Much of the hand-wringing we've seen in response to Samuel Alito's nomination and confirmation has been done in angst over the long-term prospects of 1973's Roe v. Wade decision. Many on the left have glumly concluded that this man's elevation to the Supreme Court has hastened the day when that landmark decision is finally struck down. Of course, we don't know for sure whether or not Justice Alito will vote to overturn Roe (as an appellate judge, he had a record of supporting limited abortion rights), but what I question is why do liberals/progressives retain such a fierce attachment to this decision in the first place? What in the past 33 years since Roe came down leads you to believe that our current station on the issue of abortion is a good one?

I would like you to consider for a moment the broader question of how we as a democratic society should go about grappling with and resolving the divisive social issues that inevitably come before us. We are the United States of America, a thriving, dynamic and diverse country where strong differences of opinion and perspective inevitably erupt and sometimes produce spectacular clashes on the national stage. This in and of itself is not a bad thing; this cacophonous chaos that defines a vibrant democracy. The critical question is: how should we as one nation handle these differences? What are the best ways for us to take on our most vexing and controversial problems so that we can find the resolution that we need to continue to live together, celebrate our shared values, and strive toward our common goals?

Now consider the impact of Roe over the past three decades. Has it provided the settlement to the abortion question that our nation so desperately needs? I cannot imagine that any of you would honestly say that it has.

I assert that the end of Roe would be a good thing for America. Before some of you have a heart attack upon reading that, please remember that overturning Roe would not outlaw abortion; it would simply return this divisive social issue to exactly where divisive social issues belong in democratic societies - before our representative institutions. Each state would be free to develop the abortion regulatory structure that it wanted. And, given the widespread view today that abortion should be legal under certain circumstances, the practice would likely remain legal in almost all 50 states.

Most importantly, after time, this issue would finally recede from being the destructive, all-consuming blight on our polity that it is today. We will have had a healthy debate, arrived at a unique array of carefully constructed compromises, and moved on with our lives. That is precisely how a federal, democratic system is supposed to work. I cannot emphasize that point enough so let me say it again. That is how our system is supposed to work. Let the people hash it out.

Having the most unaccountable branch of government impose one side's wishes forever on the whole country will never ever resolve any divisive social issue like this. It only makes resentment fester and disagreements grow even more intractable. If Roe v. Wade stays on the books, we will still be having the exact same fight 25, 50, 75 years from now, driving each other even more batshitcrazy than we all are today.

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has noted, Roe was a "heavy-handed judicial intervention [that] was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict." Such an intervention is not the purpose of our judiciary; indeed, it is not the purpose of any branch of a democratic government. Roe v. Wade should be overturned.