The Supreme Court battle begins
The president announced the nomination of Judge John Roberts for Supreme Court Justice.
This is good news for conservatives. His reputation is that of a strict constructionalist. This is a good sign that Bush is making good on his promise to only appoint Justices who believe that the Constitution means what it says and understand how important the Federal system established by our founding fathers is to our continued liberties.
The left is already stating it's reservations about how the world will end if Roberts is confirmed. How our 'rights' will not be protected. The big issue is abortion. The left calls it 'women's reproductive rights' - a wolf in lambs clothing. As if changing the name changes the procedure. Like handi-capable means anything other than handicap.
He co-wrote a brief on behalf of the government in a case in 1991 that stated Roe v. Wade 'find[s] no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.' This brief is being touted as evidence that he will push to overturn Roe v. Wade. Perhaps those who state this don't understand that a brief written by the solicitor general is no reflection on the personal beliefs of the person writing it. The position of the government is established, then the lawyer drafts the brief to support that conclusion. The attorney does not establish the government position. (As I am writing this, a local news reporter is stating his concern over women's reproductive rights; as if women will be forced to have and become impregnated or forced to have their ovaries removed so they cannot reproduce).
If that is his personal view, he's right. Anyone who has read the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade is hard pressed to determine exactly where the Constitution guarantees a right to an abortion. While stating that the Constitution does not explicitly mention a right of privacy, the Court goes on to state it can be implied from the 14th Amendments concepts of personal liberty and restrictions on state actions. The 14th Amendment states includes no explicit right to privacy. Section 1 states that states shall not make or enforce laws that abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; states shall not deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process; nor can states deny persons equal protection of the laws. No mention of privacy or abortion. Justices had to infer a right to privacy, and then state that abortion was included inside a general right to privacy. This is not supported by the text of the Constitution, the structure of the Constitution, nor by the history of the Constitution. Robert's view was right.
It is important for all citizens that we have a judiciary that follows the laws as written by our representatives and as stated in the Constitution. To have otherwise is dangerous, and not just because I have disagreed with the Court's 70 year liberal slide. When the Court's power is not limited by the clear words of the Constitution, when the Constitution can be manipulated to mean whatever 5 lawyers sitting on the Court thinks they should mean, then we are no longer a country run by laws, we are a country run by 5 men and women. The Court becomes our dictator. We must petition the Court to change the laws. Our votes mean nothing, except to possibly lead to a judicial nominee who may share our beliefs. This is clearly not what the founders intended, or why even have a legislative branch?
The Left constantly states they are afraid of 'conservative' Justices rolling back our 'rights'. They fear this because they have been unable to make their liberal agenda law through the legislative branch but they have managed to impose their beliefs through the Judiciary. They fear a role reversal. I do to. Justices should not be imposing their will on this country, whether one agrees with their views or not. Who knows what the views of the next crop of Judicial Tyranists will impose upon us?
We should all fear conservative or liberal judges who use their positions to legislate. The left, however, need also fear judges who will no longer impose the liberal agenda upon us, judges who will defer to the laws as established by our representatives unless they clearly violate the plain meaning of the Constitution.
The most likely result of the Court overturning Roe v. Wade would be that most states would again make abortion illegal in most situations, while some would keep abortion on demand legal. That's OK with me. That's where that decision belongs, with the States.
This is good news for conservatives. His reputation is that of a strict constructionalist. This is a good sign that Bush is making good on his promise to only appoint Justices who believe that the Constitution means what it says and understand how important the Federal system established by our founding fathers is to our continued liberties.
The left is already stating it's reservations about how the world will end if Roberts is confirmed. How our 'rights' will not be protected. The big issue is abortion. The left calls it 'women's reproductive rights' - a wolf in lambs clothing. As if changing the name changes the procedure. Like handi-capable means anything other than handicap.
He co-wrote a brief on behalf of the government in a case in 1991 that stated Roe v. Wade 'find[s] no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.' This brief is being touted as evidence that he will push to overturn Roe v. Wade. Perhaps those who state this don't understand that a brief written by the solicitor general is no reflection on the personal beliefs of the person writing it. The position of the government is established, then the lawyer drafts the brief to support that conclusion. The attorney does not establish the government position. (As I am writing this, a local news reporter is stating his concern over women's reproductive rights; as if women will be forced to have and become impregnated or forced to have their ovaries removed so they cannot reproduce).
If that is his personal view, he's right. Anyone who has read the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade is hard pressed to determine exactly where the Constitution guarantees a right to an abortion. While stating that the Constitution does not explicitly mention a right of privacy, the Court goes on to state it can be implied from the 14th Amendments concepts of personal liberty and restrictions on state actions. The 14th Amendment states includes no explicit right to privacy. Section 1 states that states shall not make or enforce laws that abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; states shall not deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process; nor can states deny persons equal protection of the laws. No mention of privacy or abortion. Justices had to infer a right to privacy, and then state that abortion was included inside a general right to privacy. This is not supported by the text of the Constitution, the structure of the Constitution, nor by the history of the Constitution. Robert's view was right.
It is important for all citizens that we have a judiciary that follows the laws as written by our representatives and as stated in the Constitution. To have otherwise is dangerous, and not just because I have disagreed with the Court's 70 year liberal slide. When the Court's power is not limited by the clear words of the Constitution, when the Constitution can be manipulated to mean whatever 5 lawyers sitting on the Court thinks they should mean, then we are no longer a country run by laws, we are a country run by 5 men and women. The Court becomes our dictator. We must petition the Court to change the laws. Our votes mean nothing, except to possibly lead to a judicial nominee who may share our beliefs. This is clearly not what the founders intended, or why even have a legislative branch?
The Left constantly states they are afraid of 'conservative' Justices rolling back our 'rights'. They fear this because they have been unable to make their liberal agenda law through the legislative branch but they have managed to impose their beliefs through the Judiciary. They fear a role reversal. I do to. Justices should not be imposing their will on this country, whether one agrees with their views or not. Who knows what the views of the next crop of Judicial Tyranists will impose upon us?
We should all fear conservative or liberal judges who use their positions to legislate. The left, however, need also fear judges who will no longer impose the liberal agenda upon us, judges who will defer to the laws as established by our representatives unless they clearly violate the plain meaning of the Constitution.
The most likely result of the Court overturning Roe v. Wade would be that most states would again make abortion illegal in most situations, while some would keep abortion on demand legal. That's OK with me. That's where that decision belongs, with the States.
posted by Anaximander at 9:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home