Self-government is a right, too
The Kansas Supreme Court on Friday, by a vote of 6 to 1, ruled that the Kansas Consitution protects a right to abortion under the rubric of “natural rights.” The dissenting judge puts his finger on what bothers me about “progressive” judicial decisions about abortion (and some other things):
Many Kansans—a significant majority of them if one extrapolates from the votes of their political representatives—will feel aggrieved by the decision this court renders today. They will not be pacified by claims that the result was achieved by a fair, impartial, and “democratic vote by [seven] lawyers.” Stenberg, 530 U.S. at 955 (Scalia, J., dissenting). It’s important to ask, why? Is it because, as the majority suggests, a significant majority of Kansans continue to be informed by centuries-old prejudices? Given the flourishing and broadly equal society Kansans have fashioned, this explanation seems unlikely at best. Or is it because Kansans will feel, even if only intuitively, that an important right of self-government has been stolen away from them under a cloud of impenetrable legal jargon?
(Via Rod Dreher)