I'm sleepy

I heard he was pretty far to the right. Much different than the previous more moderate woman. I was listening to WPR this morning. Enough to overturn that partial birth abortion case but still hopefully not enough to overturn roe vs wade

Yeah, i'm not saying that he seems moderate to me or anything, but the big question is whether or not he's the type to let those ideals get in the way of interpreting the law and whatnot. I haven't seen anything yet to suggest that, and actually have seen one or two things that imply that he actually looks at things pretty objectively. If someone can find me something that really shows that he's likely to be a Thomas-scale gomer, i'm interested.

A Socialist friend of mine working for the Justice Department is kind of at a loss, herself, since Roberts both wrote up that stuff on abortion, then turned around and said he'd obey the law of the land despite his personal beliefs.

She also considers him heavily moderate in comparison to others he could have picked, so I'm holding out to see what comes up.

Yeah, that's the exact same stuff i've seen that leads me to a "wait and see" take for now.

In reality, i take a lot of stock in the theory that overturning Roe V Wade would actually hurt the Republicans more than help them, so for the most part i'm not even sure if that worries me...

I'm curious as to how it would hurt the Republicans? The only thing I can think of would be that arguably they couldn't complain about abortion, but then they would campaign around the idea that they need to stay in power to keep abortion illegal.

That's the theory. 1) They wouldn't have outlawing abortion around to motivate and mobilize the radical right-wing base of the party, and 2) another part of the theory is the idea that really, the majority of the country, being moderate, is very against the idea of outlawing abortion, and actually outlawing it would motivate the moderates and progressives in the country so severely that the momentum would swing sharply away from the Republicans.

I think the theory holds a lot of weight, but it still doesn't mean i'm not scared to death of the possibility of RVW being overturned.

Have you ever heard of the "Roe Effect"? Basically, abortion actually helps the GOP in the long run:
By a greater margin, liberals are more likely to have abortions than conservatives. And...by a greater margin, as adults we tend to vote for the same party as our parents; rather than the other.

The end effect is that in each successive generation, there are fewer and fewer liberals. And because demographic phenomenon compound over generations, it is picking up steam like a snowball.

It's just a theory, and I'm not completely sold on some of the underlying research. Plus, it just seems too good to be true. But it's gaining mainstream credence; for example, the Wall St Journal now endorses it.

The Wall St. Journal is mainstream?

That's an interesting theory, although the way you summarize it, it sounds really flawed, or at least slanted to slam liberals. For example, i'm sure it could be argued that conservatives are actually more likely to have unexpected pregnancies before marriage, and conservative families are probably more likely to have more than two kids. I just don't buy that "liberals have more abortions," just because liberals outwardly support women's rights. There are plenty of righties who profess to support "family values" and then turn around and have abortions, i'm sure. And i'm sure that most liberals aren't necessarily having abortions, they're just being safer and more responsible and not getting pregnant in the first place (if you want to cite statistics, the number of abortions in Wisconsin has dropped the last few years).

Plus, i know tons of people who vote differently from their parents, so i can't say if that's an accurate trend or not.

But one thing i can agree with you on with regard to that theory is this: conservatives are more likely to breed indiscriminantly than liberals, so i wouldn't be surprised if their population in this country is rising.

How much more mainstream can you get beyond the WSJ?

Like I said, I'm not sold on some of the underlying research, especially on the voting vs parents' voting trends. For example, because age tends to skew voting patterns, I wonder if they are using voters past childbearing age to bump up the conservative numbers. Still, there have been like three different studies done on it and they've all arrived at basically the same conclusion. So there's probably something going on there.

It's funny you mentioned the birthrate, because that's another whole story. A side effect of the religious/secular split in politics is that population growth vis-a-vis the electoral college map is crucial. And birthrates amongst Christians are much higher than amongst nonreligious people. Part of it has to do with available wealth to have children, much more so though a social code that encourages stay-at-home moms, etc. For example, ultraconservative Utah will, far from being an afterthought, have more electoral votes than Dem strongholds like New Jersey by 2020. Simply put, Christians are making new Republicans faster than atheists are making new Democrats. The effects will be wide-ranging, from publik skol policies to land use laws, etc.

How much more mainstream can you get beyond the WSJ?

Yeah, you're right, i totally misspoke there. What i meant to point out was that the WSJ has such a ridic right-wing slant, that i wouldn't cite it as a source that would lend credence to any theories regarding political trends.

Of course, being more toward the left, i find it kind of funny that anyone on the right would lend credence to a theory that basically to me says, "more idiots are breeding, so the country's becoming overrun with idiots." I mean, i know it's wrong, but i can't discuss this theory without picturing Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel yelling at his kids to come outside and get their free pretzels.

First off though, it's really difficult to know if liberals have more abortions than conservatives because abortion is such a sensitive topic. Liberals might just be more likely to SAY they've had an abortion.

Plus, what difference does it make if libs have more abortions than cons?? What really matters if they have less CHILDREN.

True on both counts. But the study compensated for a likely under-reporting due to social stigma in conservative circles.

On the second issue, the problem for libs is that both are happening. Liberals have more abortions, and also, fewer planned children. Conservatives have fewer abortions, and also, more planned children. Like I said earlier, some of it is economic (more wealth available to support larger families) but a lot is social: less desire by liberal women to be stay-at-home moms, societal pressure in Christianity to have families, etc.

I've heard of it, I'm not sure I believe it though. It would assume that people stay the same as their parents (which isn't always the case).

Freakanomics argues that the decrease in crime from the 90s-present is partially the result of legal abortion. Not sure how I feel about that either.

With regard to DJ's (2). I remember Michael Moore using that as a reason to vote for Nader in 2000. He cited some survey to back it up. There's no way to be sure if it's true though.

Right. I lend more weight to my point #1 than the second one.

I read the same thing about the crime, and I also think there is some credence to that. It is why thse types of topics are taboo, because blind suppotr/opposition to abortion often overlaps negatively on other issues people believe in.

Where is the New Yorker? Is that where Miller Time Pub used to be? Or is that still there?

It's like three buildings south of Wisconsin on James Lovell. I don't really know where the Miller Time Pub is/was, so i'm afraid i can't help ya there.

man, I wish I still lived in Milwaukee... I would have fucked UP some karaoke for ya!

(fuck up in a good way... I think?! okay, maybe not so good, but fun... and hilarious.)

Having you there definitely would have further sparked up the night!

Let's please not forget Evan's gorgeous impromptu "Hipster's Paradise."

Oh no, We Will Not Forget.

I had never been so comfortable doing karoke before. Perhaps because I was not on a big stage by myself with 50 riverwest peeps staring at me.

he's a conservative. but he's not an idiot (thank god). i can respect that. i'm going to wait for the senate to finish interrogating the shit out of him, then judge him. but as my dad pointed out while we were arguing about this last night at 2am, the supreme court generally tends to make people more liberal then they started out. not much more, but it happens. so we'll see, i guess. besides, it could've been way worse.

Yeah. Kinda sad that the general consensus is "it coulda been worse," but for now i'll take it.

Here's what I got from MoveOn:

As a partisan lawyer for the Bush Sr. and Reagan administrations, Roberts threatened:


Civil rights by asking the Supreme Court to severely limit the ability of district courts to desegregate public schools1, and working to ensure the Voting Rights Act could not be used to remedy many cases of actual discrimination against minority votes.2
Women's rights by fighting for a law barring doctors from even discussing reproductive options in many cases,3 and arguing that Roe. vs. Wade should be "overruled."4

Free speech by arguing to the Supreme Court that political speech that some considered offensive did not deserve First Amendment protections. The Court rejected his claim.5

Religious liberty by arguing to the Supreme Court that public schools could force religious speech on students. Again, the Court rejected the argument.6


As a corporate lawyer, Roberts threatened:


Community and environmental rights by working to strike down new clean-air rules and filing a brief for the National Mining Association, arguing that federal courts could not stop mountaintop-removal mining in West Virginia, even as it devastated local communities.7
Workers' rights by helping Toyota to successfully evade the Americans with Disabilities Act and fire workers for disabilities they suffered over time because of the requirements of their jobs.8

Public interest regulations by helping Fox News challenge FCC rules that prevented the creation of news media monopolies.9

In his short two years as a judge, Roberts has threatened:

Individual rights by rejecting the civil rights claims brought on behalf of a 12-year-old girl who had been handcuffed, arrested and taken away by the police for eating a single french fry in the D.C. Metro.10

Environmental protections when the dissent he wrote on an Endangered Species Act case, had it been in the majority, would have struck the Act down as unconstitutional in many cases, and would have threatened a wide swath of workplace, public safety and civil rights protections.11

Human Rights by voting to strike down the Geneva Conventions as applied to prisoners that the Bush administration chose to exempt from international law.12


Roberts' confirmation is not inevitable. As Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday, "The President has made his choice. Now the Senate will do its job of deciding whether to confirm John Roberts to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court."

Now it's time for us all to do our job of telling our senators that our rights are not negotiable, and John Roberts does not belong on the Supreme Court.

We hope to see you tomorrow.

http://political.moveon.org/event/RapidResponse/?id=5822-6146546-TGe4DTAkLJdNfED14OsC_w&t=6

Thanks for all that you do,

–Ben, James, Micayla, Wes and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Wednesday July 20th, 2005

Sources:

1. Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell

2. Alliance for Justice, Nominee Profile
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=794

3. Alliance for Justice, Nominee Profile
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=794

4. "Same Appeal; Different Styles," Washington Postm July 17, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=795

5. United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990)

6. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)

7. "The Making of the Corporate Judiciary" Mother Jones, November/December 2003
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=796

8. Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002)

9. Alliance for Justice
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=797

10. Hedgepeth v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 386 F.3d 1148 (D.C. Cir. 2004)

11. Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1158 (D.C. Cir. 2003 cert. denied)

12. Court: U.S. May Resume Detainee Tribunals, Associated Press, July 16th 2005