Good news?

Three posts in one morning...

Ann Coulter is very unhappy about John Roberts, and this cheers me up immensely.  Fred Barnes isn't happy either.  This guy isn't happy either.

It's funny.  As a liberal, I comfort myself whenever right-wingers complain about something the president has done.   It's the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing; the more I read on the 'net today, the more it looks like Roberts was not the favorite son (or daughter) of the hard right.  And that is, naturally, a source of (small) comfort.  Of course, I bet lots of conservatives are doing exactly what I'm doing -- trolling around on the internet, reading of liberal outrage about Roberts, and reassuring themselves by saying "Well, if NARAL and Chuck Schumer don't like him, he must be okay."

We are all very silly, aren't we!

Comments

[stanton]

Hugo: It may be silly, but I think you are onto something there. You may be surprised that I, too, am comforted by the protests of extremists, whether they be of the right or of the left. I haven't looked for leftist or feminist protests, but I'm hoping to see a bit of that. (New York Times reported outrage from Naral Pro-Choice America) When the protests come from extremists of different stripes, then there is a decent chance that the candidate follows the law as s/he sees it, and not a political agenda. Would GWB really give us such a candidate? Well, the beloved O'Connor came to us via Ronald Reagan!

[Xrlq]

We may all be a bit silly every now and then, but for an alleged pro-lifer to gloat over the potential non-conservatism of a Supreme Court nominee is uncommonly silly.

[Hugo]

Oh, I'm no friend of Roe, XRLQ. I'm thinking of other potential rulings. After all, abortion is not the only dog in the hunt, as it were.

[Xrlq]

Of course it is. You're fooling yourself if you think Chuckie Schumer and Barbara Boxer's appeals to the "mainstream," or for that matter, Ann Coulter's gripes, are about anything else. I'm not saying the whole Supreme Court debate should be about abortion, mind you, but I'd be lying if I said it wasn't.

I agree that abortion is not the only dog in the hunt, but then again, I don't consider first trimester abortions to be the equivalent of first-degree murder. If I did, that issue damned well would be the only dog in the hunt, or at least the only dog big enough to be worth paying attention to. A made-up "constitutional" right that results in a million babies being murdered every year kinda makes the others look rather petty by comparison.

In any event, Roe isn't going away anytime soon, as it currently enjoys a 6-3 majority, which will now presumably revert to the 5-4 majority it enjoyed in Casey. The only court precedent likely to be overturned by the new court is the far more gruesome Stenberg decision, concerning partial-birth abortion. Your beloved Sandra Day O'Connor proudly signed on to that one, along with Bush v. Gore and countless other decisions so popular with the left these days.

I've prepared a chart, at the top of my blog right now, to illustrate what practical differences John Roberts's appointment are likely to make, assuming Roberts turns out to be another William Rehnquist and not another David Souter. I'm mildly bullish on that assumption myself.

[Hugo]

Well, count me as someone who would love to have Stenberg overturned. I like your chart, Xrlq.

Any major pending animal rights cases before the court? For that matter, any major pending animal rights cases here in California to get het up about?

[Xrlq]

Not in the California courts, to my knowledge, though a recent "home rule" decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to allow the city of Denver to euthanize pit bulls solely for being (or being believed to be) pit bulls has me stewing. I fix the odds of such cases reaching the federal Supreme Court somewhere between "slim" and "none," and rumor has it Slim just left town.

On the legislative front here in California, last month Jackie Speier (guess which party) recently gutted and amended SB 861, which was originally a Medi-Cal drug pricing bill, to allow cities and counties to pass breed-specific legislation, up to but not including outright bans. The bill has since been watered down a bit, to allow breed-specific spay and neuter requirements only. I don't have a problem with that in principle, though if there are going to be breed-specific breeding restrictions, I'd rather see these restrictions targeting overpopulated breeds generally, rather than "bad" ones in particular. And pits are definitely overpopulated, accounting for roughly half the dogs in many shelters.

[The Gonzman]

He's a conservative and traditional Catholic, and a member of the Federalist Society. His wife is former Executive Vice President of "Feminists for Life."

He may not be a Scalia or Thomas, but he is Rhenquist Junior.

[Hugo]

I'm a former sustaining contributor to Feminists for Life. I didn't know that about his wife; I'm heartened to hear it (both the "life" part and the "feminist" part.)

[veronica]

It may be silly, but it's entirely true!

[Xrlq]

What was I saying about abortion being the only dog in (the left side of) this hunt? Next time anyone - and I do mean anyone - in your party says anything about judicial nominations that appears to suggest otherwise, be sure to consult this translation guide.

[mythago]

The list you link to forgot "judicial activism," meaning "a judge finding a law I like unconstitutional or otherwise defective."