Supreme Court Chick List

My hope is that abortion will be declared unconstitutional--not just an overturning of Roe.

 

Polling Report on Abortion

pro-choice OR pro-life

There are some mixed messages in the polling, but the overall impression is that more people are in favor of Roe than not.

Scroll down the page -- lots and lots of polls.

 

After looking at the polling data, it actually says exactly what I suspected it would say.

Joseph Botwinick

 

CMG,

Frist is the one with weak-knees. He is just so intellectual that he can't bring himself to pull the trigger. Let's dump him as front-runner before he gets the nomination in 2008.

Amen! But I sure wish the GOP had a strong one. PA Jim (God bless him wherever he's at) would smack me for saying this but George Allen and Rick Santorum are still my two favorites.

You beat me to the point about Reagan/Bork. I'm not real wild about Bork, but at least he understood and opposed the rule of the judiciary.

 

I like Santorum.........I am also hearing good things about the Gov. from South Carolina, I don't know if he would throw his hat in the ring though.

 

It's too bad about Bork. He seems like a very decent man. Santorum is okay. I don't know much about Allen. Lugar is another intellectual--if he is a Christian, it is a big surprise to me, although he does write you a nice letter if you contact him about something. You read a lot, FTR. Have you read Bork's book?

 

StefanM,

My hope is that abortion will be declared unconstitutional--not just an overturning of Roe.

But abortion isn't unconstitutional, any more than murder is. The federal government has no place in outlawing abortion. The police powers belong to, and should remain, with the states.

 

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If an unborn child is a person, then the constitution protects him/her.

 

StefanM,

nor shall any state

That being the critical word. If the state is performing the abortion, that would apply, but abortion is a private action and thus subject to the state's police powers. The state's permitting of abortion should be subject to the voters as to whether they outlaw it. I think your point might be valid as to taxpayer funding of abortion, though.

 

If a state does not legally protect one's constitutional rights, then I think there's a good argument that they are depriving persons of rights.

Using your line of argumentation, it would be constitutional if a state law prosecuted people for murdering men but not women, simply because the state is not doing the murdering, even though they are not protecting the women.

 

StefanM,

Using your line of argumentation, it would be constitutional if a state law prosecuted people for murdering men but not women, simply because the state is not doing the murdering, even though they are not protecting the women.

Nice try. Then it becomes an equal protection argument in which the state is violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

By your line of argument, states should abolish their laws against murder and turn them over to the Federal government. They don't because it is a state function. It is a function that pre-dates the Constitution and is affirmed in the Tenth Amendment. The federal goverment is one of limited powers. The due process clause was meant to protect people in the trial and conviction of crimes. Your line of argument is no less activist than liberal Justices who "find" rights in the Constitution. It's wrong for liberals, it's wrong for conservatives--and for pro-lifers.

The deprivation of the right to life is done by those actively engaged in it--the doctor and the woman and it is up to the states to pass and enforce laws against it. If they don't, it is a decision that is made at the state level and voters must hold such legislatures accountable. That is part of the wonder, and sometimes frustration, of the federalist system. But we can't "interpret" that federalism out of existence because we don't like its results sometimes.

 

BUUUUUUUUUUUUT. . .


If my situation becomes an equal protection issue, couldn't abortion be the same, assuming the unborn is legally granted personhood?

Note. . .my argument assumed that the unborn received the legal status of personhood. If the unborn are persons, then it IS an equal protection issue just the same.

I never argued that states should repeal their murder laws. It is my position that if their laws do not protect the constitutional rights of the unborn, their murder laws should be declared unconstitutional and automatically extended to the unborn.

---------------
"Your line of argument is no less activist than liberal Justices who 'find' rights in the Constitution. It's wrong for liberals, it's wrong for conservatives--and for pro-lifers."

If preventing murder requires a little bit of liberalism, so be it. There is no reason to sacrifice true justice on the altar of the text of the constitution.

Nevertheless, I probably won't agree with your arguments anyway because I'm more of a moderate
who happens to be pro-life.

The reason I object to Roe is because I think that it is a denial of rights to a person (the unborn child), not necessarily because of the rest of the legal justification for it. I'd much rather have the SCOTUS define more rights for persons than being completely chained to the text without considering the spirit thereof.
--------------
Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
--------------

I think that this shows that the Founding Fathers thought that more rights = good.

 

StefanM,

It's much easier to debate when both sides share certain premises. When debating the Constitution, that shared premise should be an understanding that the Constitution should be followed. If we start making it subordinate to our pet values, and saying that it should mean something that it has not been interpreted to mean, then we might as well not even pretend we're debating constitutionality. Your statement that "There is no reason to sacrifice true justice on the altar of the text of the constitution" is spoken like a true Breyer, Ginsburg, or Powell. Like it or not, our citizenship on earth is to a constitutional republic that prescribes that ends be pursued within a certain framework and certain means. Part of the genius of the Founders is that the system was set up so that most of the debates regarding values would be worked out closest to the people, at the state level, so that divisions weren't spread out across the nation and one solution imposed on so vast a nation. Protection of life has always been a state responsibility. Laws can and are debated at a state level. Unfortunately for our freedoms--and yes, for the right to life also, thanks to SCOTUS--the solution is often sought at a national level. This solution is doubly dangerous--it removes it both from the state level and from the democratic branch.

I'd much rather have the SCOTUS define more rights for persons than being completely chained to the text without considering the spirit thereof.

I think you should consider Thomas Jefferson's response to such activism, my favorite Founder quote: "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

I too, in contrast to many conservatives, believe that there is substance to the Ninth Amendment, but it should not be read separately from the Tenth. Life is already protected, and it is the state's function to do so within the framework of each state.

 

Frankly, I do not believe that the democrats would filabuster a Supreme Court nominee. If they did the Republicans would have no choice but to change Senate rules and I believe they could get the votes if the dems on the so-called committee of 14 went back on their word.

I have been a Republican for many, many years and in recent years can't make up my mind whether I am a member of the stupid party, the spineless party, or both. I guess I will soon find out.

 

I should add, StefanM, if you want to AMEND the Constitution so that human life is protected at the federal level you are welcome to do so. I would oppose it, not because I oppose protection from abortion, but because, though once passed it is a valid part of the Constitution, but because it is contrary to the federalist system designed, just as I would have opposed the 21st (?) amendment (direct election of Senators).

 

The muddlement party. They have been a minority for so long that they have no idea what it is like to be a majority party. There is no one that can restrain their traditional impulse to spend money on pork to buy votes.

I think that it is a little silly. America is overbuilt already. Now, for example, they want to spend $200 million to build a bridge to an island in Alaska where 50 people live.

We are waiting for a true evangelical conservative to run for President but evangelicals suffer from the thinking of the 1950s that politics was not the realm of the Christian. My opinion is that politics is a minor arena. However, we need to try to stop abortion by all means. Bush seems not to talk about the subject much so I suppose that it is like a third rail. I think that we should push for a constitutional amendment. One of the problems is division within the pro-life camp. Some want exceptions for rape and incest and the life of the mother and others allow no exceptions. If you can't compromise to save 99%, then you have divided your own forces.

 

I don't care whether he is evangelical or not as long as he is a fiscal and social conservative. But not some nut like Pat Buchanan.