Reply to Rick

In a post yesterday, Rick wrote:  "I am perfectly happy to agree that responding legislatively to abortion in a just way would . . . involve 'prudential judgments,' about which reasonable people (including faithful Catholics) could disagree.  (I'd be surprised if anyone denied this.)"

Rick says he'd "be surprised if anyone denied this."  According to Rick's thinly veiled suggestion, I am seeing controversy where there is none.  Am I?  I don't think so.  Listen, for example, to Archbishop John Myers, "A Time for Honesty," Origins, May 20, 2004, at 1, 4-5:

That some Catholics, who claim to believe what the Church believes, are willing to allow others to continue direcrly to kill the innocent is a grave scandal. . . .  [W]ith abortion . . ., there can be no legitimate diversity of opinion. . . .  One should not permit unjust killing anymore than one should permit slave-holding, racist actions or other grave injustices. . . .  Obviously, recognizing the grave injustice of slavery requires one to ensure that no one suffers such degradation.  Similarly, recognizing that abortion is unjust killing requires one--in love and justice--to work to overcome the injustice.

The question, however, is whether "recognizing that abortion is unjust killing" requires one to support the criminalization of early abortions.  Archbishop Myers's position seems to be that the answer is yes and that there is no legitimate diversity of prudential judgments about the matter.

So, Rick, I don't think I'm seeing controversy where there is none.

On another issue:  Yes, Roe and Casey were wrongly decided.  I argue so myself in my most recent con law piece (here).

A final issue:  I read the piece about Robert Casey to which Rick provided a link.  Yes, Casey would vote against the sort of judges that George Bush has nominated to the Supreme Court--and that a successor Republican president would probably nominate to the Court.  But there is nothing in the piece to suggest that Casey would do this because those nominees might vote to overrule Roe and Casey.  I assume that Casey would do it for the same reason I would do it:  because those nominees adhere to a misguided judicial philosophy that  would lead them to oppose many other, constitutionally correct rulings, like Atkins v. Virginia, which held that the imposition of capital punishment on the mentally retarded is unconstitutional, or Roper v. Simmons, which held that the imposition of capital punishment on minors is unconstitutional.  I would support a nominee who would vote to overrule Roe and Casey but whose judicial philosophy was sufficiently nuanced that he/she would not also oppose cases like Atkins and Roper.  I have no reason to doubt that Robert Casey would also support such a nominee.  (Whether it is realistic to expect either party to bring forth such "nuanced" nominees is a separate question.  Our politics is so polarized--even degraded.)

I've committed myself in writing (here) to the twofold position that the Court should not rule that capital punishment violates the Eighth Amendment *and* that Atkins and Roper were rightly decided.  If Rick thinks my argument misfires, then I wish Rick would go beyond simply saying that he disagrees with me and point out to MOJ-readers precisely those places where (according to Rick) my argument--my Thayerian argument--misfires.
_______________
mp