Posted on 11/25/2004 10:01:13 AM PST by nickcarraway
Run along?
Your presumption on the abortion question extends to personal relations I see.
A little exaggeration to make the point. I think you follow what I am saying, and I understand your position as well. You pragmatically seek a remedy on abortion, while I idealistically seek good government.
"Nice strawman argument", tossed in when the question wasn't even posed to you, does not merit a polite response. It was an obnoxious post which you are following up, not surprisingly, with more obnoxious posts. I wasn't speaking to you. Do you butt into conversations in real life, or just on the internet?
Allowing the butcher of 42 million babies hardly qualifies as 'good government'.
The first duty of government is to protect the weak and the helpless.
I don't get your point. Any overturning of Roe would send the issue to the states.
FReepmail is the place for private conversations.
This is an open thread, for the purpose of the debate of issues.
What do you supppose Scalia meant when he wrote:
by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.
Seems to me he thinks the popular will should decide abortion. That seems to be taking his personal opinion out of things to me.
Personally, I don't think the Court should 'send it back to the states'.
I think they should rule that abortion in any form anywhere is a blatant denial of the most fundamental God-given liberty of the pre-born American.
And I think there is plenty of grounds for such a ruling in the Bill of Rights.
My point is that Roe would be overturned not on the basis of an unborn child's right to life. Once overturned, states would have the "right to choose," as democrats put it. A right of the unborn to life will not be asserted by the court. If the people wish to assert such a right, they can amend the Constitution. Otherwise, Scalia-minded justices intend to leave it to the popular will. That's the right to choose, not the right to life.
Every time the American people have expressed their political will on abortion, the abortionists have overwhelmingly lost...only to be rescued by judicial fiat.
So you think Scalia is totally dispassionate on this issue?
Which I might say reaffirms the wisdom of a free people. I'd rather have a free people deciding these issues than an unelected unaccountable court any day.
That's the whole point.
But even if a free people decided to disenfranchise a whole class of people, the unborn, from enjoying the most basic of rights, the right to live, it would still be a lawless act.
To expand: even if 100% of Americans voted to allow murder, murder would still be a violation of the most fundamental law of all: "Thou shall not commit murder."
Human beings are made in God's image, and are therefore of inestimable worth. No 'democratic' process can change that.
Such is the core reason we have a republican form of government and not a democracy.
Based on my readings, which include many of his dissents in key cases, as well as a book he published where he debates Lawrence Tribe and others, as well as transcripts of speeches and lectures he's given, I believe he is quite capable of doing his duty appropriately.
I think he is frequently passionate in his arguments. He brings quite a bit of passion to the job. But that passion is directed at judging law, interpreting law, being a steward of the Constitution, upholding our republican system, and most of all, resisting with all his force the tendency of the court to just go with what they think and feel, and to hell with the law, we'll come up with a fancy argument for the outcome we want.
Do I think he has a personal view on abortion? I think the odds are he is against abortion in most cases, maybe all. I don't believe he judges the way he does to accommodate his view on abortion. I think he rightly emphasizes and acknowledges the passion surrounding the issue.
But all of that is moot: What does he say professionally? He says the states should be free to decide for themselves.
It's nice to run into someone who 'gets it' once in a while.
Federalism ain't perfect, but it's the best thing we've got.
It would be nice to actually live under it.
Nice post. Thanks.
L
It's too late to start that discussion in earnest. You're point is arguable for sure. I sometimes equate in my mind the Scalia position on abortion with the Stephen Douglas position on slavery, known back then as "popular sovereignty." I'm sure you remember that. Let the states decide. The abolitionists of course hated it, and so did the slaveholding hotheads. They wanted either an absolute right for or against. In the end, the question was finally settled, after a bloody war, by constitutional amendment. I believe that will ultimately, and perhaps appropriately, close the issue. Or will it?
If he thinks that the states have the right to determine that innocent defenseless children can be killed in cold blood by ghouls, I think he is wrong.
The Fifth Amendment deals with this issue when it says that 'no person' may be deprived of life, liberty or property without a fair trial.
Such fundamental rights cannot be infringed by the states.
The idea that they can be was and is silly.
you're=your. it's late.
Indeed.
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.