Thank Republicans for Roe v. Wade

[Lakhota]

by Policraticus

Did liberal justices hijack the Supreme Court in 1973, forcing legalized abortion on the whole country? A quick look at the Justices who made that horrendous decision seems to suggest otherwise.

With Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court voted overwhemingly to support legalized abortion in the United States 7 to 2. Who was in the Majority and who was in the Minority?

Majority
Harry Blackmun
Warren E. Burger
William O. Douglas
William J. Brennan
Potter Stewart
Thurgood Marshall
Lewis Powell

Minority
Byron White
William Rehnquist

The Majority Justices must have all been liberals, yes? Perhaps appointed by Democratic presidents? Wrong. Blackmun, who penned the Supreme Court’s final Majority opinion, was appointed by Republican President Richard Nixon. Also appointed by Nixon were Burgher and Powell. So far, three of the seven Justices in the Majority were appointed by a Republican President. But do not forget that Brennan and Stewart were appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. This means that five of the seven Majority Justices were appointed by Republican presidents (Douglas and Marshall were appointed by Democratic Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson, respectively). What’s more, take the two Democratic-appointed judges out of the Majority, and you are still left with all-Republican majority of the Court that legalizes abortion.

Only White (appointed by Democratic President John F. Kennedy) and Renquist (appointed by Nixon) opposed the Court’s decision to legalize abortion in the United States.

So what we see historically is that Roe v. Wade faced six Republican-appointed Justices, five of whom ruled in favor of Roe. Had only four of the six opposed protecting abortion under the Constitution, January 23, 1973 would not have inaugurated the legalized slaughter of 40 million Americans to date.

More: Are liberal judges to blame for Roe v. Wade? « Vox Nova

Therefore, you can thank REPUBLICANS for Roe v. Wade.

 

[Qball]

I guess this is supposed to be cute, but alas whoever wrote it doesn't know what they're talking about.

For one, "liberal" and "conservative" take on a slightly different meaning when discussing the judiciary. These terms don't refer to one's political ideology, but their legal philosophy. In that regard, liberals tend to be more keen on the idea of a "living constitution" and creating new rights to issues the constitution doesn't even attempt to address and likely would be considered an anathema to the drafters of the constitution. Conservatives believe in applying the intent the framers had to issues before the court..."conserving" the meaning of these constitutional precepts.

The other thing is, Presidents can't really predict what kind of Justice a person will be. Justice Souter was a Republican appointment, but he quite frequently sided with the liberal-wing of the court.

 

[Lakhota]

I guess this is supposed to be cute, but alas whoever wrote it doesn't know what they're talking about.

For one, "liberal" and "conservative" take on a slightly different meaning when discussing the judiciary. These terms don't refer to one's political ideology, but their legal philosophy. In that regard, liberals tend to be more keen on the idea of a "living constitution" and creating new rights to issues the constitution doesn't even attempt to address and likely would be considered an anathema to the drafters of the constitution. Conservatives believe in applying the intent the framers had to issues before the court..."conserving" the meaning of these constitutional precepts.

The other thing is, Presidents can't really predict what kind of Justice a person will be. Justice Souter was a Republican appointment, but he quite frequently sided with the liberal-wing of the court.

Nice spin, further confirming just how far Republicans have moved to the right since then.

Majority
Harry Blackmun - Republican
Warren E. Burger - Republican
William O. Douglas - Democrat
William J. Brennan - Republican
Potter Stewart - Republican
Thurgood Marshall - Democrat
Lewis Powell - Republican

Minority
Byron White - Democrat
William Rehnquist - Republican

 

[whitehall]

You can't judge a supreme court justice on the basis of the political party of the president who appointed them. The majority decision was based on a "right to privacy" that did not exist in the Constitution.

 

[Katzndogz]

Roe v. Wade is so restrictive, it could not get passed today.

 

[George Costanza]

You can't judge a supreme court justice on the basis of the political party of the president who appointed them.

That USED to be the case. Not any more.

 

[George Costanza]

liberals tend to be more keen on the idea of a "living constitution" and creating new rights to issues the constitution doesn't even attempt to address and likely would be considered an anathema to the drafters of the constitution. Conservatives believe in applying the intent the framers had to issues before the court..."conserving" the meaning of these constitutional precepts.

Oh, I get it - liberals: bad; conservatives: good.

How about: Conservatives believe in applying the intent the framers had (as defined, of course, by those same conservatives) to issies before the court, unless, of course, the "intent of the framers" is at odds with current, political goals of the Right, in which case the latter will prevail over the former.

 

[whitehall]

A first year law student could figure out that the '73 Court reached a decision based on political expediency rather than Constitutional law. There is no reference in the Constitution to a "right of privacy" that the Court based their decision. The Founding Fathers would be appalled if they witnessed the carnage of the abortion industry. Americans would be appalled if they ever witnessed a late term or partial birth abortion that relies on another court decision that a human being is still a fetus and has no rights as long as it's head is still in the birth canal.