E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Some thoughts on the fascinating dialogue between Sandy Levinson and Jack Balkin noted below.
I wonder about the accuracy or completeness of the conventional wisdom that a judicial decision overruling ROE will badly hurt Republicans. Given the limited impact of that ruling in most blue states and that most people do not think they personally will need abortion services, I suspect most of the middle class will soon learn to adjust to a world without ROE. And certainly, poll after poll indicates that abortion is not a major issue for most voters.
Democrats have had some luck with a strategy that combines greater emphasis on abortion rights with less emphasis on welfare rights, or other concerns of the lower middle class. It is probably no accident that while there is much noise over what Alito might do on abortion, no one seems very concerned that he is extremely hostile to labor unions. Thus, even if the Democratic party gains as a result of Roe being overruled, many liberals might find that altered coalition unattractive, its only virtue being that it remains less unattractive than Republicans.
Compromising with the more religious lower middle class may involve accepting some limits on abortion and slowing down the movement for gay marraige, but such compromise may also entail insisting that suburban social liberals pay higher taxes for social programs aimed at the poor. Alas, as the Democratic party becomes a better and better vehicle for social liberalism, both in and outside of courts, it has become a worse vehicle for economic liberalism. Thus, the challenge for liberals is not simply to figure out whether we are better off fighting for abortion in courts or in legislatures, but how a liberal coalition can be put together that might advance a broader spectrum of liberal policies than is presently the case. Posted
12:02 PM
by Mark Graber [link]
I just can't see these as necessarily the mutually-exclusive options of some tradeoff the Democrats have to make before they can move forward. I think liberals can carry the weight of both these issues with a little more effort and imagination. We have to be innovative. Tha same old arguments become quagmires. Our reliance on inefficient efforts by default is the only reason why we think our first choice has to be about where to cut weight.
The Republicans tend to do a little better job of asking, "What will appeal to the common voter about the conservative side of the issue?" and then turning that into a theme that's well-developed, and that they keep returning to. The Democrats have to do this; they have to move a little bit more like lawyers.
" I suspect most of the middle class will soon learn to adjust to a world without ROE."
It's WOMEN, not Middle Class!
The mistake here is to conflate "middle class" with women. Substitute women in that sentence and you get the full obliviousness of the tought.Perhaps we should chalk this up to male privilege.
I wonder what other right we would expect people to "adjust to" no longer having?
Oh, I don't know, maybe the "right" not to have their skulls crushed, and their brains sucked out. Personally, I chalk it up to not accepting female privilege.