Month: September 2005

The Washington Post has an interesting article on the legal philosophy of aspiring Chief Justice Roberts. Roberts, it says, is devoted to legal process – not legislating from the bench, in other words. Now, I say this as a European liberal in a Parliamentary system, but that attitude does have a lot to recommend it.

For all the iconic status now placed on Roe v. Wade, it can be argued from a democratic point of view that judges creating rights out of – essentially – thin air is undesirable, particularly in such a contentious area. I speak as a supporter of abortion availability (alongside measures to reduce its incidence), but would it not have been better for states (or the Feds) to have introduced something like Britain’s 1967 Abortion Act.

Then there would have been a debate, a democratic agreement, and (as in the 1967 Act) provision could have been made for people with a conscientious objection not to participate in the process. To apparate a right to an abortion, however hedged around, and however supported by the public as a whole, is always going to be undemocratic in the eyes of its opponents. What is more, as Katha Pollitt mentions in a recent issue of The Nation, it can make supporters of abortion rights lazy, and over-reliant on the existence of a constitutional right rather than winning hearts and minds.

This story gave me a huge laugh – George W Bush, the President of the US, has taken it on himself to lead the inquiry into what went wrong with the handling of Katrina. Quick summary of the results, courtesy of my friend Nostradamus:

• (Democrat party) officials in NO and Louisiana – guilty as hell;
• Federal Government (prop. George W Bush) – pure as the driven snow, honest public servants doing hard work in difficult circumstances, etc. etc.

“No-one should be judge of his own cause” indeed.

The BBC report: Link.

Duncan O’Leary over at Demos Greenhouse looks on the bright side for the Tory party. The news stories may have been division, division and more division (oh, and dumping Europe) over the last six months, but at least, he says, the Tories have had a proper debate about the future.

But has it done them any good? The public side had been bad: Party members bickering with each other in public, visions of ideological purity, tight elections, rule changes – it’s like Labour in the 1980s, except it’s also like the Tories in the 1950s (another period where Labour had stolen all their clothes).

And as for the policy debate, there have been a few volleys fired into the air (War in Iraq – bad, apparently. School vouchers – good. No, wait! bad), but frankly, who cares? The Tories won’t be writing their manifesto for another three years, that’s plenty of time to have gone through at least 720° by then. Look at the 1992 Labour manifesto, then look at the 1997 Labour manifesto. Really, the Tories policies will be settled by the winner in the light of the party and the nation, not in the light of any internal debate at the moment.

There is one winner here – and he’s in China.