Centerfield

I would rather see something on this site that is not so blatently partisan. This seems more like a post I would see on the DailyKos then on Centerfield.

As far as the merits of SD go, they are doomed to failure in this approach. Any attempt to overturn Roe V Wade can not be done with a nuclear blast. It will have to be nicked away. I can not see this court or any future court sweeping it way with a flick of a wrist.

As far as the idea that they think Justice Stevens will retire. I can not see it while Bush is in office. Only way I think Bush gets a another shot is the death of a Justice. I think Stevens will hang until the next administration, Republican or Democrat. He would have to be very ill, IMHO, to allow Bush another appointment.

I would have expected this kind of behavior from a southern state.

If South Dakota is trying to challenge Alabama for our title of "Most Crazed State, forced to be in the Union", then they should get ready to rumble! Heck we handle poisonous vipers during religious services and organize covert mission trips to Muslim countries (were such Christian activity is banned by law). They will have to try harder than some silly law to superced us :-}

Jim,

Chill out. What rule is there that someone cannot have a strong opinion about something? (or, god forbid, be partisan?) Does being a centrist mean that you have to be neutral about everything? There was nothing "partisan" about the post--he didn't attack Republicans or conservatives. He simply expressed a strongly negative opinion about the SD law. If you don't like Brian's opinion, fine, you can argue about it. But don't try to censor it.

Partisan? I'm respecting SD's right to try to set their state policies as South Dakotans see fit and asking them to respect Massachusetts' right to do the same. That's what Simon and Pat, our most conservative posters, advocate.

And I'm suggesting a remedy for those South Dakotans who might feel that they'd be losing an important right should abortions be banned. Sounds like a win-win to me, what could be MORE centrist?

Glib? Flip? Potentially inflammatory? Maybe. But partisan?

bk's suggestion doesn't even preclude overturning Roe v. Wade.

If you look at the Court dynamics, though, (and we've been through this before, I know) I just don't see Roe v. Wade's basic right being overturned by the present Court.

Justices Scalia and Thomas are on record as trying to overturn Roe. Justices Stevens, Bader Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Kennedy have either already upheld Roe (Stevens, Souter, and Kennedy during Casey) or else they are likely to do so (Bader Ginsburg, Breyer). Even if Roberts and Alito come out against Roe and in favor of the South Dakota ban, that still leaves them one Justice short.

Now Kennedy did oppose partial birth abortion in Stenberg v. Carhart (which he claimed was consistent with the Casey test), so I think it's very likely that we'll see a PBA ban go into effect in the next two years or so. But that's a far cry from the South Dakota law.

Contrary to what the media has been saying over the last decade, the Court has not been 5-4 in defense of Roe-- it was 6-3 the moment the Pro-Choice Bader Ginsburg replaced the Pro-Life Byron White. All the rhetoric notwithstanding, Pro-Lifers need another Justice if they want to make this work-- and I agree that I don't think Stevens will go until he's at least seen the 2008 election.

I actually found your entry kind of funny, Brian. Being a "centrist" doesn't mean you aren't entitled to hold core principles, and in this case, the right to choose is one you believe in.

Interestingly enough, your comments about depressed South Dakotans moving to Mass made me think of this article I read this morning. There's currently an organized effort by a radical right group to turn South Carolina into a "Christian State." The group is signing up members online who will committ to moving to targeted SC counties. By targeting specific counties, the organizers feel as if they will be able to ensure SC elects politicians at the state level who will outlaw abortion, cease public financing of schools, outlaw homersexual activity, etc. Now, for those of you who think SC is already a "Christian State" (lol), just read the article...it will scare you even more.

I don't think I was attempting to censor. I was simply stating that I found it to be quite condescending and a bit more inflamatory in style. Partisan was an incorrect term. I appologize for that. I understand it was meant to be humorous. However, I think that style humor sells better on other blogs. I will let it go at that.

I, myself, do not approve of what SD is doing. As much as I am against abortion, the damage to the mother of rape and incest are already high. I think Mothers health has to be an exception too. Granted, it is one that could be abused. Therfore, I could not support the SD attempt. Nor do I think the court, even with another conservative, would completely ignore the power of precendents and just toss Roe V Wade out without establishing other precedents to build it on. I seem to recall that one of Justices Alito's papers on the subject essentially refered to this.

Abel, this isn't the first time, either. I think it was the libertarians a year or so ago who were talking about choosing a state to pick on and make the first libertarian state. Last I heard, they were talking about NH. I don't recall if they were enthused enough to consider providing subsidies to proper-thinking emigrees, but that would be ironic, wouldn't it?

States with small populations better watch out if this game gets popular. For example MA has over 6 million people, and SD only about 800,000. We'd probably only have to send a couple hundred thousand dedicated liberals west to turn them a nice shade of Navy or maybe Cape Cod Federal Blue. They could probably send their whole state here without making much of a dent.

And if callyfornyuh got irritated enough it could probably find a way to make a bunch of undocumented illegals into citzens, give them bus tickets northeast, and turn the whole pacific northwest a nice shade of socialist blue. Bwuh-huh-huh-huh-huh!

Is it a coincidence that the radical right is picking out a state known for golf resorts and beaches? I mean, they obviously didn't pick South Dakota, where it's cold and almost no one lives. Maybe they figure, if we are going to outlaw everything, at least let's be able to play golf. :-)

To quote Officer Barbrady: OK people, move along, nothing to see here.

What will happen with the SD law is this: after the governor signs it into law, any of a number of groups will challenge it in federal court, and obtain a court order barring enforcement of the law. The federal court of appeals will affirm, and the Supreme Court will refuse to hear the case. I agree with Bobby --- even if you assume both Roberts and Alito would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade (and that is a big assumption), this is not the case they'll do it with. They are not revolutionaries --- they will make change incrementally.

AR --- yes, the Daily Show did a funny piece on the South Carolina "movement" several weeks ago. They focused on the fact that the founder of the movement couldn't be bothered to actually move himself, but remains at his nice California home "working out logistics." There's another problem with this movement --- states cannot pass laws that contradict the Constitution, and states cannot secede. (I seem to recall a war over that sometime around 1860 or so.)

"Incremental" change in Roe? Just enforcing it as written would be a big change from current practice.

More likely to be upheld by the court would be third-trimester restrictions or proscriptions that eliminated "mental health" exceptions while otherwise allowing "medical neccessity" exceptions.

Both the libertarian and Christian schemes are doomed to failure because the organizers of these hootenannies are not taking into consideration two very important facts. First they are assuming that voter turnout will remain as low as it is (505 + or -). Fact is when a bunch of carpetbaggers start flowing into the state, even the local Christians or libertarians will start to side with their local people over the insurgents and then they will mobilize.

The second and far more important fact is voter don’t choose candidates, people with lot of cash do. And anyone who comes into the state to try and toy with the local power elite will get bitch slapped but good.

True enough.

Hey, half of California has alread moved to Colorado and Washington state, driving up home prices and clogging what used to be nice back roads. Natives of those two locales refer to the process as "Californication."

Some of those NWern states are bluer than they used to be, aren't they? My sense is that Colorado is more up for grabs electorally than it used to be. I could be way off though.

Are some of the Coloradans getting driven to Wyoming. I know I wouldn't be too happy if Barbara Streisand moved next door, although Gary Busey would be entertaining.

This reminds me of Office Space, when a buddy tells Michael Bolton that maybe he should change his name because of Michael Bolton the odious pop singer, and he says "why should I change my name? He's the one that sucks!"

States with small populations better watch out if this game gets popular.

Not to mention nations with smaller populations. Remember the Republic of Texas?

Of course, as a Rhode Island resident let me point out that states with sparse populations are the ones at risk. I'd welcome a libertarian invasion, but I'm not sure where they'd fit.

Right, small in population AND with room for more. RI? No room at the inn.Pawtucket is already spilling over into Attleboro as it is, Henry. Don't even get me started on Cranston. :-)

What is most amusing about the accusation that this is a "partisan" attack is that Jim M apparently has missed the minor detail that this law was introduced by a Democrat. Or is he suggesting that opposition to this law is a partisan Republican position??? LOL

My sense is that Colorado is more up for grabs electorally than it used to be.

Because of that interstate immigration. I moved out of Denver when I saw it coming. The clincher was the day I was sitting in a sidewalk cafe sipping a local brew, and two New Yawkers at the next table kept whining that things just weren't done in Denver the way they liked. It took a real act of willpower not to tell 'em to shut the #### up or move back to New Yawk.

The Denver metro has about doubled in size and population since then, and all the back passes and mountain parks I used to play in have largely been barred to anything but foot trafficdue to tourist load. The High Country wilderness is vanishing. The ranchers who used to let people hike and fish through their properties don't anymore. They got tired of the swarms of people, growing every year.

The Californians and East Coasters moved to Denver because it's beautiful, didn't cost as much as "back home," and the taxes were so much lower. Now they're demanding all the services that drove their taxes so high "back home," and housing demand has sent prices up to the very levels they fled, or worse. And they just can't understand why that's happening. Water shortages are endemic--couldn't build that Twin Forks reservoir twenty years ago, the outcry from environmentalists stopped it. Mighta wiped out a run of hatchery trout, or killed off a rare water bug. Now you have to fight your way to the banks to fish those streams, because of the crowds.

They focused on the fact that the founder of the movement couldn't be bothered to actually move himself, but remains at his nice California home "working out logistics." There's another problem with this movement --- states cannot pass laws that contradict the Constitution, and states cannot secede. (I seem to recall a war over that sometime around 1860 or so.)

I don't recall hearing much about that war of which you speak. Just kidding! Seriously, I did find the bit about the leader still living in his California home quite amusing, but to be honest, I would expect no less. Lest someone accuse me of broadly attacking anyone, I won't launch into my rants about how a number of religious (and political) leaders practice the "do as I say and not as I do" philosophy.

You are right, they can't pass legislation that contradicts the US Constitution, but there's a lot of rather vague areas out there open for interpretation, particularly by a new court that quite possibly leans conservative. For example, don't forget that Texas was still (randomly) prosecuting homosexuals for private acts that they were performing between consenting adults in the sanctity (yes, I like to use that word as well...far rights don't have a monopoly on it!) of their own home. As you can tell by this particular religious leaders quotes, that's exactly what he has in mind for SC. O'Connor is gone now and we don't know how Alito and Roberts would approach something like this. All it takes is for Stevens to be replaced by a Scalia clone and SC could quite possibly find a friend in SCOTUS if they passed such a law.

Abel,

For example, don't forget that Texas was still (randomly) prosecuting homosexuals for private acts that they were performing between consenting adults in the sanctity (yes, I like to use that word as well...far rights don't have a monopoly on it!) of their own home.

You're right, of course. And yet I'll never understand how these movements always herald Thomas Jefferson as their standard-bearer, despite his being the leading advocate of the "live and let live" approach when he noted: "It does me no harm for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God at all."

I'm pretty sure that if TJ were around today, he'd be telling us that it does him no harm if his neighbor chooses to sleep with another man...

I enjoyed your site so much so i have to say it to you. when Plane Destroy Mistery Play: http://www.boston.com/ , Astonishing Cards is always Industrious Gnome Green, International, Astonishing nothing comparative to White , Astonishing Table becomes Memorizing Soldier in final Memorizing is feature of Standard Cards

Karlik4