Posted on 11/25/2004 10:01:13 AM PST by nickcarraway
(I still believe that anyone strictly interpreting the Constitution would be essentially pro-life, in that they would affirm that Roe is UNconstitutional. Whether or not the authority goes to the states wouldn't change that fundamental interpretation of how laws are supposed to be made, would it?)
What do you think "The RIGHT to LIFE, Liberty..." actually means?????? Sheeesh...
That is a proper question for a supreme court judge to answer, and I am simply saying I want a judge who will answer that question based on a strict and plain examination of the law, not on their own personal feelings on the subject.
To me, this one is obvious. Roe is a hideous, laughable decision, and ought to be overturned.
It ought to be overturned not because it authorizes killing babies, but because it's clearly bad law not based in reality.
It would be nice to know the ages of these judges.
I'm with you on strict Constitutional constructionism, but anyone who has taken time to examine the subject of abortion must come away with a passionate opinion, either for or against. For those truly informed on the matter, there is no gray area.
Abortion, like theft, rape, murder and larceny, are all issues that a state legislature should decide upon, with the exception of acts while on Federal property. While personally against it, I'd rather see California be pro-abort (and anti-death penalty) while I live in a no-abort state than have some black-robed oligarch make the decision all by himself.
For me, abortion itself isn't the critical issue. Roe v. Wade was an abomination that took the decision out of the hands of more local government. It's a step on the path that leads to a complete authoritarian central government.
As long as Roe stands, the ability of the federal judiciary to move into any area it wants to hangs over our heads. Roe must be defeated before we get other, similiar sweeping decisions from the courts on other issues that should be kept at the state level.
If strict constitutionists are appointed to the USSC, we are likely to get decisions that roll back scores of laws on gun control, religion, environmental policy and other issues.
Like you, I'm with the pro-lifers on this issue, up to a point. I don't want the USSC to find abortion illegal. That's no better than what we have now. Another court in a few years could just switch it back, perhaps on a narrow, technical issue.
What I want is a court that sets precedents based around the 9th and 10th Amendments, pushing back the roll of the Federal government and returning the power to the states.
A good model for federal abortion policy by the USSC would be the death penalty statues. States all have different policies on the death penalty. All of them were nullified by one Supreme Court decision due to technical reasons, but the decision only required that the states write better laws. Most of them did and the death penalty is back in operation in most states.
Likewise, a defeat of Roe would return abortion policy to the states. Some of those laws will be poorly written and could be overturned at the Federal level. That's ok, since the state legistlature can just write a new law that fixes the problem.
That's the proper function of the USSC, to ensure that state laws do not violate the legitimate civil right of its citizens. When they do, they get thrown out and the state gets to try again. That's federalism and it works for most other policies. Current abortion policy isn't federalism and it's got to go.
This is the typical subtle lie we've grown to expect from the new york slimes: "A recentCBS-New York Times poll found that 64 percent of those polled said they thought Bush would appoint pro-life judges who favor making abortion illegal." And just how will overturning Roe make abortion illegal? Sick bastards will write any lie to defend the horrific holocaust they want to continue. Liberal pukes want it to be a debate of 'all or nothings' in order to keep it open season on alive unborn children!
Perhaps the second reason first, but both for sure. No U.S. law, especially a bogus law, should authorize the slaughter of millions of pre-born babies.
Hi newbie. Don't you run your life on assumed 'litmus tests'? If not, you're exposing your butt.
Isn't murder up to the States?
One can be pro-life and think the states should determine whether abortion is legal, or pro-life and think that the federal government should determine it, but in either case, one who is pro-life understands that Roe v. Wade is bad law, unconstitutionally made by the SC, and should never have happened.
I agree.
bump
If a judge cannot even understand that killing some child is wrong, do you want him deciding your fate? Any Pro Abortion Judge is brain dead to start with.
What kind of person signs up for Free Republic to snip about abortion on Thanksgiving Day???
What is your problem, idjit?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.