I find myself agreeing with part of conservative pundit Hugh Hewitt’s recent opinion on Chief Justice Robert’s siding with the liberal wing of the court in staying the Louisiana abortion law while it makes its way through the courts:
Why might a conservative, “originalist” justice vote for a stay of the Louisiana law? Consider what may happen next:
The Supreme Court can choose to grant certiorari in June Medical Services and then agree that the Louisiana law does not conflict with WWH and uphold the circuit court’s decision. Or a Supreme Court majority could in fact overrule WWH upon full consideration of the record. Indeed, the court might (and I pray does) go even further than that and reverse Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
To have appeared (even by inference) to have done this last thing by denying a stay would have been derided as a “sneak attack” on Roe. The court depends on the public’s enduring respect to maintain its standing, especially on the most controversial cases. Shortcuts to long-sought and fervently desired outcomes are no way to preserve that standing. Full briefing and argument, both before the court and in the public arena, is the preferred path. And it isn’t a close call.
The important point being that allowing the law to be implemented while it’s under Constitutional litigation constitutes an illicit attack on the activity; I’m surprised the conservative wing didn’t join the liberal wing, regardless of their opinion on abortion itself.
That noted, I don’t agree that Roe v Wade or any of the other opinions ought to be overturned. That the issue is divisive has little connection to the discernment of justice, only with how varied our precepts are when it comes to the divine, fetuses, infants, and the status of the latter two in American society. A decision was made to permit the directly concerned pregnant woman decide, which may be the best compromise we can hope for.
These attempts to make abortion illegal are clearly the actions of minds who fail to respect others’ opinions. It’s a step over the line from persuasion or proselytization into fascism.
But it appears, from external actions, that Chief Justice Roberts is carefully safeguarding the reputation of the Court. It’s too bad the dissenters don’t understand that.
