Byron White, abortion, and the idea of "popular sovereignty"

Roger over at Between Heaven and Hell has a very insightful little reflection on the late Supreme Court Justice Byron White's dissent in Roe v. Wade. Read Roger's commentary here: Roe vs. Wade Dissent. As Roger points out, White's dissent was ultimately based on the assertion that the abortion issue is one not of reason but of emotion, not of truth but of "values."

From a pro-life perspective, that is the glaring weakness of White's approach. While he valiantly dissented against what he characterized as the Court's use of "raw judicial power" to decriminalize abortion, he ultimately refused to ground his dissent in any principle beyond judicial deference to the political actors in our federal system.

While that outcome might be infinitely preferable to the one crafted by the Court's majority, it still falls far short of the kind of robust defense of human life that stands at the core of the natural law and the best of the American constitutional tradition.  So the question poses itself:  why did White take the approach that he did when dissenting to Roe v. Wade?

As I commented over at Roger's blog, I think that White argued as he did because of his own personal view of abortion. White was pro-legalized abortion and had stated that if he had been a legislator, he would have voted for more liberal abortion laws. (That information comes from law professor Dennis J. Hutchinson's biography of White, The Man Who Once Was Whizzer White -- early in his career Hutchinson had served as one of White's law clerks at the Supreme Court).

White viewed the question as an inherently political one, and thus one unsuited for judicial resolution (hence his "raw power" characterization of the Court's decision). He didn't view the ultimate question of abortion as one with a right or a wrong answer grounded in reason -- rather, it was a question that called for an inherently political response, which would lead to different outcomes in different states.  Seen in that perspective, White's dissent is a call for a restrained judiciary that leaves matters of public controversy to be resolved by those branches of government closest to the public:  the political branches at the state level.

Again, this is far better approach, from a pro-life perspective, to the abortion question than the Court's decision in Roe.  But its refusal to address the role of reason in discussing the abortion question leaves it ultimately unsatisfying.   While there's no doubt that abortion rouses deep emotional responses from people across the ideological spectrum, the question of when human life begins and what rights all human beings should share is one that cries out for reasoned debate.   The problem with White's approach, is that instead of giving prominence to the light of reason, it sees abortion decriminalization as an issue to be resolved primarily through the heat of emotion. 

One more thing.  Given White's embrace of deference to the political branches regarding the right to life, another question comes to mind:   how is White's solution to the abortion question substantively different from Stephen A. Douglas' views espousing "popular sovereignty" regarding the slavery question during the Lincoln-Douglas debates?  I don't see how it is...

Thoughts about the movie Avatar

Welcome, Instapundit readers!  This is my first ever Instalanche and I am honored beyond words that I got a link.  A big thanks to Professor Reynolds for linking to me and a hearty welcome to anyone visiting.  Feel free to take a look around the blog and comment if you are interested. 

Ok, it won big at the Golden Globes and it is making at ton of money, but isn't anybody a bit disturbed about the success of a movie that propagates such an anti-human perspective? 

I like a good story and all, but I also am a fan of humanity.  If I see a movie and it's aliens vs. humans, I'm rooting for the humans.  Sorry, that's just the policy of Libertas et Memoria.  If the movie is humans vs. apes, I'm rooting for the humans.  Nothing against apes, but I'm going to root for the humans.  Now, if the movie was apes vs. aliens, I'm going to root for the apes.  My default position, in the absence of humans, is to root for the Earth-team. So, if we ever see the movie Dolphin vs. Predator, I'm cheering for the dolphin.  But if it's humans vs. aliens, I'm cheering on the humans.  What about humans vs. orcs, you say?  I'm on the side of the humans.  And that goes for wood elves, replicants, Cyclons, whatever.  If it's somebody else vs. humanity, I want the humans to win.   

Flipper vs. Gilligan?  I say:  Gilligan omnia vincit!    

Ancient Hebrew text discovered

Here's the story.  The text is written on a pottery shard and dates to the reign of King David in the 10th century B.C.  This is important because many modern scholars thought that Hebrew writing didn't originate until sometime after the 6th century B.C.  This discovery indicates that written Hebrew is several hundred years older at least than was previously assumed.  Cool. 

Interestingly enough, the text on the pottery shard isn't from a biblical text, but it echoes biblical themes about taking care of the poor and the marginalized:  widows, orphans and even slaves. 

German court moves to use English in international business cases

Here's the story.

Es ist schade!

Frank Meyer

As readers of this blog well know, I am a major fan of Russell Kirk.  Kirk's understanding of tradition and its role in a conservative approach to politics and life has been a major influence on my understanding of law, politics, faith and culture.  However, Kirk was not the only major conservative thinker of the post-World War II era of American thought.  One of the other greats of that period is the now-little read Frank Meyer.

I am working my way, slowly, through his book In Defense of Freedom and Other Essays.  He has a very strong critique of Kirk's approach to conservatism, as well as a defense of the fusion of social traditionalism with libertarianism.  It's very interesting stuff and I plan on posting some on the book once I am finished.  Until then, if any of my readers are interested, they may want to read this very interesting article about Frank Meyer posted over at National Review Online.