Posted by
Mark Holt on Monday, September 15, 2008 5:51:10 PM
On a recent appearance on the View, John McCain came under fire from most of the panel members on the issue of abortion. After discussing this, Whoopi Goldberg said one of the most insulting and ignorant things I have ever heard anyone ask a candidate for President. First, I'll recap the abortion discussion, then we'll get to the issue of Whoopi. They asked him what kind of judges he would appoint to the Supreme Court. He replied, as most Republicans do, that he has no litmus test. But he went a little farther and gave them some honesty. When asked, he said that he disapproved of Roe v. Wade. But his honesty was actually misleading, for two reasons:
First of all, what a President thinks of any decision matters not at all. Presidents are unable to dictate to justices they appoint on any issues before them. A justice may indicate his or her opinion on an issue, but they never do. This would be like rendering a decision on a case before hearing the evidence. So, when a President says he does not have a litmus test, that is right--because even if he did, it would mean exactly nothing. The only thing the President knows is the appointee's general philosophy and level of judicial activism. Both of which can change. So a President has little control over reversing Roe v. Wade. More control than you or me, but still, little control.
Second of all, there was sort of a murmuring uproar in the room after McCain voiced his disapproval of Roe v. Wade. Neither the hosts nor the audience paid attention to the rest of his thought, which was the reason that he disapproves of Roe v. Wade. What they assumed was that he disapproved because it legalized abortion. But, in fact, he said he disapproved because Roe v. Wade granted powers to the federal government it should never have had. He didn't say he wanted to ban abortion. He said it should be an issue for the states. Which, again, is exactly right. Not to mention the fact that Roe v. Wade technically didn't legalize abortion. But that's a topic for another post. The point is, no matter how much those in the federal government might approve or disapprove of abortion, they shouldn't have any legal means of enforcing their opinion on the country. At least, not on the shaky "privacy" grounds of Roe v. Wade. When John McCain said he disapproved of Roe v. Wade, he was expressing concern about its legality, and not its morality. Of course, the reason its legality matters more than that of similar cases is because so many people question its morality. But there is still a difference between questioning the morality of a decision, and questioning the legality of that decision.
What John McCain did was show his deep respect for the law and the Constitution. In spite of the fact that he must deeply disapprove of Roe v. Wade on a personal level, he made no objection to it on moral grounds.
Then followed a discussion on exactly what it means to be a Strict Constructionist. Most of my readers won't need that definition repeated. But Whoopi, even after learning what it was (we can only presume, for the first time), seemed determined not to understand. This was when she fired this shot at McCain:
SENATOR McCAIN: No, I want people who interpret the Constitution of the
United States the way our founding fathers envision for them to do.
GOLDBERG: Should I worry about being a slave, being
returned to a slave? Because certain things returned to the
Constitution that you had to change.
(loud cheers and applause from audience)
SENATOR McCAIN: I understand that, and I get it. Thank you.
McCain said the only thing he could say. What do you say to something so deeply stupid? And how do you react when that stupidity seems to be widespread among everyone in the room? You just politely acknowledge it and move on. Why was it stupid, and why was it insulting?
It was insulting for the obvious reason that it assumes McCain wants a return to slavery. For her to "worry" about being returned to slavery, someone would have to get a slavery case to the Supreme Court. Well, in today's America, I doubt one person in ten million wants slavery back. That case isn't going to be heard. Ever. When she uses the word you in "certain things ... you had to change," is she insinuating that somehow John McCain had something to do with slavery? If that is a joke about his age, it's actually funny; if it is, as it appears to be, a sincere insinuation, it is a mortal insult, delivered without reason on a man who had done nothing to deserve it.
It was stupid because, if there was ever a slavery case before the Supreme Court, then a Strict Constructionist would be Whoopi's best friend. A strict constructionist justice could never reinstate slavery (Ms. Goldberg has perhaps heard of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments); only an activist justice, legislating "from the bench," could do that.
What John McCain did not say, and perhaps should have, is that it was the election of the first Republican president that started the war on slavery. The South knew Abraham Lincoln would slowly circumscribe slavery, and set it on a "path to eventual extinction," as he put it, so they had no choice but to give up their slaves or secede. It was also a Republican congress and President who brought the above mentioned amendments about. The Republican party came into existence for the very purpose of abolishing slavery.
So perhaps when Ms. Goldberg said, of slavery and the Constition, that there were "certain things . . . that you had to change," she wasn't delivering an insult after all. Perhaps she was simply expressing her thanks, for amending the constitution to abolish slavery. And, in the absence of Abe Lincoln, her closest option was John McCain, the nominee of Abe's Republican Party.