Franco-style dictatorship needed? Whoa

[caroljm36]

Ten years ago I had a subscription to New Oxford Review, which was a very literate, temperate and orthodox magazine at the time. I started up my subscription again and it seems to have gone over th edge a bit. This month there is an unsigned article reviewing the problem of trying to get abortion outlawed and seemed to conclude that what we need is a revolution. The article is not online, but here is the money graf: “It doesn’t matter whether abortion is authorized by the Supreme Court or the people’s representatives. It’s a Holocaust either way. So we ask, do we need a Franco-style dictatorship to protect the unborn? Yes, we know, that’s un-American. But we’re Catholics, not Americanists.”

It seems pretty reckless to me! They started out by saying all the things Bush could be doing in the way of moral suasion–fireside chats, witness of women, etc, which sound like really good ideas. But then they give up on that and end up here.

I’ve just finished the 3 volumes of Gulag Archipelago and I don’t have any fond or optimistic expectations of revolution. Utterly everything is then up for grabs and the slaughter of the born and unborn Plus, the imposition of anything resembling a theocracy, even if it’s not official, would have the same effect that it had in Europe, where the power of the Catholic Church caused a huge backlash resulting in its own demise practically.

What do you think? Are we really to that point?

 

[miguel]

I don’t think we need to go that far. But the executive and legislative branches need to find a way to counter judicial overreaching.

 

[Linda_H]

The best way to bring these judges back into line is to make it easier to impeach them. Second is to end the life long appointments to the bench for federal judges execpt for the supreme court, but even then the should be a clear cut process to remove members for judical misconduct. The reason these judges feel they can now write the law is because they feel as if they are untouchable, and the sad truth is unless new laws are passed for the most part they are. Unless they commit murder and get caught, or are involved in a huge public scandle it is all but impossible to remove a federal judge from the bench.Linda H.

 

[caroljm36]

Just to explain where NOR was coming from, they’re saying that because Roe is “settled law” now, even a supposed conservative or strict constructionist justice would uphold it under the doctrine of stare decisis, and they have a point. It’s exactly what O’Connor, Souter et all did in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It was Judge Edith Jones who said recently in a concurrence that everyone’s hands are tied now because of this (but that it was reprehensible nonetheless).

But revolution unleashes so much! I read a lot of history, and I can’t believe anyone who understands what happens in revolutions could put this suggestion out there. It’s like NOR is saying the ends justify the means. No we can’t go there.

 

[miguel]

Linda H.:

The best way to bring these judges back into line is to make it easier to impeach them. Second is to end the life long appointments to the bench for federal judges execpt for the supreme court, but even then the should be a clear cut process to remove members for judical misconduct. The reason these judges feel they can now write the law is because they feel as if they are untouchable, and the sad truth is unless new laws are passed for the most part they are. Unless they commit murder and get caught, or are involved in a huge public scandle it is all but impossible to remove a federal judge from the bench.Linda H.

If I was president, I’d tell these criminal judges who keep thwarting the law, like the partial birth abortion ban, to cease and desist or face arrest. I would also refuse to use executive power to enforce their criminal decisions.

 

[miguel]

caroljm36:

Just to explain where NOR was coming from, they’re saying that because Roe is “settled law” now, even a supposed conservative or strict constructionist justice would uphold it under the doctrine of stare decisis, and they have a point. It’s exactly what O’Connor, Souter et all did in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It was Judge Edith Jones who said recently in a concurrence that everyone’s hands are tied now because of this (but that it was reprehensible nonetheless).

But revolution unleashes so much! I read a lot of history, and I can’t believe anyone who understands what happens in revolutions could put this suggestion out there. It’s like NOR is saying the ends justify the means. No we can’t go there.

Baloney. They used judicial power completely unrooted in the Constitution to decide Roe vs Wade in the first place. They could use Constitutional reasoning to reverse the prior bad (i.e., unconstitutional) decision.

 

[caroljm36]

miguel:

Baloney. They used judicial power completely unrooted in the Constitution to decide Roe vs Wade in the first place. They could use Constitutional reasoning to reverse the prior bad (i.e., unconstitutional) decision.

No argument there, but the very fact that they came up with this “penumbra of rights” including privacy, instead of some other grounds, makes it basically untouchable now. Edith Jones explained it in a recent appeal. I mean legally you can’t get your hands on it, it’s so slippery. So all a court has to do now is say sorry that’s settled. Since 1973! The Dred Scott decision didn’t have but 10 years or so before the Civil War broke out.

What is necessary to override Roe now is an amendment to the constitution, and that takes moral suasion, and a change of heart among the public. But revolution?? That’s crazy. It wouldn’t work in a country this big anyway. The Communists killed millions to subdue Russia in the name of their “benevolent” dictatorship of the proletariat.

 

[miguel]

caroljm36:

No argument there, but the very fact that they came up with this “penumbra of rights” including privacy, instead of some other grounds, makes it basically untouchable now. Edith Jones explained it in a recent appeal. I mean legally you can’t get your hands on it, it’s so slippery. So all a court has to do now is say sorry that’s settled. Since 1973! The Dred Scott decision didn’t have but 10 years or so before the Civil War broke out…

It’s only untouchable within the judiciary if the Supreme Court won’t touch it. But there is nothing Constitutional tying their hands, or the hands of the other two branches. We need the other two branches to assert their rightful authority to check the judicial branch. Supreme Court doesn’t mean supreme branch of government.

caroljm36:

…What is necessary to override Roe now is an amendment to the constitution, and that takes moral suasion, and a change of heart among the public…

And prayer.

 

[katherine2]

This is another stab at what has been a bit of a fight within the pro-life movement, with those taking the anti-NOR view of accusing the others of giving up on democracy.

 

[miguel]

katherine2:

This is another stab at what has been a bit of a fight within the pro-life movement, with those taking the anti-NOR view of accusing the others of giving up on democracy.

Democracy isn’t the problem. Abuse of judicial power and the failure of the other two branches to check it is the problem. If civil war breaks out over this (and I sure hope it doesn’t), culpability will rest in the hands of those who failed to do the right thing when they had the chance.