Reply #64: Re: O'Connor - not exactly.

[Tafiti]

You're right that Roe is not seriously debated anymore, but that's because it was seriously deflated way back in 1992 in part by O'Connor's joint opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which made the right to choose no longer a fundamental right (as it was under Roe), but only a "liberty interest," meaning that the standard for scrutinizing a law regulating or restricting abortion was much lower. So after that case, laws restricting abortion will pass Constitutional muster as long as they don't "unduly burden" the woman's right to choose, whereas under Roe, the Court would have had to apply a "strict scrutiny" standard in evaluating constitutionality. Ever since then, more and more restrictions have been allowed, eroding abortion rights further and further. However, it's a bit of a misconception that Roe v. Wade was this great women's rights victory. In actuality, the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy in that opinion was couched in terms of a physician's right to make such a determination and recommendation based on his expert medical opinion, not the woman's right to make that decision. But, in any case, the effective result was a fundamental right to abortion access for women.

Is there something even more precarious than a limb? If so, that's what Kennedy is hanging by. It was nice that we could count on him to at least recognize that global warming is a real threat (EPA v. Mass.), but he too often sides with those 4 RATS on the Court (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia) :). I'd like to see Kennedy go, too. I'm not sure he deserves the title "moderate" - if so, only by comparison to ultra-conservative. Damn, if Obama gets to appoint 3 Justices, that'll be fantastic. And I agree with you, he would make excellent appointments. Exciting for a law geek like myself.