"As noted before, the Supreme Court did not invent abortion. There might be plenty of abortion, perhaps authorized or permitted by state laws, even without Roe and Casey. Moreover, the Court is, arguably, not directly responsible for the wrong moral choices of individuals that the Court's decisions permit. Finally, the Court is not responsible - cannot be responsible, consistent with its constitutional role - for correcting all injustices, even grave ones. But the Court is responsible for the injustices that it inflicts on society that are not consistent with, but in fact betray, its constitutional responsibilities. To the extent that the Court has invalidated essentially all legal restriction of abortion, it has authorized private violence on a scale, and of a kind, that unavoidably evokes the memories of American slavery and of the Nazi Holocaust. And by cloaking that authorization in the forms of the law - in the name of the Supreme Law of the Land - the Court has taught the American people that such private violence is a right and, by clear implication, that it is alright. Go ahead. The Constitution is on your side. This is among your most cherished constitutional freedoms. Nobody ought to oppose you in your action. We have said so.
The decision in Casey, reaffirming Roe and itself reaffirmed and extended in Carhart, in my view exposes the Supreme Court, as currently constituted, as a lawless, rogue institution capable of the most monstrous of injustices in the name of law, with a smugness and arrogance worthy of the worst totalitarian dictatorships of all time. The Court, as it stands today, has, with its abortion decisions, forfeited its legal and moral legitimacy as an institution. It has forfeited its claimed authority to speak for the Constitution. It has forfeited its entitlement to have its decisions respected, and followed, by the other branches of government, by the states, and by the People. The enthusiasm of liberal intelligentsia for the Court's abortion decisions, the sycophancy of the law professorate, of the legal profession, and of our elected officials, and the docility of the American people with respect to our lawless, authoritarian Court rivals the pliancy of the most cowardly, servile peoples toward ruinous, brutal, anti-democratic regimes throughout world history. We suffer people to commit despicable acts of private violence and we welcome - some of us revere - a regime that destroys popular government for the sake of perverted, Orwellian notions of "liberty." After a twentieth century that saw some of the worst barbarisms and atrocities ever committed by humankind, at a time when humankind supposedly had progressed to more enlightened states, we still have not learned. The lesson of the Holocaust - "Never Forget" - is lost. We fail to recognize the amazing capacity of human beings to commit unthinkable, barbaric evil, and of others to tolerate it. We remember and are aghast at the atrocities of others, committed in the past, or in distant lands today. But we do not even recognize the similar atrocities that we ourselves commit, and tolerate, today."Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Worst Constitutional Decision of All Time, 78 Notre Dame L. Rev. 995, 1003-1007 (2003).
"If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve." The Avalon Project : President Jackson's Veto Message Regarding ...
Funny, I just read yesterday that the liberals want more pro-life people to join them. Something tells me that Arnold is wrong.
How many abortions would you guess Arnold has caused and paid for over the years?
My guess would be well over 200, honestly.
I imagine his pro-abortion stance is entirely self-serving, like the rest of Hollywood.
I suppose we should re-institute slavery, too. /sarc
Why hasn't the abortion issue ever made it on the ballot as a referendum to be voted on by the public?
He's right.
The anti-abortion crowd (no abortions, ever) are wackos, IMHO.
Ba-Bull thumpers.
Nothing personal to all of you anti-folks, but believe it or not, most Americans do not want to outlaw abortion. Sure, partial birth abortion should be outlawed, but preventing women from RU-486 is your agenda, not ours.
You can call me "baby killer" all you want, but most of us do not believe that a 10-day old glob of cells is human. You do; your preacher tells you so. We don't. So vote.
Abortion should be legal but abhored and socially unacceptable - I think this is the position of most Americans. It can never be made illegal as long as it is socially acceptable. On the other hand, when it becomes socially unacceptable there will be no need to make it illegal. There are situations where allowing a woman to abort her unborn child is preferable to the alternative of having the government somehow enforce a woman to bring a child to term against her will.
California, like New York, ceased to be in step with the rest of America awhile ago. It is its own little world.
Yer slippin'.
Wow- the two names I hear for the GOP Presidential candidate in 2008 are Arnie and Rudy. Who's YOUR pick? (rolling eyes).
However, the abortion issue has emerged in the past 20 years to be one of the top three or four defining issues of the Republican Party, especially in races where we previously had not fared well.
We tend to be more of a party of principle than politics, therefore, with it being one of the main definining issues, I don't think we should stray off of the party line on this. The Republican Party should officially remain just as pro-life as it is now. However, at the same time, we should make pro-choice folks feel welcome, if they agree with us on most every other issue.
We are a center-right party. Our job is to convince people to come to us, not the other way around.
We'll see. He's actually finessed a Grey-Davis/Dem sort of budget better than Davis would have. But he's been stepping out a lot in the last two months, with the bill-signings and the talking, and more talking. He's going to talk himself right out of politics - which will be just as well.
Giving up values for votes? No thanks.
I think Ahnold should learn to shut his streudel hole or head back to Berchtesgaden.
[spit]
"Schwarzenegger has spent too much time in Hollywood. He needs to start mingling more with mainstream Californians," she added.
*************
Mr. Schwarzenegger has a long way to go before I will consider him to be a conservative.