't being sarcastic, but rather a bit anal in the face of an overstatement by apo - which he has already capably addressed in 17.

My reference to sarcasm was actually in relation to this statement:

Why yes, that's an excellent summation of what I said, dude.

You seemed to take it at face value.

Without Roe v. Wade, we would have been past this years ago.

That's a rather easy and blithe attitude towards the rights of others.

Thus the obsession of the right with stacking the Court.

I'm pretty sure this got started when the court started enforcing civil rights and equal protection for all citizens, not just white ones. Abortion has certainly been a factor, but I don't think it's a coincidence that the loudest brayers about judicial activism tend to reside in the "Southern Strategy" states.

43: Ever consider the two are interrelated?

Without Roe v. Wade, we would have been past this years ago.

And if only the Court had left that pesky segregated schools issue alone, there wouldn't have been so much bother back in the 60s.

Neighbor, please.

Pull as hard has you must, but please don't misuse a colon.

*bows to historical greatness*

51: "has" s/b "as"

53: Killing limbo is only a venial sin, so it's no big deal.

It's a translation issue, they're talking about Limbaugh.

55: As bad as he is, I don't think the Pope can kill Limbaugh, either.

(BTW, "he" can refer to either fella. Pick your poison.)

Glendon is a devout Catholic and Clinton is hardly a darling of the left. I'm not sure I get your point.

Maybe partly because two of your three links don't work, so I can only guess as to your intended reference.

Yeah, you guys nailed it. I'm just a blithe kinda guy, unconcerned about how our society functions. There's a larger conversation to be had, but you guys would rather dismiss than discuss.

I just calls 'em like I sees 'em, Tom. Saying, as you seem to do above, that basically "it will all work out eventually" misses the fact that real actual women are being hurt now by anti-choice laws. You also seem to imply that there's some natural progression that will just somehow happen without actual people actually doing things like suing in court to vindicate their rights. Maybe I'm misreading you, and I'd be happy to discuss further. I don't see why you see reaction to your comments as dismissal rather than engagement.

Abortion is an issue profoundly related to the vulnerability of young and disadvantaged women, and problems in the inner city - family structure, economic opportunity and crime.

No shit, Tom. And guess who is most active in seeking to address the problems of the vulnerable and disadvantaged? I'll give you a hint, it's not the "pro-life" crowd.

M/tch:

basically "it will all work out eventually" misses the fact that real actual women are being hurt now by anti-choice laws. You also seem to imply that there's some natural progression that will just somehow happen without actual people actually doing things like suing in court to vindicate their rights.

Real women are being hurt now because both sides would rather take the moral high ground in arguing about abortion rights than in actually addressing the needs of women. Glendon is right that all of the discussion of "rights" really impoverishes our discourse. What are those needs? I think Hilary Clinton laid many of them out well in the speech I linked to above, but one key is access to effective contraception - Clinton pointed out, 7% of American women who do not use contraception account for 53% of all unintended pregnancies.

Again, my point is not that anything will work out naturally, but that people do need to fight over things and that they can do so much more effectively in their legislatures. If the Supreme Court steps out of the way then the political battles will be more immediate and more meaningful.

This is more likely to favor the left than the right, I think, and is more likely to lead to a fcous on ways that reduce abortions by better addressing the needs of women.

NCPro:
I wonder how that reasoning would apply to other controversial topics addressed by the Supreme Court in the 20th century. What about racial segregation in our public spaces? Specifically, racial segregation in the public schools? Would you argue that without Brown v. Board of Education, the Jim Crow South "would have been past" racial segregation much more quickly?

Sorry, but I don't think you made a clear enough analogy between the various cases to warrant a comment. There was a much stronger Constitutional basis for the Brown v. Board of Education decision, as opposed to the "penumbras" used for Roe v. Wade. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

My problem with the progeny of Brown relates to the specific remedies that the Court has imposed in a legisltative-type of manner for the Constitutional violation - such as mandating busing. These remedies have not held up as well - but are we getting off track?