tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3500376.post5465489994042379413..comments2023-08-09T08:45:24.658-07:00Comments on Between Heaven and Hell...: Roe vs. Wade DissentRoger H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03548346750315438363noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3500376.post-43419459911919426082010-01-26T18:09:23.876-08:002010-01-26T18:09:23.876-08:00Appreciate the comments Mark, as well as the book ...Appreciate the comments Mark, as well as the book reference about Justice White. I just might check it out.Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03751347457451165584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3500376.post-36677006073264719422010-01-26T09:38:30.218-08:002010-01-26T09:38:30.218-08:00Great to see you posting again! Great post here. ...Great to see you posting again! Great post here. I'm going to link to it on my own blog. Very good short analysis of the weak-spot in White's dissent. I am generally a fan of White, and I think it took a lot of courage for him to be one of the two dissenters in the case. But his view of the abortion issue deficient in just the way that you pointed out. Great post!<br /><br />One reason, I imagine, that White took the approach he did is his own personal view of abortion. White was pro-legalized abortion and had stated to his law clerks that if he was a legislator, he would have voted for more liberal abortion laws. (That information comes from Dennis J. Hutchinson's biography of White, The Man Who Once Was Whizzer White -- Hutchinson was one of White's law clerks). <br /><br />White viewed the question as an inherently political one, and thus one unsuited for judicial resolution (hence his "raw power" characterization of the Court's decision). He didn't view the ultimate question of abortion as one with a right or a wrong answer grounded in reason -- rather, it was a question that called for an inherently political response, which would lead to different outcomes in different states.Mark D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05000893614655251587noreply@blogger.com