Im not here to argue the legality, the morality, nor the science of abortion. What I take umbrage with is the fact that it has become the end all be all litmus test for all federal judicial appointees. Is there nothing else in the Constitution to discuss? Regarding the nomination of John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (which I oppsose for other reasons)
"It would be very difficult for me to vote to confirm someone to the Supreme Court whom I knew would overturn Roe and return our country to the days of the 1950s," Sen. Dianne Feinstein
"Would you say there's a general right to privacy?" Schumer asked.
So essentialy the "right to privacy" means the right to have an abortion, the only problem is that the Constitution never mentions the right to have an abortion, and never mentions the right to privacy...liberal judicial activists made that interpretation not the authors , this is yet another example of the left hoping if they say something enough it becomes fact. Overturning Roe v Wade will not outlaw abortion as its defender's scare tactics so claim, it will however give back the enforcement or non-enforcement for that matter back to the States, which The Constitution does clearly define as to what and what not the Federal and State government is entitled to legislate and enforce. As I stated at the beginning Im not here to argue the act of abortion, which in my opinion is not only not my business (unless I am an interested party) but neither is it the governments...but it certainly is not a Constititutional right, and it is certainly neither a qualifier nor a disqualifier for Supreme Court Justices.
4 comments:
Excellen post donkey, most people don't realize the constitution doesn't mention a right to privacy. It's kind of like that wall of seperation that doesn't exist! I think a better litmus test would be to ask these people if they actually believe in the constitution or if they think it's a "living" piece of paper that can change at the whim of the current leadership and current supreme court. I don't even think some of these people (souter,kennedy,ginsburg, etc) believe that the constitution is relevant anymore, especially the way they cite foriegn law in so many opinions!
It would be fair if Roberts could turn around and ask a question of the senators...Seriously, is there a reason he can't point out that neither the constitution nor any specific amendment states this type of right to privacy? The reason for all of these inquisitions and the actual differeing governing bodies was for a degree of checks & balances. Is this where we are at as a country when we use our most sacred document to pistol whip someone who has valid opinions...The point of the Supreme Court is to protect these opinions not to keep them out in the cold. They are a microcosm of our society...or I should say that they should be and so they should be representative of it. Use whatever words you must but I just think it is sad.
but teddyboy is a good catholic
skewed
Post a Comment