On a post on abortion and the Supreme Court over at the Fidelis blog, Cranky Con left the following comment:
I would remind those that harp on the GOP’s supposed failure to appoint Justices who would protect innocent human life by overturning Roe about one thing. Ronald Reagan originally selected Robert Bork to be on the Court in 1987. The new Democratic majority in the Senate rejected Bork, and Regan was forced to go with the more moderate Anthony Kennedy. Five years later, in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, a 5-4 majority upheld Roe, with Kennedy voting in the majority. We know with pretty much 100% certainty (because he’s said as much) that Robert Bork would have voted to overturn Roe. So while GOP presidents have disappointed in their SCOTUS selections, it because these appointments have voted contrary to the President’s wishes.
There subsists a myth, perpetuated here, that Justice Anthony Kennedy, in changing his mind last minute, is singly responsible for the upholding of Roe in the Casey v. Planned Parenthood case (1993). President Reagan, the myth goes, was forced to appoint the moderate and maverick Kennedy after the President’s initial nominee, Robert Bork, was left unconfirmed by the Senate in 1987. Reagan was so close to repealing Roe, right? Wrong.
Reagan gave up way too easily. Bork was an ultra-conservative with heavy baggage from his time as Attorney General under President Nixon. The odds were stacked against his confirmation before Reagan ever nominated him. Reagan’s next choice was Douglas Ginsburg, who withdrew himself from consideration before Reagan officially nominated him (Ginsburg was concerned that his pot smoking days would catch up to him). Did Reagan seek out a third option for the Court who would be conservative like Bork and Ginsburg but without the baggage? No. Reagan caved in and played it safe by appointing the more moderate and unpredictable Kennedy. Kennedy got confirmed, and in 1993 he voted in the Majority in Casey v. Planned Parenthood. The mythologists will tell you that we were so close to repealing Roe, and that Kennedy, in voting against the wishes of Reagan and then-President George H.W. Bush, kept us from a watershed pro-life victory.
However, the battle to repeal Roe was not lost with Kennedy. Rather, Reagan’s intent to place gender above policy in 1981 was really where the abortion battle was lost in the Court. Keeping with his campaign promise to appoint the first woman to the Supreme Court, Reagan’s choice of Sandra Day O’Connor cannot be forgotten (Cranky Con doesn’t mention her), for, like Kennedy, she supported upholding Roe in Casey v. Planned Parenthood. Sad thing is, Reagan knew that the appointment of O’Connor could compromise the pro-life cause as one of his 1981 diary entries relates:
Called Judge O’Connor in Arizona and told her she was my nominee for Supreme Court. Already the flak is starting, and from my own supporters. Right-to-life people say she’s pro-abortion. She declares abortion is personally repugnant to her. I think she’ll make a good justice.
Ronald Reagan lost the abortion battle for the pro-life movement with his two reckless and ill-advised Court appointments, and George H.W. Bush consolidated the pro-choice Court with his choice of David Souter, who is now considered to be one of its more liberal Justices. History is history. Twelve years of conservative, pro-life, Republican leadership during which five Supreme Court Justices were appointed (O’Connor, Kennedy, Scalia, Souter, and Thomas) and Roe remains.
Don’t blame Anthony Kennedy alone for Casey v. Planned Parenthood. O’Connor and Souter, both appointed by conservative, pro-life Republican presidents, are equally at fault. But, really, the short-sightedness of Presidents Reagan and Bush is the reason that humans are continually slaughtered inside (and sometimes outside) the womb under the protection of the law. Whether Reagan and Bush were unable to forecast how their judges would vote or Reagan and Bush really did not have the repeal of Roe in heart with their appointments is hard to tell. What is clear, however, is that if the president of the United States is to be held to task in terms of the abortion fight, then Reagan and Bush are failures.
“But, really, the short-sightedness of Presidents Reagan and Bush is the reason that humans are continually slaughtered inside (and sometimes outside) the womb under the protection of the law. ”
Policratus,
You and I are the reason babies are still slaughtered in the womb.
I’m going to leave this post at Cranky Con’s blog too, since I have my doubts as to whether you’ll be fair-minded enough to let it through here.
1) The quote from Reagan’s diary in no way proves that Reagan thought she was going to vote pro-choice. To the contrary, it proves that he thought the opposite, that he thought the pro-lifers were wrong in their concern about O’Connor, because O’Connor hated abortion.
2) Bork wasn’t defeated because of his “baggage” from the Nixon days; it had much more to do with his positions on issues like abortion. In perhaps the most famous statement about a Supreme Court nomination, Ted Kennedy claimed that “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of the government.” Most of that statement was an outright lie, but notice that Nixon wasn’t mentioned, and that abortion was the number one item on the list.
3) It’s not a “myth” that Kennedy changed his mind in Casey at the last minute. It’s a fact. Kennedy had initially decided to vote to overturn Roe, and the other Justices had begun writing both a majority decision overturning Roe and dissents from that decision. Then Kennedy changed his mind, and wrote a note to Blackmun requesting a meeting in which Kennedy would tell him that he was reversing course on Roe. We found out about this after Blackmun’s papers were released to the public. See http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/04/scotus.blackmun.papers.ap/index.html
Poli,
Some comments on your conclusion:
“Don’t blame Anthony Kennedy alone for Casey v. Planned Parenthood.”
Nobody does!
“But, really, the short-sightedness of Presidents Reagan and Bush is the reason that humans are continually slaughtered inside (and sometimes outside) the womb under the protection of the law.”
This is a strange statement. Interesting is your implicit agreement with the argument that ending Roe would decrease the number of abortions, and that this is something that the president can affect.
“What is clear, however, is that if the president of the United States is to be held to task in terms of the abortion fight, then Reagan and Bush are failures.”
Yep, who thinks otherwise?
But more generally, if it were not for the absolutely hysterical reaction of the Democrats to anyone who remotely sounds like they are opposed to Roe, we would have an easier time confirming great legal minds who oppose Roe for its blatant disregard for the Constitution like “ultra-conservative” Robert Bork.
Stuart says:
The quote from Reagan’s diary in no way proves that Reagan thought she was going to vote pro-choice. To the contrary, it proves that he thought the opposite, that he thought the pro-lifers were wrong in their concern about O’Connor, because O’Connor hated abortion.
…..Called Judge O’Connor in Arizona and told her she was my nominee for Supreme Court. Already the flak is starting, and from my own supporters. Right-to-life people say she’s pro-abortion. She declares abortion is personally repugnant to her. I think she’ll make a good justice….
This quote proves no such thing. Many pro-choice people state that they find abortion personally repugnant. Stuart as a trained advocate and hopefully rudimentary logician is surpisingly sloppy here, is he not?
n
An rejoinder to SB and Zach:
1) The quote from Reagan’s diary in no way proves that Reagan thought she was going to vote pro-choice. To the contrary, it proves that he thought the opposite, that he thought the pro-lifers were wrong in their concern about O’Connor, because O’Connor hated abortion.
Actually, the quote doesn’t really give us any “proof” of anything other than that Reagan was aware that:
1. Pro-life activists were displeased by his choice of nomination.
2. O’Connor personally hated abortion (much as Giuliani and Kerry claimed)
3. Reagan thought she would be a good Justice in general
I offered the diary passage to show that Reagan was aware that O’Connor was not predictable in how she may approach abortion. It’s important that you read the context in which I frame the diary entry and consider the actual passage itself. These would be virtues of a good lawyer.
2) Bork wasn’t defeated because of his “baggage” from the Nixon days; it had much more to do with his positions on issues like abortion. In perhaps the most famous statement about a Supreme Court nomination, Ted Kennedy claimed that “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of the government.” Most of that statement was an outright lie, but notice that Nixon wasn’t mentioned, and that abortion was the number one item on the list.
Thank you for proving my point. Your single quote from Ted Kennedy (who allowed other pro-life justices to pass through, by the way) is a collection of a number of issues that, collectively, buried Bork’s chances. Kennedy and the other Senate Democrats were uneasy over Bork for more than just his stance on abortion. Had Reagan nominated someone without the segregation and executive privilege baggage that Bork carried, but was still pro-life, a confirmation would have been likely (that’s how Justice Scalia got through). Again, honest reading of quotes and history will help you along with this.
It’s not a “myth” that Kennedy changed his mind in Casey at the last minute. It’s a fact. Kennedy had initially decided to vote to overturn Roe, and the other Justices had begun writing both a majority decision overturning Roe and dissents from that decision.
Again, please read what is written. The “myth” I am dispelling is that it was Kennedy who single-handedly impeded Reagan’s desire to overturn Roe. Two of Reagan’s Justices upheld Roe (as did one of Bush’s), which should factor into our evaluation of his legacy. I don’t think I have ever seen you so blatently misread a post at Vox Nova before.
This is a strange statement. Interesting is your implicit agreement with the argument that ending Roe would decrease the number of abortions, and that this is something that the president can affect.
Of course it would decrease the number of abortions provided states reinstitute their abortion laws. Why is this strange?
But more generally, if it were not for the absolutely hysterical reaction of the Democrats to anyone who remotely sounds like they are opposed to Roe, we would have an easier time confirming great legal minds who oppose Roe for its blatant disregard for the Constitution like “ultra-conservative” Robert Bork.
Maybe so. I didn’t think this obvious point needed to be stated in my post.
My bad, I thought you agreed with Henry and MM. I guess I don’t really understand the point of your post.
The mythologists will tell you that we were so close to repealing Roe, and that Kennedy, in voting against the wishes of Reagan and then-President George H.W. Bush, kept us from a watershed pro-life victory.
Your point is that O’Connor bears some of the blame for changing her mind, but even so, nothing in the sentence about Kennedy is a “myth” in any way whatsoever. We were very close to repealing Roe — close enough that the majority opinion overturning Roe was already being written — and Kennedy did change his mind at the last possible moment, in a way that Reagan couldn’t possibly have predicted or planned. So why are you accusing anyone of being a “mythologist”?
Thank you for proving my point. Your single quote from Ted Kennedy (who allowed other pro-life justices to pass through, by the way) is a collection of a number of issues that, collectively, buried Bork’s chances. Kennedy and the other Senate Democrats were uneasy over Bork for more than just his stance on abortion.
Yes, but the “Nixon baggage” didn’t play the central role that you claimed. Abortion was the number one issue.
Had Reagan nominated someone without the segregation and executive privilege baggage that Bork carried, but was still pro-life, a confirmation would have been likely (that’s how Justice Scalia got through).
I’m pretty sure that Bork did not have any “segregation . . . baggage,” so if that’s anything but a smear on your part, please provide some evidence.*
Moreover, it’s simplistic to compare the Bork nomination to the Scalia nomination. As Kennedy and other Democrats were able to figure out, it’s a very different thing to let a pro-life Justice through when Roe is safe and secure, as opposed to letting a pro-life Justice through when he would apparently have shifted the balance to 5-4 against Roe.
Re the Reagan quote: I’m not sure it’s too productive to engage in lengthy analysis of a hasty diary entry. At best, it’s ambiguous, because it’s not clear what Reagan meant by “good Justice.” At the same time, if he really meant (as you and Mark D facetiously suggest) only that O’Connor was personally opposed to abortion in the same way as many people who are in favor of Roe, why would he imply that the pro-lifers were wrong to give him “flak”? Reagan seemed to be confident that O’Connor was against abortion in the only way that is meaningful for a Supreme Court Justice (voting against Roe).
In any event, the most that you’ve shown is that Reagan was aware that some people were suspicious of O’Connor, not that he himself was “reckless and ill-advised.”
I will agree, however, that Reagan could have picked someone better than O’Connor; and that Bush the First could have picked someone better than Souter as well.
* Bork said in an interview, “But this notion that I wanted to turn back the clock and that I was in favor of segregation was nonsense. I’ve always believed that segregation and discrimination are unconstitutional. And this business about not being able to teach evolution in public schools, where the hell that came from I don’t know. I happen to think that evolution is a scientific fact. So, yes, my views were badly distorted.”
My bad, I thought you agreed with Henry and MM. I guess I don’t really understand the point of your post.
No worries. I posted in reaction to CrunchyCon and to convey my feeling that the pro-life movement was severely harmed by the Reagan administration.
The “myth” I am dispelling is that it was Kennedy who single-handedly impeded Reagan’s desire to overturn Roe. Two of Reagan’s Justices upheld Roe (as did one of Bush’s), which should factor into our evaluation of his legacy. I don’t think I have ever seen you so blatently misread a post at Vox Nova before.
If someone misreads you, the first thing that you should consider is whether your writing was unclear. (Something that is clear to you — because you know what’s in your own mind — might not be as clear to someone else without that privileged knowledge.)
Sure enough, it is. You didn’t mention the words “singly” or “single-handedly” in this sentence: “The mythologists will tell you that we were so close to repealing Roe, and that Kennedy, in voting against the wishes of Reagan and then-President George H.W. Bush, kept us from a watershed pro-life victory.” Thus, it sounded as if you were claiming that it was a myth that we were “close to repealing Roe.”
Your point is that O’Connor bears some of the blame for changing her mind, but even so, nothing in the sentence about Kennedy is a “myth” in any way whatsoever.
O’Connor never changed her mind on abortion. She told Reagan that she was personally opposed to it. Reagan was warned by pro-life groups acquainted with her record, but he did not heed their warning.
We were very close to repealing Roe — close enough that the majority opinion overturning Roe was already being written — and Kennedy did change his mind at the last possible moment, in a way that Reagan couldn’t possibly have predicted or planned. So why are you accusing anyone of being a “mythologist”?
Close, yes. But ultimately, it was Reagan’s TWO choices for the Supreme Court to make “close” not “close enough.” Whatever may be made Kennedy’s change of heart, O’Connor was steadfast. Reagan’s appointments to the Court were imprudent and hasty, and they ultimately lost the opportunity to win a pro-life America.
Yes, but the “Nixon baggage” didn’t play the central role that you claimed. Abortion was the number one issue.
Actually, the history and record indicates the very opposite. Bork was a poor selection and his positions on segregation and executive privilege exasberated the Democrats’ resistence to his nomination. In your analysis–which is definitely wrong–it makes no sense why Scalia was able to get confirmed 98-0 by the Senate in 1986, yet Bork couldn’t get through the year after with a vote of 58-42. Read the history of the nomination and the ensuing confirmation process. A whole host of issues were raised against Bork during the sessions.
Moreover, it’s simplistic to compare the Bork nomination to the Scalia nomination. As Kennedy and other Democrats were able to figure out, it’s a very different thing to let a pro-life Justice through when Roe is safe and secure, as opposed to letting a pro-life Justice through when he would apparently have shifted the balance to 5-4 against Roe.
Now you are just making up history. At the time of Bork’s nomination, the Court looked like this:
Brennan, Stevens, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Renquist, O’Connor, and Scalia (Powell was on the way out). White, Renquist and Scalia were against Roe. Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun had originally voted in favor Roe. The Court was 5-3 in favor of Roe when Bork was nominated.
I’m not sure it’s too productive to engage in lengthy analysis of a hasty diary entry. At best, it’s ambiguous, because it’s not clear what Reagan meant by “good Justice.”
I agree, it’s vague and ambiguous, prone to multiple interpretations. At least we can agree that Reagan was aware of the pro-life community’s concern.
I will agree, however, that Reagan could have picked someone better than O’Connor; and that Bush the First could have picked someone better than Souter as well.
Absolutely right. I think their choices, however, were indicative of their priorities.
Stuart,
“At the same time, if he really meant (as you and Mark D facetiously suggest) only that O’Connor was personally opposed to abortion in the same way as many people who are in favor of Roe, why would he imply that the pro-lifers were wrong to give him “flak”?”
Please read more closely. I did not suggest –facetiously or otherwise– that O’Connor was in fact in the camp of the “personally opposed, but” group. My point was that ,based on the diary entry alone, there is no PROOF that O’Connor thought the one way or the the other, or that Reagan though she thought the one way or the other.
More carefulness in your reading and transcription of my comments would be greatly appreciated; and would be the condition for amorally truth-seeking and reasoned debate on both of our sides.
By the way, I see you are a classical quitarist. Did you ever publicly perform the Rodgrigo or Villa-Lobos Concerti.? I am a huge classical music buff; I own about 4000 such CDs.
I’d like to shoot the breeze about music with you some time.
Bork was a poor selection and his positions on segregation and executive privilege exasberated the Democrats’ resistence to his nomination.
Hmm. I’m still not sure what you mean by his position on segregation. He certainly wasn’t in favor of it. I don’t think there were enough segregationist Democrats left in 1987 that Bork’s opposition to segregation would have played a role.
Brennan, Stevens, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Renquist, O’Connor, and Scalia
Yes, but you’re forgetting that O’Connor was initially thought to be an opponent of Roe. It’s not really accurate to say that she “never changed her mind” here. See her dissent in Akron, which was joined by Rehnquist and White.
Thus, at the time of Bork’s nomination, Democrats thought that the balance was 4-4 on abortion issues. THAT is why they suddenly realized that they couldn’t let another Scalia slide through. (In other words, Bork was blocked not because he was so much worse than Scalia — as you’re suggesting — but because the Democrats were in a greater state of alarm.)
Mark D — fair enough, you were just making the limited point that O’Connor’s personal opposition to abortion didn’t “prove” that Reagan thought she would vote against Roe.
On the guitar note, I performed the middle movement of the Rodrigo Aranjuez concerto with the University of Georgia symphony orchestra when I was in college. It was a mixed bag — the orchestra hadn’t had time to rehearse very much at all because the publisher originally wouldn’t let anyone have the score unless they promised to play the whole concerto (not just the middle movement).
Yes, but you’re forgetting that O’Connor was initially thought to be an opponent of Roe. It’s not really accurate to say that she “never changed her mind” here. See her dissent in Akron, which was joined by Rehnquist and White.
Thus, at the time of Bork’s nomination, Democrats thought that the balance was 4-4 on abortion issues. THAT is why they suddenly realized that they couldn’t let another Scalia slide through.
Thought by whom? Can you provide any evidence? After having been on the Court for six years before the Bork nomination, her case-by-case style was well known, she was never promoted by Reagan or pro-life groups as an opponent of Roe, and she was ambiguous on abortion during her confirmation hearing. I don’t think a real historical case can be made to suggest that anyone really thought her anti-Roe. I really think you need to consult the history on this. The Democrats were not just worried about Bork’s opinion on Roe, as the confirmation hearing records clearly show. I believe you are engaging in serious revisionist history in order to cling to your conviction. Beyond Roe, there were questions from both Democrats and Republicans on Bork’s work with Nixon, his understanding of executive privilege, and his views on civil rights. Hence, Ted Kennedy’s loaded diatribe.
3 is the largest number of Democratically appointed Supreme Court Justices on the Court at any time since Roe.
The Republican competence on this mater has yet to be determined, butgiven the Republican arguments, the only reason to vote Republican is they will do better and via legislation that restricts abortion or its access, will reduce abortion.
And that no other means of doing so is effective or worthwhile.
This reflects a substantial shift in argument from 2004-when the Republican Catholics assured others that there was obviously no other moral choice-Chaput and others who led harsh arguments in 2004 have moderated their opinions dramatically.
On Bork’s baggage:
Against Robert Bork; His Bill of Rights is Different
Do Presidents appoint justices for reasons of “life?”
Unlikely.
More likely, the reasons for the appointment of a justice has to do with a set of other issues. Alito and ROberts have been chosen for their support of what is best described as supportive of crypto-military activity of this President.
Get yourself a thoughful truly pro-life person and whoosh, soon a lawsuit against the President about terrosism is advanced.
Anti-abortion is no the selection criteria. “Judges we like” describes the vast array of critiera best.
Alito and ROberts have been chosen for their support of what is best described as supportive of crypto-military activity of this President.
Absolutely.
1) I didn’t say abortion was the only issue in Bork’s nomination; I said it was the most important issue. That there were other important issues does not refute my point. Nor does it demonstrate that (as you appear to claim) Democrats wouldn’t have tried to block any outspoken pro-lifer nominated in 1987.
2) As for O’Connor, I already pointed you to her Akron dissent, which criticized Roe and which was joined by Rehnquist and White.
Plus, if you look at news stories from the time of her confirmation, she managed to convince people that she opposed Roe.
Alito and ROberts have been chosen for their support of what is best described as supportive of crypto-military activity of this President.
Neither of them have gone on record stateing that Roe should be overturned. Scalia, on the other hand, has made his desire well known.
Alito and ROberts have been chosen for their support of what is best described as supportive of crypto-military activity of this President.
I’m puzzled by theories of this sort. While Roberts upheld military commissions while on the DC Circuit, I’m not aware of any evidence prior to Alito’s confirmation that he was supportive of “crypto-military activity” of any sort. What makes you think that you have any evidence either 1) of Alito’s pre-confirmation beliefs, or 2) the Bush administration’s rationale for choosing him?
SB,
I’m not sure what exactly you’re trying to establish here anymore. The fact that you have to add parenthetic comments to your NYT citation is rather telling. Can you name ANYONE who really thought O’Connor was ANTI-ROE and went on record thinking so? That’s what’s at stake in your quibble with me over O’Connor. I doubt your search for a name will be fruitful.
Even if abortion were the most important issue in Bork’s confirmation hearing, it was not the deal-breaker. His anti-segregation baggage from the ’60s and ’70s, his involvement with Nixon’s executive power grab, and his truncation on free speech rights ensured that he would not be appointed. Sorry, SB, but 58 votes against you is more than just concern over abortion stance!
Nor does it demonstrate that (as you appear to claim) Democrats wouldn’t have tried to block any outspoken pro-lifer nominated in 1987.
Well, you should go by meaning rather than appearance. Of course I could not “demonstrate” that Democrats would have allowed a pro-lifer through in 1987, just as you could not “demonstrate” the contrary. So what does this prove? Only that Reagan gave up too easily by not nominating a conservative without the baggage of a Bork or Ginsberg. Blame Reagan, not me.
2) As for O’Connor, I already pointed you to her Akron dissent, which criticized Roe and which was joined by Rehnquist and White.
This means nothing. Justice Ginsberg has been critical of Roe, but that doesn’t mean she wants to repeal (just the contrary!). In other words, given O’Connor’s alliance behind certain abortion restrictions does not indicate that she ever wanted to repeal Roe (and she proved that she didn’t in 1993). The only person she seems to have fooled into believing she was pro-life, anti-Roe is you!
So are you trying to defend Reagan by passing him off as glibly gullible or are you defending Sandra Day O’Connor by blostering her “pro-life” creds?
The fact that you have to add parenthetic comments to your NYT citation is rather telling.
I was just adding a few explanatory comments, for the benefit of anyone who doesn’t realize the implications of what O’Connor said. At the time, anyone could have interpreted her to be strongly suggesting that she opposed Roe.
Can you name ANYONE who really thought O’Connor was ANTI-ROE and went on record thinking so?
Did you miss the part about Jesse Helms?
Contrary to what you say, O’Connor’s Akron dissent does not “mean[] nothing.” In retrospect, it certainly didn’t mean that she was going to vote to overturn Roe. But that’s not the point. I bring up that opinion only because it shows that at the time, Democrats feared that O’Connor might ultimately vote to overturn Roe, and this partly (not entirely) motivated them to get serious about blocking Bork. (In other words, you’re clearly wrong that back in 1987, Democrats were all certain that O’Connor would ultimately vote to affirm Roe, and that therefore they would have been happy to let an anti-Roe Justice other than Bork be confirmed.)
[Bork's] anti-segregation baggage from the ’60s and ’70s,
For the third time, do you care to explain what you mean here?
For the third time, do you care to explain what you mean here?
Please refer to the NYT article to which I linked above for a synopsis.
Just to be clear, I’m not saying that O’Connor had definitively promised to overturn Roe as of 1987. What I’m objecting to is the notion that O’Connor never changed her mind (as Poli said), that she was “steadfast” in supporting Roe (as Poli said), that the Supreme Court lineup was known to be 5-3 in favor of Roe in 1987 (as Poli said), and that therefore I was just “making up history” in claiming that Democrats saw the Roe issue as split 4-4 in 1987 when Bork was nominated.
To the contrary, here’s what the conventional wisdom was prior to O’Connor’s vote in Casey in 1992:
Again, the point is not that O’Connor was ever a sure vote against Roe. The point is that she seemed likely to overturn Roe at some point, that her vote in Casey was widely seen as a “surprise,” and that Democrats were therefore motivated to oppose anti-Roe Justices in the late 1980s and early 1990s because they saw the Court as evenly balanced.
This post is bizarre Poli. Why are you so intent on saying Reagan and Bush were failures? After all, the largest reason they failed was because they had to have their choices approved by a Democratic Congress. If Bork had been appointed, if the news hadn’t been dominated by Ted Kennedy and his back alley abortion and segregated schools slanders, then Roe would have been overturned. If Kennedy hadn’t changed his mind at the last minute (most likely to avoid the harsh criticism he would have received from Democrats) then Roe would have been overturned. Souter was, of course a disaster, but he was chosen because he did not have the kind of paper trail that led to Bork being Borked.
To recount the story as you do ignoring the actual reason Bork wasn’t appointed (abortion) or that Reagan and Bush had to try and get these nominees through a fiercely pro-choice Democratic Congress is odd. Moreover, even if your account is accurate (I think it’s clearly one-sided), what is the point? It tells us nothing about Alito or Roberts, both of whom have far more conservative credentials than Souter, Kennedy, or OConnor. Moreover it ignores the certainty that Obama will increase access to abortion as much as possible domestically and internationally. It’s a truism to say that Reagan and Bush I didn’t appoint judges that overturned Roe, but it borders on a distortion to downplay the extent to which this was a result of the Democratic Congress, the Kennedy last-minute switch, and the Borking of Bork.
Another key fact that you’re forgetting, Poli: When Scalia was confirmed in 1986, Republicans controlled the Senate. When Bork was nominated in 1987, Democrats controlled the Senate. That’s in addition to the fact that many people believed Roe to be at risk in 1987.
Thus, you’re wrong to say that “Had Reagan nominated someone without the segregation and executive privilege baggage that Bork carried, but was still pro-life, a confirmation would have been likely (that’s how Justice Scalia got through).” You have no basis for thinking a confirmation to have been “likely.” The situation in 1987 was far different from 1986, and it’s quite an unwarranted insult for you to claim that “honest reading of quotes and history will help you along with this.”
WI
“This post is bizarre Poli. Why are you so intent on saying Reagan and Bush were failures? After all, the largest reason they failed was because they had to have their choices approved by a Democratic Congress.
If one is considering voting for a presidential candidate because of his positive differences, in terms of anti-abortion STANCE, from his challenger, one should–as, if not even MORE, importantly– also weigh his actual CAPACITY, including his LEADERSHIP abilities to counteract and overcome hindrances (e.g., an oppositional Congress, the national moral clime, etc.) , TO DELIVER court appoinments who are INDEED anti-abortion, in terms their judicial bench ACTIVITY.
Otherwise, it is practiaclly an exercise in futility.
After all, the largest reason they failed was because they had to have their choices approved by a Democratic Congress.
The Republicans took control of the Senate in 1980, 53-46. This was the same Senate that confirmed pro-Roe Sandra Day O’Connor in 1981.
To recount the story as you do ignoring the actual reason Bork wasn’t appointed (abortion) or that Reagan and Bush had to try and get these nominees through a fiercely pro-choice Democratic Congress is odd.
As I have continually argued with SB, Bork’s stance of abortion was not the deal breaker. Please see the article to which I linked above to dispel the myth you propagate. Also, remember that during Justice Alito’s confirmation hearing, Bork’s many positions were brought up again by the Democrats, showing their concern was not only over abortion.
Moreover, even if your account is accurate (I think it’s clearly one-sided), what is the point? It tells us nothing about Alito or Roberts, both of whom have far more conservative credentials than Souter, Kennedy, or OConnor.
Regardless of what you may think, the fact remains that Reagan’s and Bush’s judges harmed pro-life efforts immensely. That’s the point of the post: to remind Cranky Con and others of the real history.
It’s a truism to say that Reagan and Bush I didn’t appoint judges that overturned Roe, but it borders on a distortion to downplay the extent to which this was a result of the Democratic Congress, the Kennedy last-minute switch, and the Borking of Bork.
I’m not sure an historical contingency is a “truism,” but you may call it a “fact.” Again, check your history. O’Connor faced a Republican majority. Souter faced a small Democratic majority (45 Republicans). Not really the impossible scenario you try to paint (and you accuse me of being one-sided).
Poli,
Hate to bother, but this blame-game has little to no bearing on the current political situation.
Hate to bother, but this blame-game has little to no bearing on the current political situation.
I am a big fan of history. I also think historical events underlie contemporary events. I think we can learn a lot from history in terms of our contemporary political choices. I think subjecting the claims of the Republican and Democratic Parties to historical criticism is helpful in informing the voter. Even if this post did little for anything else, writing it aided me formulating a better historical awareness and preparation for Election 2008. So it has much bearing on the current political situation for me.
Michael –
Yes, history should inform our vote, of course. Republican presidents, in the past, have made mistakes in appointing justices – no doubt about it. But that isn’t a good reason to think they will do the same again – only that it can’t be ruled out as a possibility.
With the Democrats, there is a 100% guarantee they will appoint a justice who will vote to sustain Roe v. Wade. And there are two appointments to the court coming up in the next decade, making this election quite important for the constitution and the courts. (albeit in this case, very, very slim according to some of the most informed)
I mean, go ahead, vote for the Democrats. We’ll get our socialized medicine (free abortions for everyone!), nothing about the Iraq policy will change, and we’ll be stuck with a court that thinks its job is to be a super-legislature of sorts. Not to mention the high taxes, the legalization of gay marriage and other policies that will finish off our patriarchal, western obsession with the nuclear family, and protectionist trade policies that will hurt the American worker much more than globalization ever could. To start.
Zach,
Indeed it does have much very bearing on the cuurent political situation.
Those who are trying to eliminate abortion through the strategy of picking a president who will appoint and get confirmed paticular types if SC justices are charged to engage in analagous analyses and prudentail judgment in terms of the present and near future situation with our current presumptive prresidential nominess
Mr. McCain, for example, despite his 100% ‘pro-life rating”, as a senator had apparently no problem voting for the confirmation of Clinon’s SC nominees Ginsberg and Breyer. This should be troubling to some significant degree. Why?
In my moral caculus at least, it lessens on his potential pro-life yield as our future president, particulary as he will be in charge of sticking to his purported convictiion, framing the debate and using his bully pulpit to pick correctly and successfully drive through the the type of Justice who would indeed significant change potentially the laws in the land, with respect to abortion availability. His past votes on justices do not complelety comfort or all jive here.
Please understand that I have taken your present legislative stratagey from 1988-2004. I along with many, many others like me suffered the GOP disappointments of Bork, Kennedy, O’Connor, Souter and even most recently, Meiers.
The Republicans took control of the Senate in 1980, 53-46. This was the same Senate that confirmed pro-Roe Sandra Day O’Connor in 1981.
You mean the same Senate that confirmed O’Connor who turned out 11 years later to be pro-Roe. But as the Jesse Helms quote above makes perfectly clear, Reagan was personally assuring Senators that O’Connor would vote the right way on Roe.
Thus, I’d suggest that there’s no real question as to the answer to this question from the post:
Whether Reagan and Bush were unable to forecast how their judges would vote or Reagan and Bush really did not have the repeal of Roe in heart with their appointments is hard to tell.
No one who had ever read Reagan’s essay “Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation” — written in 1983 — would suggest that he did “not have the repeal of Roe in heart.”
I mean, go ahead, vote for the Democrats. We’ll get our socialized medicine (free abortions for everyone!), nothing about the Iraq policy will change, and we’ll be stuck with a court that thinks its job is to be a super-legislature of sorts
I didn’t say anything about voting for Democrats.
No one who had ever read Reagan’s essay “Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation” — written in 1983 — would suggest that he did “not have the repeal of Roe in heart.”
If written propaganda trumps actual presidential action, then I guess you’re right! Let’s not evaluate presidents by what they do, but by what they say!
(I did not have sexual relations with that woman.) ;)
Mark,
Of course we should learn from history. And yes, I think some of McCain’s policies are troubling. Not troubling enough to vote for the candidate who will work to ensure that Roe v. Wade will never be overturned.
And I think you are slighting McCain a bit. No he’s not perfect, but we ought to applaud him for taking some of the stances he does – they are not popular with the New York Times crowd. For example, McCain’s stance against abortion has been consistent. He also has consistently supported judges who can read the Constitution. This is good reason to believe he’s not going to have a sudden change of heart.
Poli,
Could you be forthright for once and admit you in many, if not all of your posts, you are trying to justify voting for Democrats? For what else could be the point of this frivolous post? I don’t care, I don’t think you’re evil, or even necessarily wrong. I just think you ought to come clean with your political preferences – just because we identify our preferences doesn’t mean we can’t be friends.
After all, as Christians, we ought to demonstrate to others that people with different political opinions, even people in different political parties(GASP!) can be friends and yes, even love (not sentimentally) and respect each other.
If written propaganda trumps actual presidential action, then I guess you’re right! Let’s not evaluate presidents by what they do, but by what they say!
Not quite. A more charitable way to put it would be: Let’s assume that Reagan’s goals were what he said they were, and that he was being truthful when he wrote in his own diary that he thought O’Connor would oppose abortion, and that her decision to uphold Roe 11 years later (4 years after Reagan left office) wasn’t what he intended.
SB,
As Mark and I mentioned above, your claim that Reagan thought O’Connor would oppose abortion on the Court based upon the diary entry is not solid. The diary entry does not lend itself to that interpretation. “Good” does not necessarily mean “good and anti-Roe.” His intention with O’Connor is likewise inconclusive. But for the sake of argument, that’s say that Reagan did believe he was appointing pro-life, anti-Roe justices. If that’s the case, he was rather inept at a crucial function of the presidency.
Zach,
But what if the probability is deemd very high–as I pudentially judge it–that at the sum total effect of either two presidents efforts in terms of SC suceess in the end is zero/
Sure, say, it is more likely that the Cleveland Indians will with the World Series this year than the K,C. Royals, but is it not much. much more unlikely that neither tem will win the World Series this year?
I judge the sitution between McCain and Obama to be quit analogous to the baseball one above.
Does not the conscientious pro-lifer with this judgement in mind then have the obligation EVEN MORE to chart out prudential judgments about ( partially, albeit) successful other means to eliminate abortion, weighing each candidate appropriately therein.?
In addition, are therenot other very pressing life issues to be thrown into the calculus–given the judged high probabilty of zero sum total gain in terms of the SC with either candidate?
For one, one candidate seems to have now no problem with U.S. torture and absolutely certainly had/has no problem the initial unjust invasion of Iraq. But the other candidate does certainly have a problem with torture and did certainly oppose the unjust, humanly disastrous invasion of Iraq.
Should not this be seriously, seriously considered too, the, in the moral calculus, in the light of the glaring possibility that an Iranian invasion is on the imminent horizon.?George Will, in fact, with whatever inside knowledge he has, declared that it is a virtual certainty with McCain, who, it must be said, additionally downplays diplomacy or talking to the Iranian government, along with the military threat, as a more means of trying to resolve the upcoming crisis of potentially worldwide proportions.
There already are hundreds of thousands of deaths, directly or secondarily the consequence of our 2003 invasion. Is this not most, most troubling, in light of the two choices for handling Iran (and Syria), embodied in cadidates Senators McCain and Obama–for the pro-life voter?
As Mark and I mentioned above, your claim that Reagan thought O’Connor would oppose abortion on the Court based upon the diary entry is not solid. The diary entry does not lend itself to that interpretation.
To the contrary, that’s the most obvious interpretation. Reagan pretty obviously meant, “The pro-lifers are suspicious and are giving me flak, but I know she’s against abortion.” And from what he was assuring Senators in private, he pretty clearly equated being against abortion to being against Roe. After all, this was years before the famous Mario Cuomo speech, in which the notion of being “personally opposed to abortion but pro-choice” came to prominence. There’s just no evidence or reason whatsoever to think that when Reagan told Senators that O’Connor was against abortion, what he really meant was “personally opposed but pro-choice.”
But for the sake of argument, that’s say that Reagan did believe he was appointing pro-life, anti-Roe justices. If that’s the case, he was rather inept at a crucial function of the presidency.
Again, he could have done better, but failing to predict how someone’s position will evolve over a dozen years is not proof of ineptitude.
“…is it not much more likely that neither team will win the World Series this year…?
Sorry for the many, many typos tonight; my sinuses are acting up like crazy this evening. I have to squint very hard even simply now to think and see the screen…;)
Could you be forthright for once and admit you in many, if not all of your posts, you are trying to justify voting for Democrats?
Am I not forthright? I have stated countless times that I will not be voting Democrat in the 2008 presidential election, and I have never encouraged anyone to do so.
SB,
Perhaps you ought to re-read Reagan’s quote. The warped version you provide lends support to your argument, of course. The original and accurate quote does no such thing.
Again, he could have done better, but failing to predict how someone’s position will evolve over a dozen years is not proof of ineptitude.
Not someone…two out of three justices. I doubt very much you’d extend as forgiving a gesture to a president of political persuasion other than your own. But by all means, continue to absolve the short-sighted Reagan!
Can I vote for Obama since there’s no predicting how his nominations may “evolve” over time? Can I hope that his justices will vote unpredictably and contrary to his desires? I mean, if Reagan and G.H.W. Bush were impotent in the pro-life judicial domain, perhaps Obama will be in the pro-abortion judicial domain. Please.
Poli,
Do you notice how SB fights, concedes and then, remarkably, takes back his concession of a certain point all in a 1/2 day’s time?
I am wondering if these posts labelled SB are iindeed from the same person?
I don’t concede anything except that Reagan’s diary doesn’t quite amount to “proof.” But it certainly lends itself far better to my interpretation than to yours. Here’s what he said again:
The only charitable interpretation of this is: I’m getting flak from my own supporters, who say O’Connor likes abortion, but in fact she’s against abortion.
The warped version you provide lends support to your argument, of course. The original and accurate quote does no such thing.
That’s just flat out wrong, wrong, wrong. The original quote is best interpreted as I have said, and you don’t have any plausible alternative. (It’s absurd to suggest that Reagan merely meant that O’Connor was personally opposed but in favor of Roe — when he said she was against abortion, and when he assured Senator Helms that O’Connor was against abortion, they were all obviously assuming that opposing abortion meant opposing Roe.)
[...] time. I do not think it should be a major factor in how one chooses which candidate to support. As I have noted before, if twelve years of purportedly conservative, “pro-life” presidencies [...]
[...] time. I do not think it should be a major factor in how one chooses which candidate to support. As I have noted before, if twelve years of purportedly conservative, “pro-life” presidencies [...]
Whatever SB may or not be conceding, I think the point we all agree on is that Ronald Reagan did not appoint anti-Roe justices. In this important function of the presidency, Reagan simply did not live up to his legend.
Mark,
I’m not sure how you arrive at a probability of success of zero at the Supreme Court. Have you read the law professor Jeffrey Toobin’s take on the subject? He knows what he’s talking about.
The law is a great teacher and changing the law will be key to changing the culture. (Not that we shouldn’t try to change the culture apart from the law, mind you. ) But apart from the law, I think other successful means to limit abortion are ones that have to be implemented locally – things like Crisis pregnancy centers and other organizations that work to change society’s opinion of pregnant women. It also might help if some of our pastors and Bishops spoke out against the evils of abortion and its insidious parent contraception. (not to say they shouldn’t also rail against torture and junjust war!)
On your other remarks – hard to put this lightly, forgive me – you seem to be misinformed about McCain. He is 100% opposed to torture.
I tend to believe McCain is being a bit of a blowhard when discussing Iran, appealing to a certain constituency that likes that sort of talk. I don’t think he will be quite the interventionist some people think he will be. And we should hope and pray the conflict in the middle east ends as soon as possible.
Also, did you know that there are roughly 1.2 million deaths per year in the U.S. alone due to elective abortion? This is perhaps the first part of my moral calculus.
I think the point we all agree on is that Ronald Reagan did not appoint anti-Roe justices.
Again, in the interest of accuracy, Reagan appointed Scalia, and not even the most implacable opponent of Reagan can claim that Scalia is pro-Roe. And again, Reagan couldn’t possibly have predicted that Kennedy would change his mind at the last minute in Casey. In retrospect Kennedy was a bad appointment on that ground, but at the time, there was no way to have predicted how he would “evolve” on the Supreme Court.
So the most you can say bad about Reagan is that he was too willing to ignore certain danger signs as to O’Connor, and too willing to believe her assurances that she was against abortion.
Zach,
Let me put this most simply, McCain recently flipflopped on torture. He is not absolutely against torture.
What’s the old saying, “I voted against it before I voted for it”?
Zach,
The 1.2 deaths are part of my moral calcus as much as yours, so please do not get huffy puffy . Sadly, however, I realize that these numbers have changed precious little with the primary strategy as electing Republican presidents who promise to appoint pro-life judges.
It’s funny, is it not, that you have described yourself as a student of politics, whereas many call my areas of study an “in the Clouds” affair.
I tend to believe McCain is being a bit of a blowhard when discussing Iran, appealing to a certain constituency that likes that sort of talk. I don’t think he will be quite the interventionist some people think he will be.
Yeah, you’re right. Presidential candidates usually like to make themselves look worse than they actually will be once they get into office. That way we’re nice and surprised about how virtuous they really are.
Um, no. If history teaches us anything, if McCain wins he will be more extreme than he has been during the campaign. That means, in all likelihood, even more war hungry than Bush.
Let me put this most simply, McCain recently flipflopped on torture. He is not absolutely against torture.
First I’ve heard of this. What’s your source?
BA,
Funny that you have not heard this, as I generally consider you one of the most astute and fair commentators here:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/mccain-torture-veto/
Mark,
Do you also ignore all the advances the pro-life movement has made in recent years? Yes, the number of abortions in the US has remained largely the same. But it does not follow that the pro-life cause has not been advanced. Pro-lifers have had many small victories under Bush. Also, under a President Kerry, we would have had none.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say about me and the study of politics. Political philosophy is practical and theoretical – the philosopher has to come back down into the cave for his exodus to have any real value.
Michael,
Um, no. If history teaches us anything, if McCain wins he will be more extreme than he has been during the campaign. That means, in all likelihood, even more war hungry than Bush.
Of course history is a great teacher. It just doesn’t teach us that “McCain will be more extreme than he has been during the campaign.”
Oh, and describing McCain and Bush as “war hungry” is to make an uncharitable caricature of their actual intentions. Especially if you’ve actually listened to them speak. Unless of course, you claim to have special knowledge.
Where is the concern for the people who are slaughtered outside of the room in the electric chair or by a needle? Conservatives need to stop the mental gymnastics when it comes to right-to-life. To be pro death penalty and opposed to abortion is about as silly as you can get, intellectually and morally speaking. You can’t have it both ways.
Mark,
At the risk of damaging by reputation for fairmindedness, I think McCain should be given the benefit of the doubt on that vote. A person might oppose torture without thinking that all interrogation should be limited to the Army Field Manuel (personally I would favor such a restriction, but I’m not quite to the point of defining reasonableness as being in accord with my opinions). It is inconceivable to me that McCain, who was himself tortured and has spoken out repeatedly against waterboarding, would ever authorize torture as president.
BA,
But McCain HAD LONG INSISTED UPON the necessity of the Army Field Manual, based upon his terrible experience of torture, until his recent (hence, flip-flop) vote.
Maybe I am not seeing things as subtlely as I should: I know can get quite passionate. But if I am missing something, please help me be more charitable toward McCain.
Oh, and describing McCain and Bush as “war hungry” is to make an uncharitable caricature of their actual intentions. Especially if you’ve actually listened to them speak. Unless of course, you claim to have special knowledge.
“Uncharitable.” You crack me up. Continually. How’s “Bring ‘em on” and “Bomb bomb bomb Iran” sound to you? Are those the words of “pro-life” peacemakers?
And you completely ignored the first half of my last comment. Typical.
With regards to O’Connor, I have to agree with much of what you said. Reagan made an unfortunate affirmative action hire, in essence. He sacrificed competence and judicial philosophy in the interesting of making sure he got that first woman on the Bench. I think he trusted too much that she would vote to overturn Roe, and he ignored those that had qualms. I also think Bush made an even worse error in selecting Souter. O’Connor at least had other virtues as a Justice, and her vote to uphold Roe was more surprising than Souter. There’s just no forgiving that brainfart.
As for Kennedy, my main point is really that we just can’t focus solely on the presidency when it comes to SCOTUS selections. A Republican Senate in 1987 confirms Robert Bork – baggage or no. Again I’ll concede that the administration bungled aspects of that appointment, and Bork performed poorly at his confirmation hearings, doing little to help his own cause. But Ted Kennedy and company demagogued the issue, and we can’t forget that it is due almost entirely to Senate Democrats that Roe v. Wade was not overturned. (The practical implications of a reversal of Roe is a different matter).
Long story short, if Reagan had his way, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I would recommend Jan Crawford Greenburg’s excellent book on the Supreme Court for a better explanation of the history. I would simply say that after the Bork and Ginsburg debacles, he really didn’t have much of a choice.
Lastly, it seems funny to be critical of Republicans for not being hard-headed enough. I know that you – Policritus – are not an Obama fan, but those that are frequently tout his supposed centrism (talk about myth making) and his willingness to listen to both sides. But it was precisely the willingness of GOP presidents to compromise that led to disappointments on the pro-life front with regards to SCOTUS.
Michael,
Thank you for ridiculing me.
I addressed the first part of your statement in my response. I’m sorry it was unclear to you.
Michael,
I just noticed you commented on one of my posts about liberation theology. Since it’s unlikely you’ll see my response on my site, I’ll post it here.
I just wanted to set a few things clear:
I have not “deliberately avoided reading any liberation theology”. I read a book by a scholar I know and trust to begin my study of the subject. When I said “From my reading”, I was referring to my reading of Fr. Schall’s book. I wasn’t trying to imply I’m widely read in the subject. And I do intend to read some works by liberation theologians, I’m starting soon with “A Theology of Liberation” by Gutierrez.
Well then I look forward to your future posts on Gutierrez, as filtered through Schall. You’re off to a good start with the erroneous assertion that, for liberation theology, “sin is no longer something committed by an individual.” I hope you will be rigorous in your testing of whether Schall’s reading of liberation theology is accurate.
Is there not a tendency to emphasize the social dimension of sin?
I had this argument with one of the commenters on this blog who asserted that very idea.
By the way, most of that book I read is not from Father Schall. There are essays from a variety of people, including Hans Urs Von Balthasar, John Paul II, and some other Latin American scholars whose names escape me at the moment.
I certainly want to see if they’ve distorted what the liberation theologians say. Contrary to what you seem to believe, I am only concerned with what is true and good. I could care less about my opinions or about whether a particular idea is left or right or conservative or liberal or anarchist or whatever.
Is there not a tendency to emphasize the social dimension of sin?
Of course. But that doesn’t mean “sin is no longer something committed by an individual.” For liberationists, sin is both personal and social.
By the way, most of that book I read is not from Father Schall. There are essays from a variety of people, including Hans Urs Von Balthasar, John Paul II, and some other Latin American scholars whose names escape me at the moment.
Yes, when you mentioned that you were reading it, I spent some time with it. Read a good bit of Schall’s contribution and the Dale Vree article, the latter of which I found particularly dishonest and distorting.
I certainly want to see if they’ve distorted what the liberation theologians say.
One thing to notice is that the authors in that book hardly cite any actual liberation theologians, and when they do, it’s far from adequate. That should speak volumes. If I were going to write a book on Ratzinger’s theology and I barely cited him, it would be ridiculed, and yet this is precisely what these people seem to be doing.
Contrary to what you seem to believe, I am only concerned with what is true and good.
Good. Then I look forward to your further thoughts on liberation theology texts! Your post seemed to come to a conclusion about liberation theology based on your reading of this book. I just encourage you to read the liberationists themselves, to acknowledge that you are reading them from a different “place” than from where they were writing, and to be “charitable” (the buzz word of the Catholic blogosphere) and give them the benefit of the doubt as you read them, without whatever prejudices Schall and company may have led you to believe.
Michael,
It’s good to know that sin is still something primarily committed by individuals, and the liberationists have not departed from Christianity. All faithful, orthodox Catholics would agree that sin has a social dimension – our sins affect others in tragic ways, both spiritually and materially. Certainly our sins can help to cause others to sin. But individuals sin. The abstract ‘society’ does not.
Ok so, I am buying Gutierrez’s book “A Theology of Liberation” and in order to get free shipping I need to buy another book or two. Which other texts would you consider foundational?
Zach
I’m not an expert in liberation theology, though I’ve read a few works here and there. It’s difficult to get it all in one or two or three books. I really think Gutierrez’s “We Drink From Our Own Wells” is a great text, and it is written in response to criticisms, so I think it works to show quite well the greater dimension of Gutierrez’s own vision. And, although he isn’t Catholic, and a Liberation Theologian as such, I think Moltmann’s “Spirit of Life” actually has a great theological presentation of many of the conerns of Liberation Theology from a slightly different context (and one which has been influential upon Liberation Theologians, from all I understand). I would myself round it off with something from Boff, just because of his fame and connection to the movement itself.
“We Drink From Our Own Wells” is fantastic… and it also shows that the criticism that liberation theology “reduces faith to politics” is absurd. Pretty much anything Gutierrez writes shows that criticism to be unfounded… but this book in particular does.
Sobrino’s recent little book “No Salvation Outside the Poor” is great, and would probably make a good intro to Sobrino. He has some pretty unique themes that others don’t touch on. Also his “Principle of Mercy” is fantastic. “Jesus the Liberator” and “Christ the Liberator” are longer, more technical, but great books.
The Sobinro/Ellacuria edited “Systematic Theology: Perspectives from Liberation Theology” is good… it’s an abridged version of “Mysterium Liberationis” which is a huge collection of essays on different topics in systematic theology from a liberationist perspective.
Robert McAffee Brown has some good books that introduce liberation theology, from a North American perspective: “Liberation Theology,” “Spirituality and Liberation,” and “Theology in a New Key.”
I’m not a huge fan of Boff but he is one of the big ones. I liked “Trinity and Society” and the book he got in trouble for “Church: Charism and Power” is over the top at times but over all very good. Also “Introducing Liberation Theology” by Leonardo and Clodovis Boff is pretty good.
I haven’t gotten too into Moltmann, but yes, he is a German political theologian who warmed up to liberation theology. Johann Baptist Metz is a student of Rahner who is often compared to Moltmann… German political theologian with concerns similar to liberation theology (praxis oriented), but more academic. “Faith in History and Society” is his best book.
I love Fr. Shall’s work, but as a classical political commentator he fails to really grasp what has been at stake in Latin American politics since the 1960′s. I find his portrayal (and Novak’s) of liberation theology–which is NOT a homogeneous movement (the gulf between Guiterrez and Bofff, for example, is quite large)–to be a hopeless caricature of Marxist religiosity fushionism.
Poli what have you read of his?
What are you referring to specifically?
Just to clarify a couple things:
It’s good to know that sin is still something primarily committed by individuals, and the liberationists have not departed from Christianity.
I don’t think the liberationist position is that sin is “primarily” committed by individuals, if that’s how you understood me. Sin is both personal and social. Yes, individual persons commit sin, but unlike liberals, liberationists do not see persons as mere individuals but inherently social. So we can speak of structures of sin, systems that are sinful, which in some sense precede the individual. Human beings are born into social situations of sin. It’s also important to consider how sin is not simply this or that action, but a matter of relationships.
But individuals sin. The abstract ’society’ does not.
I don’t think liberationists would see “society” as “abstract.” Society is precisely a community of persons that exists in history, not an abstraction.