Close, But No David Souter
Roe v. Wade almost went down in 1992, according to Supreme Court Justice Blackmun's recently released papers. What saved it? In part, apparently, it was Justice Anthony Kennedy's cold feet -- unexplained in Blackmun's papers. But, was it also positively affected by Justice David Souter's alleged need, as suggested by one of Blackmun's clerks, to preserve his dating service?!!
At one point, one of Blackmun's law clerks wrote that the three centrist justices could pay a price for disagreeing with the White House view on abortion.The unmarried Souter might lose his popularity with then-first lady Barbara Bush as her favorite "most-eligible bachelor" to invite to White House dinners, the clerk wrote.
It's been more than a decade since intimate details of the court's inner workings were revealed in Justice Thurgood Marshall's papers, which elicited bitter criticism within the court because the papers include secret memos and unpublished draft opinions in controversial cases.
Most current justices are expected to ensure their files and any embarrassing secrets they might hold will be protected long after their deaths.
Blackmun, like Marshall, served 24 years on the court and into his 80s, retiring in 1994. He accumulated far more correspondence than Marshall.
The appointee of President Nixon "took copious notes and never threw away any of his papers," Washington lawyer David Frederick said.
His authorship of Roe v. Wade brought him more than 60,000 angry letters and repeated threats on his life.
I'm no fan of the Democrats, but I suggest those of you who are planning on voting Bush back into office consider very carefully what might slip away in the course of another four more years.
Common rumor is that Kennedy's clerk, Michael Dorf, now a professor at Columbia, wrote a memo that convinced Kennedy to change his mind and support the compromise that saved Roe. Dorf won't tell until after Kennedy dies.
Mithras at March 5, 2004 1:36 AM
No liberal will ever pass an opportunity to pick a fight over an issue settled a generation earlier... It leverages the decency of the truly courageous.
But for the record, tell me again (in one sentence)why the right to abortion couldn't be delivered through Congress?
Crid at March 5, 2004 11:42 AM
Don't you mean 1992, not '72? Roe v. Wade didn't happen until 1973.
Julie from SoCal at March 5, 2004 11:53 AM
In the late '60s in California, Ronald Reagan passed the most liberal abortion law in the country -- before Roe v. Wade, obviously. If Roe v. Wade goes down, which is highly unlikely, most states would immediately pass laws making sure abortion remained legal. And if a few places, like Utah, don't, well, that's what federalism is about. You don't have to live in places like Utah (or Berkeley) if you don't want to. But as long as we're freely allowed to cross state lines, I don't see how the extremely slim possibility of abortions becoming slightly more difficult in a few states compares to the very real possibility of a few thousand more dead through terrorism.
Cathy Seipp at March 5, 2004 12:56 PM
Indeed, 1992. Souter would certainly not have been a justice in 1972 since he was appointed by Bush I.
LYT at March 5, 2004 6:57 PM
Trying to make the conceptual leap here. How does preserving Roe vs. Wade threaten more lives by terrorism? Electing a Democrat would cause another terrorist act on U.S. soil? More terrorist acts would occur outside of the United States. I'm not sure I see the relationship.
And the rights of women in Utah, which is not the only conservative state by any means, are just as valuable as the rights of women in New York or Berkeley.
In addition, not all women can afford to easily travel across state lines.
Sheryl at March 5, 2004 7:20 PM
Thanks, Luke and Julie - my bad. Corrected. And Sheryl is right.
Amy Alkon at March 5, 2004 10:43 PM