As an interlude, I thought it would be useful to link to this old post, which brings up an empirical fact that rarely makes it into “counterintuitive” arguments about how the widely-despised Roe v. Wade is destroying the Democratic Party: the public favors it by a two-to-one margin. I’m afraid my position remains that in respositioning themselves the Democrats’ first priority should be to modify policies thataren’t overwhelmingly popular, but I understand that’s not the kind of fresh thinking a party decimated to a mere rump of 48% of the popular vote needs.
Incidentally, this isn’t the only overwhelming majority in favor of Roe:
Justice Ginsburg and Judge Posner have, I believe, correctly diagnosed the underlying reason for the enactment of this legislation–a reason that also explains much of the Court’s rhetoric directed at an objective that extends well beyond the narrow issue that this case presents. The rhetoric is almost, but not quite, loud enough to obscure the quiet fact that during the past 27 years, the central holding of Roe v. Wade (1973), has been endorsed by all but 4 of the 17 Justices who have addressed the issue. –Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), Stevens, J., concurring.
Why have more than 80% of the Justices of the Supreme Court, an overwhelming majority appointed by Republican presidents, many of whom seem to have had no particularly strong view on the matter before being appointed, supported a decision that every astutely “counterintuitive” progressive will assure you is completely indefensible? Stay tuned.