« Ezula, I Hate You | Main | Because we all like to waste time on stupid games »

OK, Am I Wrong, or Is It Just John Kerry?

This is the kind of thing that's really frustrating to read when you're studying Con Law. From John Kerry's new ad:

Title: Direct Response Choice

Narrator: The Supreme Court is just one vote away from outlawing a woman's right to choose. George Bush will appoint anti-choice, anti-privacy justices. But you can stop him.

Now, is Kerry trying to tell me that if Bush is re-elected, all of a sudden Scalia is going to become a judicial realist and start concocting constitutional reasons why abortion is not only subject to control by the states, but positively must be outlawed by them? Is the Supreme Court really in the business of outlawing things, rather than saying things may or may not be outlawed? Can I cite a presidential candidate to Prof. ConLaw as authority for the Supreme Court having the power to outlaw abortion?

Well, I suppose I could, but I'd have to be an idiot. Thankfully, Kerry and his campaign don't have to pass a Con Law exam. Of course, with Kerry's luck, there wouldn't be a separation of powers question.

Or am I just wrong? Someone tell me, because it's just over two weeks until I have to know this stuff. And it's not like Casey isn't enough of a mess without John Kerry whispering in my ear...

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.threeyearsofhell.com/cgi-user/mt/mtPleaseLinktoMe.cgi/504

Comments

Nice to know that BC Law graduates such high caliber candidates as John Kerry ;)
You are not an idiot, but you are not correct either. The USSC is in the business of determining what the US Consitution requires, permits and prohibits. Abortion is one of those things it permits (i.e. prohibits outlawing), but the legal theory on which Roe v. Wade claimed this is one Justice away from being in the minority on USSC and Bush and many states want it there. There is no question that if USSC even signals, it will be promptly outlawed and all challenges rejected. Thats what the ad means. And its true by the POTUS's own admission. As for your con law exam, dont mix election year politics into it, for your own sake. The constitution is 200+ years old and although your ignorance of it has diminished rapidly over the past year, many many other people, including Kerry, know it and use it far more than you will be able to even if you ace that exam. But good luck
Skar: I realize that. The point remains that the idea that the Supreme Court would outlaw abortion is factually wrong. Or at least that it's 'one vote' away from doing so. As for the rest of your post: There is no question that if USSC even signals, it will be promptly outlawed and all challenges rejected. There's really 'no question?' Come on. First of all, there would still be challenges to a federal ban on abortion--which would be unprecedented--and it's by no means clear that these would be rejected. And even if we felt there was no Court protection from federal limits on abortion, it's unclear that Congress would pass a law outlawing the practice in the first place, given its almost certain unpopularity. What is certain is that with the overturning of Roe and Casey, several states would consider outlawing abortion. It's by no means clear than any, much less most, of them would do so. My post above was a bit tongue in cheek, but here I'll just say it directly: Kerry's ad is wrong on the law, it's wrong on the facts.
Tony, you are quite right here, of course. The New Republic can explain to Skar why even pro-choice people should prefer (for the sake of political comity, for the sake of intellectual honesty, and with confidence that the nation is pro-choice) that Roe be overturned. Pro-Choice TNR writers have been making this case for a while--and Casey is the reductio of the alternative point of view. As to skar's point that Kerry and others have been "using" the Constitution better than you before or after our class--well, I think it speaks for itself. Cheers!

Post a comment

NOTICE TO SPAMMERS, COMMENT ROBOTS, TRACKBACK SPAMMERS AND OTHER NON-HUMAN VISITORS: No comment or trackback left via a robot is ever welcome at Three Years of Hell. Your interference imposes significant costs upon me and my legitimate users. The owner, user or affiliate who advertises using non-human visitors and leaves a comment or trackback on this site therefore agrees to the following: (a) they will pay fifty cents (US$0.50) to Anthony Rickey (hereinafter, the "Host") for every spam trackback or comment processed through any blogs hosted on threeyearsofhell.com, morgrave.com or housevirgo.com, irrespective of whether that comment or trackback is actually posted on the publicly-accessible site, such fees to cover Host's costs of hosting and bandwidth, time in tending to your comment or trackback and costs of enforcement; (b) if such comment or trackback is published on the publicly-accessible site, an additional fee of one dollar (US$1.00) per day per URL included in the comment or trackback for every day the comment or trackback remains publicly available, such fee to represent the value of publicity and search-engine placement advantages.

Giving The Devil His Due

Choose Stylesheet

What I'm Reading

cover
D.C. Noir

My city. But darker.
cover
A Clockwork Orange

About time I read this...


Shopping

Projects I've Been Involved With

A Round-the-World Travel Blog: Devil May Care (A new round-the-world travel blog, co-written with my wife)
Parents for Inclusive Education (From my Clinic)

Syndicated from other sites

The Columbia Continuum
Other Blogs by CLS students

De Novo
Theory and Practice
Liberal Federalism?
Good News, No Foolin'


Althouse
Nancy Pelosi covers her head and visits the head of John the Baptist.
Vlogging in from Austin.
Omikase/"American Idol"


Jeremy Blachman's Weblog: 2007
Happy Passover
Looking for Advice re: LA
Google Books


Stay of Execution
What I've Learned From This Blog, or My Yellow Underpants
The End
Mid Thirties


Legal Theory Blog
Program Announcement: Summer Programs on the Constitution at George Washington
Book Announement: Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy by Whittington
Entry Level Hiring Report


The Volokh Conspiracy
Making the Daily Show:
Civil unions pass New Hampshire House:
Profile of Yale Law Dean Harold Koh:


Crescat Sententia
Hillary II
Hillary
Politics and Principal/Agents


Law Dork
Election Approaches
Following Lewis
New Jersey High Court: 'Same Rights and Benefits'


IrishLaw
Homecoming
Surveying the revival
Birds of paradise


Half the Sins of Mankind
Cheney Has Spoken Religious conservatives who may ...
Does Ahmadinejad Know Christianity Better Than MSN...
Borders as Genocide In discussions of climate chan...


pf.org
Progress
For lovers of garden gnomes...and any China-freaks out there
We Interrupt Your Regularly Scheduled Programming


Ideoblog
Does SOX explain the flight from NY?
More Litvak on SOX effect on cross-listed firms
What did the market learn from internal controls reporting?


The Yin Blog
Iowa City = Riyadh
Jeffrey Rosen's "The Supreme Court"
Geek alert -- who would win between Battlestar Galactica and the U.S.S. Enterprise?


Letters of Marque
Graduation
And there we are
Oil!


BuffaloWings&Vodka
Signing Off


Dark Bilious Vapors
Jim (The Waco Kid): Where you headed, cowboy?
Bart: Nowhere special.
Jim: Nowhere special. I always wanted to go there.
Bart: Come on.
--"Blazing Saddles"

Technical Difficulties... please stand by....
The Onion should have gotten a patent first....


Legal Ethics Forum
Interesting new Expert DQ case
Decency, Due Care, and The Yoo-Delahunty Memorandum
Thinking About the Fired U.S. Attorneys


Ex Post
Student Symposium- Chicago!
More Hmong - Now at Law School
Good Samaritan Laws: Good For America?


Appellate Law & Practice
Those turned over documents
CA1: courts can’t help people acquitted of crimes purge the taint of acquitted conduct
CA1: restrictions on chain liquor stores in Rhode Island are STILL okay


the imbroglio
High schoolers turn in plagiarism screeners for copyright infringement
talisman
Paris to offer 20,600 bikes at 1,450 stations to rent by the end of the year


The Republic of T.
The Secret of the Snack Attack
links for 2007-04-04
Where You Link is What You Get

Distractions for stressed law students

The Other Side: Twisted AnimationsSomething Positive, a truly good webcomic

Syndicate This Site

Sitemeter

Technologies


Stop Spam Harvesters, Join Project Honey Pot