The Supreme Court and Party Competition

The nomination of Edith Clement would support observations that contemporary American politics is a contest between the party of the rich who fight to the death against welfare while caving on abortion and the party of the other rich who fight to the death on abortion while caving on welfare. The preliminary indications, very preliminary, indicate that Judge Clement is extremely pro-business while possibly willing to reaffirm some version of Roe v. Wade (and probably some version of Lawrence v. Texas). Best guess is that will do it for the Democrats and a great many liberal lawyers whose constitutional liberalism seems almost exhausted by efforts to preserve Roe.

The lower-middle class voters who Democrats formerly counted on tend to be ambivalent, at best, about abortion and gay rights. A reasonable case can be made that liberal elites should still champion abortion and gay rights, given the gross discrimination against the poor and persons of color when abortion is illegal and the bigotry underlying opposition to gay rights. Still, the present debates on Supreme Court nominations suggest that liberal elites have nothing to offer their lower-middle class base. Justice Clement will be free to gut protections for unions and laws limiting hazards in the work place, as long as she might declare parental consent laws unconstitutional.