Alex Blaze

Is In re Marriage Cases the new Roe v. Wade?

Filed By Alex Blaze | May 19, 2009 2:30 PM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: gay marriage, gay rights, justices, law, LGBT, marriage equality, Orrin Hatch, roe v. wade, same-sex marriage, Souter, supreme court, Washington Post

Does anyone else get the feeling that the Republicans are now just throwing out whatever stupid strategy pops into their head and seeing what sticks?

Because the Washington Post is reporting that same-sex marriage might become the new flashpoint for judicial nominees' hearings.

Same-sex marriage carries the same freighted potential to dominate a hearing, conservatives say.

"It is now the flash point where politics and law meet. That flash point used to be abortion. I don't think anybody thinks that's going to be the flash point in this nomination," said William A. Jacobson, a Cornell University law professor and conservative blogger.

It almost seems like they're trying to see what's a good issue to use to oppose Obama's nominee this summer before he's even named that pick. As if they already know that they won't have a good reason to oppose her, but they're going to have to do it anyway. Because there's no way that Obama's nominee would be the justice who tips the Court in favor of same-sex marriage.

Orrin Hatch jumped on board as well:

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), another GOP member of the Judiciary Committee, said conservatives are particularly eager to avoid a Supreme Court ruling akin to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion nationwide and has divided the country ever since. "I don't think members of the court, or any of us, ever want to see a decision like that again," Hatch said. Obama assured the senator in a recent meeting that he will not pick a "radical" to replace Souter, but Hatch added: "Presidents always say that. That's why we have the hearing process."

Nice touch from the Post, too, repeating the lie that Roe "divided the country." The Protestant right picked up on abortion happened several years after Roe, so don't blame the Court.

At least we just have that much more proof that they see opposition to gay rights as just a tool to bludgeon their agenda through and grab raw power with. For the most powerful Republicans, it was never about anything other than that.

For a lot of them, it was never personal, it was strictly business.


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Yes Alex its called watching a party implode on its self.I knew this was going to happen when we got our butt kicked in the election.Well no longer we as now I consider myself an Independent centerist.Yeah Im done with the socialist wing of the GOP but before you jump for joy I still dont trust any pary that wants is moderates gone such as the liberal wing wants is Blue Dogs gone form the Dems.So im totaly up for grabs vote and money support wise.

Politics is a contact sport with no rules and hi there from the muddy middle.

Cathy

...conservatives are particularly eager to avoid a Supreme Court ruling akin to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion nationwide and has divided the country ever since. "I don't think members of the court, or any of us, ever want to see a decision like that again," Hatch said.

It seems to me that Hatch isn't saying he doesn't want a polarizing decision so much as he doesn't want a judge who would rule in favor of same-sex marriage and against his personal beliefs. Because, you know, God forbid issues actually make their way through the court system as our Constitution provides for; and for Christ's sake don't let them actually want to decide something that might be controversial! *gasp!*

It's their job. Let them do it.