Look at it the other way around: if the nominees are being questioned about what their opinions are on specific issues, the Congress has already turned it into a political match. The Congress ought to be trying to probe for their qualifications as a justice, and I don't think that one's opinion on self defense or abortion figure directly into that.
Further, I don't buy that you truly believed the argument behind Roe anyway. I don't know you personally, but it's a good bet that you don't support the philosophy that it described. What Roe said[1] was that a person can make whatever[2] treatment they individual decide (in consultation with their doctor) is most appropriate for their circumstances.
But I'm betting that you don't actually agree with this, as evidenced that you likely haven't pursued other violations of it with such vehemence. So I ask you:
1. Have you taken to the streets protesting when people, after consulting with their doctor, have been forbidden the right to use marijuana medicinally?
2. Do you oppose the authority of the FDA to determine what medications Americans should be allowed to use, such that we should be able to use a pharmaceutical even if the FDA says it's too dangerous, or not effective enough?
3. Have you even argued against the authority of the government to force individuals to take covid-19 vaccinations?
If you answer "no" to any of the above, then I assert that your claims to believe in the argument behind Roe is false.
[1] Believe it or not, I actually support the philosophy of bodily autonomy. But that doesn't change the fact that the actual argument behind Roe was a notably lousy one. This is precisely the point I was trying to make in my original comment: one's opinions about the goodness of something are independent of their judgment about the legality of legislation under the Constitution.
[2] Actually, Roe's text limits itself to just abortions, but it seems clear that such a principle ought to apply to all medical treatments in principle - that's why many of today's protests are framed more broadly as "bodily autonomy".
Being forced to carry to term is a different circumstance. As you say yourself, the text limits the ruling to abortion which even today's court has ruled as a unique circumstance. Women should have this right and not the states. I truly believe that, but my opinions are also a distraction...
The justices lied to congress and were always going to overturn Roe. There's no higher judicial ground here.
Further, I don't buy that you truly believed the argument behind Roe anyway. I don't know you personally, but it's a good bet that you don't support the philosophy that it described. What Roe said[1] was that a person can make whatever[2] treatment they individual decide (in consultation with their doctor) is most appropriate for their circumstances.
But I'm betting that you don't actually agree with this, as evidenced that you likely haven't pursued other violations of it with such vehemence. So I ask you:
1. Have you taken to the streets protesting when people, after consulting with their doctor, have been forbidden the right to use marijuana medicinally?
2. Do you oppose the authority of the FDA to determine what medications Americans should be allowed to use, such that we should be able to use a pharmaceutical even if the FDA says it's too dangerous, or not effective enough?
3. Have you even argued against the authority of the government to force individuals to take covid-19 vaccinations?
If you answer "no" to any of the above, then I assert that your claims to believe in the argument behind Roe is false.
[1] Believe it or not, I actually support the philosophy of bodily autonomy. But that doesn't change the fact that the actual argument behind Roe was a notably lousy one. This is precisely the point I was trying to make in my original comment: one's opinions about the goodness of something are independent of their judgment about the legality of legislation under the Constitution.
[2] Actually, Roe's text limits itself to just abortions, but it seems clear that such a principle ought to apply to all medical treatments in principle - that's why many of today's protests are framed more broadly as "bodily autonomy".
reply