The Answer to All of Your Questions
I've gotten several emails today requesting my opinion of President Bush's statement in Denmark today that he will not select a Supreme Court nominee based on his or her views on abortion.
Some seem to think I would feel betrayed t that the President would not advocate to advance the pro-life agenda in the Supreme Court. That is simply not the case. In fact, if Bush were to select someone simply because of their views on a political issue that would be an error on his part and serve to further errode our judiciary.
But, as I noted on Swamp Pundette's Blog today, if Bush sticks to his statement that he will nominate someone who would strictly interpret the Constitution, that individual would, without question, be opposed to Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
The whole concept of abortion rights are based upon "penumbras" and "emanations" of rights from the Bill of Rights.
Here's how the Court explains it... The guarantee's of freedoms set by the Bill of Rights creates "Zones of Privacy." These Zones created by guarantees in turn produce "emanations" which give the guarantees substance. Those emanations in turn create "penumbras" or "prenumbral rights" such as "privacy and repose." See Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) at 484.
Understand? Me neither. Ultimately, the result is the Court creates very specific rights not contained in the Constitution, such as abortion rights. This is precisely what a Textualist, or Constitutionalist, or Originalist Justice, as Bush will appoint, will tear down. IF Bush gets the right guy.
Remember, Justice Souter was appointed by HW Bush. Reagan appointed both Justice O'Conner and Justice Kennedy. Conservatives have had a really bad record in actually appointing strict constructionalists to the Supreme Court.
But make no mistake, Bush may not pick based on a candidates stance on the issues, but his pick will vote against Roe and Casey because they are bad law and contrary to the principles of the Constitution and Republican Democracy.
In closing, I have enjoyed all the email I have been recieving and the discussion which has resulted. Feel free to continue asking questions, or if you have a topic you would like to see discussed here click the email link to the right.
Stay Vigilant!
I've gotten several emails today requesting my opinion of President Bush's statement in Denmark today that he will not select a Supreme Court nominee based on his or her views on abortion.
Some seem to think I would feel betrayed t that the President would not advocate to advance the pro-life agenda in the Supreme Court. That is simply not the case. In fact, if Bush were to select someone simply because of their views on a political issue that would be an error on his part and serve to further errode our judiciary.
But, as I noted on Swamp Pundette's Blog today, if Bush sticks to his statement that he will nominate someone who would strictly interpret the Constitution, that individual would, without question, be opposed to Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
The whole concept of abortion rights are based upon "penumbras" and "emanations" of rights from the Bill of Rights.
Here's how the Court explains it... The guarantee's of freedoms set by the Bill of Rights creates "Zones of Privacy." These Zones created by guarantees in turn produce "emanations" which give the guarantees substance. Those emanations in turn create "penumbras" or "prenumbral rights" such as "privacy and repose." See Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) at 484.
Understand? Me neither. Ultimately, the result is the Court creates very specific rights not contained in the Constitution, such as abortion rights. This is precisely what a Textualist, or Constitutionalist, or Originalist Justice, as Bush will appoint, will tear down. IF Bush gets the right guy.
Remember, Justice Souter was appointed by HW Bush. Reagan appointed both Justice O'Conner and Justice Kennedy. Conservatives have had a really bad record in actually appointing strict constructionalists to the Supreme Court.
But make no mistake, Bush may not pick based on a candidates stance on the issues, but his pick will vote against Roe and Casey because they are bad law and contrary to the principles of the Constitution and Republican Democracy.
In closing, I have enjoyed all the email I have been recieving and the discussion which has resulted. Feel free to continue asking questions, or if you have a topic you would like to see discussed here click the email link to the right.
Stay Vigilant!
