The Observer, November 18, 2005
Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11
The Right Stuff: Abortion debate is about constitutionality, not ideals
I hope the coming debate over Judge Samuel Alito's Supreme Court nomination will highlight how a group – claiming to represent a much larger group – may actually represent a subversive set of ideals of which their many semiconscious Democratic supporters may not be aware. Republican pundits speculate Democrats will focus myopically on issues Judge Alito either ruled upon or represented in court. Pertinent issues for Democrats include a case in which Judge Alito refused to overturn a drug dealer's conviction on grounds the evidence for conviction was found during a strip-search of a minor. Advertisements and scare campaigns will probably try and convince Americans that Judge Alito is a pedophile, or at the very least hates children – or they certainly will once the campus arm of moveon.org reads this.
In reality, Judge Alito has consistently ruled within the letter of the law. Rather than forcing his own opinions on citizens, Alito respects the will of the people, and in the aforementioned case, ruled to uphold the law passed by an elected legislature. In a representative democracy, the will of the people rules through legislature, not judiciary, something Judge Alito clearly understands. His opinion that abortion is not one of the rights protected by the Constitution, as stated in his application to become deputy assistant to Attorney General Edwin Meese in 1985, is consistent with his judicial philosophy. This is good news to Republicans and Democrats alike.
Republicans can rest assured that Judge Alito's experience guarantees Senate hearings regarding his nomination. Democrats seeking to smear Alito on individual issues will also see this as an opportunity. But, the best thing this offers Americans is the possibility that Roe vs. Wade may be overturned. Intelligent Republicans and Democrats agree that the Supreme Court's ruling in the controversial abortion case was a dark day for both parties. Conservatives are burdened by the existence of this seemingly irrevocable judicial legislation, and Democrats failed again to get the electorate to support one of their important party initiatives. Legalizing abortion without popular vote doesn't reflect the democratic process, but it may finally have the chance.
What liberals fear the most about Judge Alito and his impending confirmation is the potential loss of abortion rights in many states, and the rallying of Republicans around ideas important to them. Using the last election as a benchmark, particularly Ohio issues 2 through 5, liberal initiatives still haven't found footing in divided states like Ohio. However, the defeat of these issues shows how unpopular the concept of activist judges has become. Issues 4 and 5 sought to add appointed individuals to the state bureaucracy in order to take power out of the hands of legislators. The problem here, like the problem of activist judges, is accountability. When individuals receive appointments to fulfill specific agendas rather than ensure the best interests of those they represent, the democratic process fails.
The Republicans left smoldering after the Roe v. Wade decision have been waiting for the nomination of a pair of justices like Judge Alito and Justice Roberts. It begs the debate over activist judges and their judicial legislation that has supported a widely unpopular liberal agenda. If all Democrats realized their party stood for absolving the electorate of its voting responsibilities, many would find other candidates to support, and we would find more unemployed Democrat leaders.
