My younger brother and I have developed a tradition of going head to head in a complex betting contest that spans the NFL season through the Super Bowl. We call it DR2 after our shared initials. While the monetary stakes are low, the emotional stakes are high and the fun is enormous. Throughout the season we have a constant back and forth about sensationalist coverage of DR2 in the tabloids, rumors of locker room dissent and staff shake-ups when one of us is on a bad losing streak, and solemn recollections of various hallowed memories like the Thanksgiving “massacre” weekend when I lost every game. Our tradition has many charms, not least of which is the opportunity for us to be as silly as we please.
David, perhaps you have more of a conservative streak than you had thought. On Roe, a deeply complex issue, I always thought the Roe finding was problematic and the reversal proved that to be true. The real problem was in the original decision. It was a matter that should have been decided in legislative fashion, meaning nationally in Congress and otherwise in state legislatures. Now the states have it back. A national law must be the product of Congress, not the courts. That would mean looking at all aspects and deciding if the fence needs to be there and, if so, how it should be designed. Such a task was not meant for the court. I know that is a conservative approach, but it could have yielded a better outcome and, if not, because Congress could not reach a consensus it could pass, then it might have been best to leave it to the states until a future Congress could manage legislation reflective of the population it serves.
On a more important note, as a father I established a football betting tradition, though it only lasted a few years. When the boys were young, and Budweiser was running the Bud v Bud Light superbowl commercials, I organized betting on the outcome of the Bud series. Each of us put in $.25 and the winner took the pot of $1.00. We watched every Bud commercial.
I agree we all have that conservative impulse and that is healthy. Too often, we confuse that with political conservatism. It's a shame there aren't different words for those two.
David, I love your post. And Josh, I appreciate your thoughtful additions. That said, Josh, I think you have misconstrued Chesterton's fence in the case of abortion. Given the long standing precedent of Roe, and indeed given the centuries old legal precedent for abortion in American legal history (a history that Justice Alito deliberately ignored to the great frustration of those who briefed him on the matter), the conservative approach would be to leave Roe in place until such time as a new fence - namely one constructed by national legislation - was in place. Instead, the old fence was torn down and the cattle have wandered all over the place. SCOTUS and many of the "forced birth" party have demonstrated both medically and morally that they have little understanding of why the fence was built in the first place. As such, Chesterton's standard says the fence should stay for now.
We can disagree on Roe (without taking a position on abortion, I think it was simply a bad ruling on constitutional grounds, an attempt at legislation via SCOTUS and therefore flawed and open to being overturned) but the fence is now open and the cattle have wandered off, as you say. That being the case, we have federal and state options and states are much more likely to act now, in a variety of ways (ie referendum or legislation) than is Congress. It is a classic case of each state being able to find a consensus in its population while Congress likely will not. If Congress were to pass a law on the topic, I might not like the law (or I might) but it would be very likely to stand if it came about as the result of discussion and compromise.
Personally, and I rarely go into this, I have enormously strong and conflicting feelings about abortion. I am close to women who have had an abortion and been fine with it, were about to and changed her mind and had the baby, and had an abortion and live a life of regret. I believe the best we can hope for is compromise legislation, allowing abortion with limitations. I don't think any all-or-nothing ruling, via legislation or the courts, will ultimately stand. I think Roe was always destined to be challenged and overthrown because it was not well established. Compromise will be the only way to a lasting rule. I suspect that even in those states now taking the strongest positions in opposition, there will be changes in the future.
David, perhaps you have more of a conservative streak than you had thought. On Roe, a deeply complex issue, I always thought the Roe finding was problematic and the reversal proved that to be true. The real problem was in the original decision. It was a matter that should have been decided in legislative fashion, meaning nationally in Congress and otherwise in state legislatures. Now the states have it back. A national law must be the product of Congress, not the courts. That would mean looking at all aspects and deciding if the fence needs to be there and, if so, how it should be designed. Such a task was not meant for the court. I know that is a conservative approach, but it could have yielded a better outcome and, if not, because Congress could not reach a consensus it could pass, then it might have been best to leave it to the states until a future Congress could manage legislation reflective of the population it serves.
On a more important note, as a father I established a football betting tradition, though it only lasted a few years. When the boys were young, and Budweiser was running the Bud v Bud Light superbowl commercials, I organized betting on the outcome of the Bud series. Each of us put in $.25 and the winner took the pot of $1.00. We watched every Bud commercial.
I agree we all have that conservative impulse and that is healthy. Too often, we confuse that with political conservatism. It's a shame there aren't different words for those two.
David, I love your post. And Josh, I appreciate your thoughtful additions. That said, Josh, I think you have misconstrued Chesterton's fence in the case of abortion. Given the long standing precedent of Roe, and indeed given the centuries old legal precedent for abortion in American legal history (a history that Justice Alito deliberately ignored to the great frustration of those who briefed him on the matter), the conservative approach would be to leave Roe in place until such time as a new fence - namely one constructed by national legislation - was in place. Instead, the old fence was torn down and the cattle have wandered all over the place. SCOTUS and many of the "forced birth" party have demonstrated both medically and morally that they have little understanding of why the fence was built in the first place. As such, Chesterton's standard says the fence should stay for now.
Tom,
We can disagree on Roe (without taking a position on abortion, I think it was simply a bad ruling on constitutional grounds, an attempt at legislation via SCOTUS and therefore flawed and open to being overturned) but the fence is now open and the cattle have wandered off, as you say. That being the case, we have federal and state options and states are much more likely to act now, in a variety of ways (ie referendum or legislation) than is Congress. It is a classic case of each state being able to find a consensus in its population while Congress likely will not. If Congress were to pass a law on the topic, I might not like the law (or I might) but it would be very likely to stand if it came about as the result of discussion and compromise.
Personally, and I rarely go into this, I have enormously strong and conflicting feelings about abortion. I am close to women who have had an abortion and been fine with it, were about to and changed her mind and had the baby, and had an abortion and live a life of regret. I believe the best we can hope for is compromise legislation, allowing abortion with limitations. I don't think any all-or-nothing ruling, via legislation or the courts, will ultimately stand. I think Roe was always destined to be challenged and overthrown because it was not well established. Compromise will be the only way to a lasting rule. I suspect that even in those states now taking the strongest positions in opposition, there will be changes in the future.
I’m reading as a guest, but really like what you’ve had to say. Of course, I find your posts on TD very good, as well.
Thanks and please feel free to subscribe! I'd love to have you as a reader.
I don't charge anything and have no intention of ever doing so.
Thank you! I very much enjoyed your writing.
Thanks, Anne. I hope all is well in your world.