The US Democratic left is somewhat divided on the Roberts nomination to the supreme court. On the one hand, we have feminist bloggers concerned that the Democratic leadership and prominent male bloggers might decide to drop support for Roe v. Wade (by allowing NARAL-unacceptable choices like Roberts into the Supreme Court) in order to save political credit for other issues. Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon expresses this fear in more than one post, including the linked one.
On the other hand, we have bloggers like General Glut who believe that the Democratic leadership panders to the centrality of Roe v. Wade at the expense of economic issues that are pressing parts of the middle and lower classes in the US. They are afraid that the economic evils that Roberts et al. would induce in the US are drowned out by concern over Roe, and they are incensed by the idea that a social liberal judge would be passed by the Democratic leadership (and feminist bloggers...) even if they have a terrible record on regulatory matters.
So which to believe? Are the Democrats too obsessed by Roe or too unconcerned? Would most US feminist bloggers view economic matters as sufficiently important that they would also fight tooth and nail against an economically right-wing judge as much as they would against a judge that threatens Roe? Are bloggers like General Glut too willing to ignore the centrality, as most US feminists see it, of the matter of choice?
Comments