Hello, sitetest,
You complimented my husband earlier, and I see by reading other posts of yours that you are indeed (as I suspected) smart!
Diva Betsy Ross, how nice to see you again!
Since you are both speaking about the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade, and with the latest in the news on judicial appointments, complaints, and compromises, I wondered if I might pick your two brains about something I've been mulling over and find out what two smart fellow FReepers think.
If it was judicial activism that created abortion on demand, and judicial activism is wrong inately, as we profess, and if we rightly comndemn (as Constitutionalists) what the Liberals have done to damage our Republic by legislating from the bench, why would we not STOP the judicial activism? Especially considering that the Framers allowed provisions for such an eventuality through review and impeachment?
Why would we instead agree that the playing field the Liberals created is an appropriate one and therefore we will do all we can to get "our guys" on the bench, trusting that "our guys" will overturn the precedent? How many decisions have been handed down since '72 that rely on that one decision? A maze of legal precedent, I would think.
If "our guys" are constructionists, wouldn't they "respect" precedent - much as our Senators have been working so hard to "respect" Senate tradition regardless of its failure to resemble the original design?
And how long would it take to get enough of them on the Supreme Court to do it this way? Are we quaranteed the result if we have the numbers?
And would it be worth it in the end? After all, we would be relying on men, not law, wouldn't we?
Thanks for any time you choose to take on my questions. I'll be back later! God bless.
I am not sure if you will see this as splitting hairs or not so.. here it goes.. I am not sold on overturning Roe V. Wade for some of the reasons you stated in your post.
My point in my original post on the topic here was that we know that overturning it WOULD change things...which is what the Dems say is NOT true. IMO- Roe V. Wade is the glue that holds the Democrats together.
The whole party could come "unglued"....
"Why would we instead agree that the playing field the Liberals created is an appropriate one and therefore we will do all we can to get 'our guys' on the bench, trusting that 'our guys' will overturn the precedent?"
What are you talking about "we," Kemosabe?? ;-)
Seriously, your point is well-taken, and my answer is, I don't.
In my view, the entire Terri Schindler murder-debacle pointed up something in bright, clear relief: we live in a judicial tyranny.
The judicial branch has usurped the authority of the other two branches, and the other two branches are too timid, or not desiring, of taking back that authority and smacking the daylights out of recalcitrants jackas - uh, er,... judges.
I'd vote to impeach the whole lot of 'em, convict 'em, then try 'em for treason and hang 'em.
In this, I am not engaging in hyperbole. I believe that most judges believe in the doctrine of judicial supremacy, as do most lawyers, and likely most politicians. I believe judicial supremacy leads to tyranny, and thus is treason. And the penalty for treason is, and should be, death.
That being said, my slightly,... uh, progressive program against judicial activism might raise an eyebrow or two among the less... progressive. ;-)
By the way, who is your husband (that I complimented)?
sitetest